View PDF VersionPrevious Article
 
DOI: 10.1039/C0RP90016H (Paper) Chem. Educ. Res. Pract., 2011, 12, 478-486

Enquiry-based learning: experiences of first year chemistry students learning spectroscopy†

Timothy Lucas and Natalie M. Rowley
School of Chemistry, University of Birmingham, Edgbaston, Birmingham B15 2TT, UK. E-mail: n.n.rowley@bham.ac.uk

Received 2nd December 2010 , Accepted 25th August 2011

First published on 11th October 2011

Abstract

We explored the experiences of first year chemistry students of an Enquiry-Based Learning (EBL) approach to learning spectroscopy. An investigation of how students' perceived confidences changed as a result of their experience of using EBL in the spectroscopy course was carried out. Changes in the students' perceived confidence, both in their understanding of how spectroscopic techniques work and in their ability to interpret spectra were examined. In addition, an exploration of students' reactions towards the processes of EBL was carried out. This was achieved by various methods such as questionnaires, focus groups and an individual interview. Working with small numbers, a fairly positive picture has emerged, and much is consistent with the findings of others. Given that the aims of Higher Education need to encompass a wider range of skills (such as independent learning, group work, problem solving, communication skills), then this change in the way spectroscopy has been presented seems to offer much scope in embedding such employability skills.

Introduction and background

Enquiry-Based Learning (EBL) is often used as a wide-ranging term to encompass a number of learning approaches that are characteristically driven by enquiry. These can include Problem-Based Learning (PBL), small-scale investigations and project work or research activity (Kahn and O'Rourke, 2005).

Kahn and O'Rourke (2005) summarise some of the characteristics of EBL as follows:

• “Engagement with a complex problem or scenario, that is sufficiently open-ended to allow a variety of responses or solutions

• Students direct the lines of enquiry and the methods employed

• The enquiry requires students to draw on existing knowledge and identify their required learning needs

• Tasks stimulate curiosity in the students, encouraging them to actively explore and seek out new evidence

• Responsibility falls to the student for analysing and presenting that evidence in appropriate ways and in support of their own response to the problem.”

Hutchings (2006) considers that the exploratory nature of enquiry allows students to look at ideas in different ways and promotes creative thinking concerning problems. EBL additionally provides opportunities for students to practice skills such as oral communication, interpersonal skills, time management, written communication and problem solving, often seen as important generic skills (QAA, 2007), which help students when they seek employment.

There are many examples of EBL/PBL in chemistry described in the literature. We do not aim to present an extensive review of this area so will highlight just a few examples, especially in the area of spectroscopy, as this was the focus of our study. Summerfield et al. (2002) have produced a series of problem-solving case studies which focus collectively on analytical science, contextualised within environmental, forensic, industrial and pharmaceutical chemistry. Belt and Overton (2005) subsequently produced additional case studies which cover aspects of organic, inorganic and physical chemistry. Further examples of Context- and Problem-Based learning are outlined by Overton et al. (2009) and examples of research-based teaching (encompassing aspects of EBL and PBL) in higher level chemistry education are detailed by Goedhart et al. (2009). Chemistry laboratory work also lends itself to PBL, e.g.Kelly and Finlayson (2007) describe the development and successful implementation of a PBL lab-based module for first year undergraduate chemistry students, and go on to conduct research into the students' experience of the module (2009). A model for incorporating research into the first year chemistry curriculum is described by Ford et al. (2008). They found that “students were actively engaged and highly motivated as they gained experiences closely resembling the way chemist conduct scientific research.” This work built on a previous study carried out by the group (Newton et al., 2006). McDonnell et al. (2007) describe the introduction of PBL mini-projects into their teaching laboratories and examine student and staff feedback over a period of two years. McGarvey (2004) also describes and discusses experiences (both practitioner and student) of a transition from traditional (expository) style practical work to problem-based practicals in undergraduate chemistry laboratories. EBL has been used to teach spectroscopy to university students (e.g.Kandel and Tonge, 2001), but unfortunately, the published evaluation of this approach lacked detail. Recently, Williams et al. (2010) described the introduction of PBL into a core first year undergraduate chemistry module (Chemical Principles), which covers a number of fundamental concepts including spectroscopy. They found that student performance was at least as good as it had been prior to the introduction of PBL, retention figures increased significantly, and that “students appeared to show an improvement in, and recognition of the acquisition of, transferable skills and that group work on immediate arrival at university…led to high student retention within the PBL cohort”. An inquiry-based approach for interpreting IR spectra using “IR cards” (index cards which contain an IR spectrum, a skeletal structure and a chemical name) has been described by Bennett and Forster (2010). The approach “familiarizes students with the important skills of problem-solving and pattern recognition, in addition to IR interpretation”. They report that “students were more proficient in interpreting their IR spectra…if they did not see a correlation table before using the IR cards”.

We decided to introduce aspects of EBL into our undergraduate curriculum, specifically in the area of interpretation of spectra (mass spectrometry, IR spectroscopy and 13C and 1H NMR spectroscopy), commencing in week one of the first year of study for our undergraduate students. We felt that this topic lent itself well to EBL as it was easily contextualised and lent itself well to group work. Our motivation for this change from a more traditional mode of delivery arose from the wish to instil a culture of learner independence right from the outset of our degree programmes coupled with the early acquisition of employability skills. Our study described here details our exploration of the student reactions to the EBL experience.

Implementation

Previous traditional approach to teaching and learning

The interpretation of spectra is a key skill which students need to acquire at an early stage within a degree programme. This area had been taught for a number of years by traditional methods as part of an introductory core module “Structure, Reactivity and Bonding”. This had constituted six 1 h lectures accompanied by six 2 h workshops which ran in parallel. The lectures covered mass spectrometry, IR spectroscopy, 13C and 1H NMR spectroscopy in turn, outlining an introduction to the theory behind each technique and examples of how to interpret the associated spectra. The emphasis of the course was on the students' ability to interpret spectra, but it was also hoped that students would understand why the various features of the spectra appear as they do, and not just interpret the peak positions from tables of data. The material for the workshops was set by the academic who gave the lectures and was typically run by postgraduate and postdoctoral students. The workshops comprised increasingly complex combinations of spectra from which the students had to determine the identity of the compound which had given rise to the spectra. The postgraduate and postdoctoral demonstrators were present to support the undergraduate students, and to provide answers as appropriate. The undergraduate students typically worked in small peer groups of two or three in the workshops. Attendance tended to be low, with some students only attending to get the workshop handout before leaving.

EBL approach to teaching and learning

As mentioned above, it was recognised that it is vitally important that students acquire the ability to interpret spectra at an early stage in their degree programmes, and so any change in the teaching approach used to develop these skills had to be considered very carefully and ideally needed trialling on a small scale prior to full scale implementation. An initial pilot study based on one EBL scenario was therefore conducted.

The pilot study

For the pilot study, a scenario was developed that involved analysing waste water from a fictional university laboratory. Students were to be in role as graduate chemists working in teams for a fictional commercial laboratory that analysed samples. The scenario had a real-life basis as the University's waste water is sampled for purity. The IR spectra and mass spectra for use in this (and subsequent) scenarios were obtained from the Spectral Database for Organic Compounds (SDBSWeb). The 1H and 13C NMR spectra were simulated using the CambridgeSoft ChemDraw Ultra program (version 11.0). These sources were chosen as it was important to provide ‘clean’ and clear spectra of pure compounds, to enable easier interpretation.

This scenario was trialled with 12 first year students, who had already completed the traditional delivery of the spectroscopy course, using two 2 h sessions for the task. Students were given a flavour of the EBL approach to learning using an ‘ice breaker’. The students were split into three groups of four, and each group was asked to produce a “flipchart” on (i) how the techniques work (one technique per group on mass spectrometry, IR spectroscopy, and 1H and 13C NMR spectroscopy), and (ii) what information their allocated spectroscopic technique provides. After this, the students were asked to post this information onto an online discussion board in WebCT, which all of the other participating students could access.

The students were then divided into two groups of six, and each group was given the spectra of the same six unknown compounds to identify. Students were given copies of each spectrum on OHP transparencies before they left, so that they could label the spectra and present the reasoning behind their interpretation in the next session which was to take place a week later. Between the sessions the students were expected to work in their groups to identify the unknown molecules using the spectra. Each morning the discussion boards were moderated (each of the two groups had their own discussion area), with feedback left for students where appropriate.

The pilot study also provided an opportunity to test a questionnaire planned for the full study. This was based on a questionnaire designed by Moore (2006, 2007), and used Likert (1932) formats along with some open-ended questions. The findings from the pilot showed that both the scenario and the evaluation survey worked well. This paved the way for implementation of a fuller study.

The main study

Course structure

When designing the structure of the course, we were mindful of the findings of Kirschner et al. (2006) relating to cognitive load theory and care was taken to try to ensure that the EBL scenarios would not place too high a load on working memory. It is therefore important to note that virtually all of the students had some prior knowledge of the spectroscopic techniques from their A Level studies in Chemistry. It was considered therefore that the EBL exercises were not discovery learning with no prior knowledge to build upon, but that, through facilitation, students were receiving guided instruction to help them to build on their existing knowledge.

During induction, students were also asked to complete a questionnaire that investigated their understanding of how the four spectroscopic techniques work (mass spectrometry, IR spectroscopy, 13C and 1H NMR spectroscopy) and their perceived confidence in their ability to interpret the spectra produced by the various techniques. Based upon how students rated themselves in their ability to interpret spectroscopic data, the eighty-four students were placed into fourteen groups of six. Each group was allocated at least one student who saw themselves as having confidence in one of the four techniques, i.e. one student with confidence in mass spectrometry, one in IR spectroscopyetc. The aim of this method of group assignment was to try to ensure that all of the groups had a good mixture of skills in different areas, although it was recognised that it was perceived and not necessarily actual skills which were being used as the criteria to determine composition of the groups.

In the first session students were placed in their groups and participated in a brief ice breaker to allow the students to get to know the other members of their group. After this, the students were introduced to EBL as a method of learning, and each group was asked to establish their own group rules, which the students posted onto their group's WebCT-based online discussion board after the session. Towards the end of the first session, students were given the spectra of two simple molecules to interpret before the next session, with each group receiving the spectra of the same two molecules. This was done so that after appropriate feedback, students could begin to assess their actual individual skills in spectral interpretation as well as the areas of strength and weakness of the combined knowledge of the members of their group. This self-establishment of the effective “starting position” of the groups in terms of strengths and weaknesses of the pooled knowledge was seen as an essential first step in the EBL process.

During the second session, a discussion of the interpretation of the spectra from the previous session was facilitated by the member of staff, with students questioned at each stage. The written answers were marked, and rapid feedback was given to the individual groupsvia WebCT, so that the feedback could be used to help with the next scenario. In the second session, students were introduced to the “Waste Disposal” scenario (see below). The students were asked to work on this scenario, and hand in a group report and their peer assessment forms (which were used to determine each student's contribution to the group, as determined by their peers) at the start of the third session in week three.

At the start of the third session students handed in their group reports and peer assessment forms for the “Waste Disposal” scenario after which they received some verbal feedback on what they should have deduced (this was followed up with written feedback on their group reports to facilitate improvement for their subsequent assessment). The next scenario—“Down the Drain” (see below)—was then introduced, and students used the session to begin work on this new scenario, to be completed by, and handed in at the start of the fourth session.

In the fourth session, after a two week break, students were asked to hand in their group report and peer assessment for the “Down the Drain” scenario (after which they received verbal and written feedback as outlined above). They were then introduced to the “Carbonyl Conundrum” scenario (see below), and were asked to complete and hand in this scenario at the end of the session.

The fifth session saw the students introduced to the final EBL scenario, “Reaction Dilemma” (see below) which ran over a two week period, at the end of which the students handed in individual reports and peer assessment forms.

The students then had five 1 h lectures on how theory underpins interpretation of spectra. These lectures were well attended by the students.

Scenarios

For the first three scenarios, key peaks on the spectra were highlighted for the students to help them to focus on the most useful information, whereas for the final scenario students were given real spectra with no “clues”. An attempt was made to order the four scenarios in order of difficulty, gradually building up student skills in interpreting various spectra.
1. “Waste Disposal” scenario. Each group of students was in the role of a team of graduate chemists working in a fictional analytical department. Each team received a memo from their boss informing them that unlabelled chemical waste had been found in some disused laboratories and their help was required to identify the unknown compounds so that they could be disposed of safely. Accompanying the memos were the spectra (mass, IR, 13C and 1H NMR) of eight compounds (different sets of eight for each of the groups). Each group was given more compounds to identify (eight) than group members (six) in an attempt to avoid a “divide and conquer” approach described by Duch (1996).

Although students were given data sheets which indicated the regions of the spectra where characteristic features appear, they were given no other information to aid their interpretation of these spectra. Students were required to know (or to find out) about chemical shifts, splitting, and integration of peaks in 1H NMR spectra; about the molecular ion peak, and fragmentation peaks in mass spectra; the regions and characteristic appearance of common functional groups in IR spectra and the chemical shifts and numbers of peaks in 13C NMR spectra.

Students were required to use the spectra to identify the unknown molecules, and to give full reasoning of their conclusions based on their interpretation of the various spectra. It is important to reiterate that facilitators were not there to provide the students with answers, but to support them allowing them to carry out their own lines of enquiry (Kahn and O'Rourke, 2005).

2. “Down the Drain” scenario. The original scenario used in the pilot study was adapted for the use in the main study, and was named “Down the Drain”. The teams received a memo from their fictional boss alerting them that dead fish had been found in a nearby river due to unknown chemical waste which it was their task to identify. The number of compounds used in this scenario was increased from the original six in the pilot study to sixteen. This was to enable each group to have a different subset of the spectra, so each group received a set of eight spectra which was unique to their group. The scenario required the students to carry out exactly the same activities as the previous “Waste Disposal” scenario.
3. “Carbonyl Conundrum” scenario. Students were provided with twenty four randomly-ordered spectra (four spectra for each of six compounds whose structures were given), and, within their groups, they had to match the various spectra to the correct molecule. For this scenario no report was required. The six molecules consisted of three pairs of compounds, with each pair of compounds comprising very similar structures thereby giving closely related spectra. This meant that students needed a higher level of sophistication in their spectral interpretation in order to complete this task successfully.
4. “Reaction Dilemma” scenario. In this final scenario students were given authentic spectra which had been obtained within the School, and key peaks were not highlighted unlike the previous scenarios. This was to introduce students to true-to-life spectra which they would encounter later in the laboratories. Students were provided with a printout of an email from a fictional postgraduate student, asking for their help in interpreting the spectra of the product from a reaction—the reduction of benzamide to benzylamine. However, the spectra of the product which the students received corresponded to benzyl alcohol and not benzylamine. Students were told that the second stage of the postgraduate student's reaction, using this product, had failed. Students were then asked to contact the fictional postgraduate student, via email, with their interpretation of the spectra and explanation of what had gone wrong in the reaction. The process ultimately led to the students discovering that the wrong reactant had been supplied (this was one of the following compounds, depending upon which group the students belonged to, each of which reduce to give benzyl alcohol: benzaldehyde, benzoic acid, methyl benzoate, ethyl benzoate or propyl benzoate).

If groups had mistakenly identified the first product as being correct, i.e.benzylamine, they did not get to the next stage of the scenario after their initial email, but were directed back to the original spectra to check their interpretation. The second stage of the problem required students to identify the actual (incorrect) starting material which had originally been used. Once they had correctly assigned this and deduced how this gave rise to the initial product, i.e.benzyl alcohol, from the postgraduate student's reaction, they were introduced to the final part of the problem, which asked them to ascertain if the student had now obtained the correct product, i.e.benzylamine, after re-running the reaction with the re-supplied (and this time correct) starting molecule.

Students were asked to complete an individual report, along with peer assessment (based on their group activities). The individual report gave a reflection of the individual student's competence in spectroscopy, as well as dispelling any notions that students not doing any work were achieving the same mark as students who did the majority of the work.

Facilitation

Facilitation in the 2 h EBL sessions was carried out by four postgraduate facilitators and a member of staff. The postgraduate students were given a brief guide to EBL, and their role as facilitators was explained to them before the first session. Facilitators were not linked to specific groups, i.e. floating facilitation was used.

Throughout all of the EBL scenarios, students also had access to online discussion boards to allow them to communicate easily with each other outside of the sessions. A “helpdesk” thread was included so that students could contact staff if necessary. The discussion boards were also used to give the groups rapid feedback on each component of the assessment.

Evaluation

This study aimed to examine the experiences of first year chemistry students of a new EBL approach to teaching spectroscopy. In particular, we wished to examine two questions:

1. How does student perceived confidence change, if at all, as a result of their experience in using EBL in the spectroscopy course?

2. What are the students' attitudes towards the processes of EBL and how do these change through the course?

In order to evaluate the first of these questions, students were asked to complete a questionnaire on two occasions during the learning process. The questionnaire was completed during induction (a week before encountering the EBL course, so it was essentially based upon their prior knowledge of the techniques) and the same questionnaire was reissued after the EBL course (but before the start of the lectures). The questionnaire asked the students to self-assess their understanding of how the four spectroscopic techniques work (mass spectrometry, IR spectroscopy and 13C and 1H NMR spectroscopy) and their perceived confidence in their ability to interpret the spectra produced by these techniques.

The second question was evaluated by asking the students to complete a detailed questionnaire on various aspects of the EBL process on two occasions. The questionnaire included a number of Likert-style questions (Likert, 1932) to examine students' attitudes towards transferable skills which are believed to be developed by EBL, and, as mentioned previously, was based on a questionnaire designed by Moore (2006, 2007). In addition the students were asked a number of open-ended questions at the end of the questionnaire, including what they perceived to be the positive and negative aspects of the course and their suggestions for improvements. Students completed the questionnaire “Mid-EBL”—during a two week gap between the third and fourth EBL sessions, and “Post-EBL”—after the conclusion of both the EBL sessions and lectures.

In order to gain a deeper insight into the students' attitudes, two focus groups were conducted with six first year students who volunteered to participate. The focus groups were designed to provide opportunities to ask in-depth questions and to probe attitudes, often difficult using a survey (Cohen et al., 2007). The aim was to discuss in an unthreatening atmosphere what students had found. The focus groups followed a semi-structured format (Reid, 2003). A series of well defined questions were used, with plenty of time left for open discussion, depending on the way the students reacted. This allowed a degree of freedom to the interview, but when conversation “dried up”, the interviewer could move on to the next question. Two focus groups were held, both with the same six students and interviewer but at different times. The first focus group explored the following topics in depth: group working, WebCT discussion boards, the EBL scenarios, views on EBL itself, and facilitation. The second focus group explored one issue only—the students' perceived difference between the terms “difficult” and “challenging”—as an analysis of the questionnaire data had suggested that the students perceived these terms differently. The focus groups were led by an experienced interviewer (external to the School of Chemistry) and a transcript of the interviews was provided for analysis.

One postgraduate facilitator (who had experienced the course as a workshop demonstrator the previous year) was interviewed by the same experienced interviewer. Issues explored included training for facilitation, the concept of EBL, facilitating compared to demonstrating, and perceptions of students reactions compared to those of the students in the previous year. A transcript was again provided by the interviewer.

Results and discussion

Question 1: How does student perceived confidence change, if at all, as a result of their experience in using EBL in the spectroscopy course?

Confidence is a latent construct and so cannot be seen or directly measured. For this reason, perceived confidence was measured. Questions were given in a semantic differential format (Osgood et al., 1957). Students were asked to self-assess both their confidence in understanding how the various spectroscopic techniques work and in their ability to interpret spectra. The questionnaires were issued in induction (a week before the EBL sessions had begun) and after they had participated in the EBL sessions (but before they had received any lectures on the topic). The data presented in Table 1 came from students who indicated their ID number on both questionnaires (so it is a subset of the entire cohort, N = 42, but not all students answered all questions) as we were tracking changes in perceived confidence before and after the EBL sessions. The data in the central section represent the number of students who indicated “Strongly Agree”, “Agree” and “Neutral” in each of the categories. This provides a picture of the net changes for the group, clearly indicating an overall increase in confidence. The data in the “% changes” columns on the right are compiled from shifts in individual students responses: “0” denotes no change, “+” indicates a shift towards increased confidence and “−” constitutes a shift towards decreased confidence between pre- and post-EBL responses. (For the method of generating these data the reader is advised to turn to the ESI associated with this paper.†) These columns reveal that although the overall experience of the group was an increase in confidence in their ability of interpreting spectra, for a minority of individuals the change was in the opposite direction.
Table 1 Student perceived confidence
  Pre- and Post-EBL Sessions Changes in confidence (%)a
  Pre- or Post-EBL Strongly agree Agree Neutral Agree Strongly agree   + 0 —
a The entries in the central part of the table point to the overall net change, but the changes in confidence of the individual students shown in the right-hand columns can’t be deduced from these figures; for the method of establishing those the reader should see the Supplementary materials.
Understanding I understand how mass spectrometry works (N = 42) Pre- 14 21 5 1 1 I do not understand how mass spectrometry works 36 55 9
Post- 21 20 1 0 0
I understand how IR spectroscopy works (N = 42) Pre- 4 28 5 2 3 I do not understand how IR spectroscopy works 45 50 5
Post- 15 25 2 0 0
I understand how 13C NMR spectroscopy works (N = 41) Pre- 0 7 3 10 21 I do not understand how 13C NMR spectroscopy works 83 12 5
Post- 5 21 13 2 0
Interpretation I am good at interpreting mass spectra (N = 39) Pre- 7 27 3 2 0 I am poor at interpreting mass spectra 38 54 8
Post- 18 19 2 0 0
I am good at interpreting IR spectra (N = 39) Pre- 5 24 8 0 2 I am poor at interpreting IR spectra 44 46 10
Post- 13 22 4 0 0
I am good at interpreting 13C NMR spectra (N = 38) Pre- 1 6 8 5 18 I am poor at interpreting 13C NMR spectra 76 13 11
Post- 8 19 8 3 0
I am good at interpreting 1H NMR spectra (N = 39) Pre- 1 25 9 3 1 I am poor at interpreting 1H NMR spectra 41 38 21
Post- 10 16 8 5 0

Students' self-assessed confidence in understanding of how the techniques work. The data in Table 1, relating to students' self-assessment of their understanding of how the techniques work, indicate that the students perceive that they have a good understanding of the techniques used in mass spectrometry and IR spectroscopy before and after the EBL sessions, and 36% and 45% indicate a higher level of perceived understanding after the EBL sessions in mass spectrometry and IR spectroscopy respectively. However, the situation is different for 13C NMR spectroscopy as the data indicate that students lack confidence in understanding how the technique works prior to the EBL sessions and 83% of the students indicate a perceived gain in confidence after the EBL sessions. These findings are perhaps unsurprising given the relative complexity of the NMR technique compared to mass spectrometry and IR spectroscopy and that many students indicated that they had little knowledge of 13C NMR during their previous studies. Unfortunately, the equivalent data relating to the understanding of the 1H NMR technique is not available.
Students' self-assessed confidence in the ability to interpret spectra. The data in Table 1 relating to students' self-assessment of their confidence in interpretation of the spectra from the various techniques indicate that the students are generally confident that they can interpret mass spectra, IR spectra and 1H NMR spectra before and after the EBL sessions. There is a perceived increase in confidence in these techniques after the EBL sessions (38% for mass spectrometry, 44% for IR spectroscopy and 41% for 1H NMR spectroscopy. However, students indicate that they lack confidence in interpreting 13C NMR spectra prior to the EBL sessions so it is unsurprising that the students' perceived confidence in their interpretation of spectra from this technique shows the greatest increase (76%) as a result of the EBL sessions. These findings are consistent with those above, relating to understanding of the technique, and again reflect the fact that many students indicated that they had little knowledge of 13C NMR during their previous studies. A statistical analysis of the findings was not carried out as the sample size was too low (N = 38 to 42). The chi-square statistic is appropriate for use (Reid, 2003, 2006) but it was well established long ago that any category falling too low causes a problem (Siegel, 1956) and typical statistical software (like SPSS) usually imposes a category limit of 5.

Overall, these results indicate that that the students felt the EBL learning experience was positive. They start with quite high confidence in all techniques except 13C NMR spectroscopy and generally gain in confidence (with the largest gain in 13C NMR spectroscopy) as a result of the EBL sessions. This does not demonstrate that EBL is better than other forms of learning, but it does demonstrate that the students were positively disposed to the learning experience and felt that they gained as a result of it. However, it can also be seen from Table 1 that in the area of interpreting spectra, a number of students indicate a decrease in confidence, perhaps as a result of over-estimating their ability initially.

Question 2: What are the students' attitudes towards the processes of EBL and how do these change through the course?

This question was evaluated by asking students to complete a detailed questionnaire on various aspects of the EBL process on two occasions. Students completed a “Mid-EBL” survey during a two week gap between the third and fourth EBL sessions, and a “Post-EBL” survey after the conclusion of both the EBL sessions and lectures. The questionnaire included a number of Likert-style questions (Likert, 1932) to examine students' attitudes towards transferable skills which are believed to be developed by EBL, and was based on a questionnaire designed by Moore (2006, 2007). In addition the students were asked a number of open-ended questions at the end of the questionnaire. The data presented in Table 2 came from students who indicated their ID number on both questionnaires (so is a subset of the entire cohort, N = 32, but not all students answered all questions) as we were tracking changes in students' attitudes towards the processes of EBL from mid-EBL to post-EBL. The data are presented as frequencies.
Table 2 Student attitudes to the process of EBL (mid- and post-EBL)
EBL Process Statement Student response  
Mid- or Post- EBL Strongly agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly disagree N
The learning process I am learning how to plan my learning Mid 2 16 9 5 0 32
Post 1 19 9 2 1
I feel I am better able to communicate with others Mid 2 16 13 1 0 32
Post 3 17 10 2 0
I feel I am better able to find information from different sources Mid 4 16 10 2 0 32
Post 4 15 9 4 0
I feel I am better able to evaluate different sources of information Mid 3 22 6 1 0 32
Post 3 20 8 1 0
I am more confident in my ability to evaluate the information I have found Mid 4 23 5 0 0 32
Post 6 18 5 3 0
Difficulties and demands I am finding these activities difficult Mid 2 5 14 10 0 31
Post 1 11 13 3 3
I find the activities challenging Mid 3 22 5 2 0 32
Post 1 21 7 3 0
I am enthusiastic about the EBL sessions Mid 4 10 16 2 0 32
Post 3 12 11 6 0
I feel I have to work hard to complete these activities Mid 3 18 7 4 0 32
Post 0 17 7 8 0
Memorisation and application I feel I can get through the activities simply by memorising things Mid 1 1 7 17 6 32
Post 1 4 10 16 1
The activities are more about analysing and evaluating information than it is about memorising Mid 14 13 2 3 0 32
Post 15 14 3 0 0
I don’t need to apply anything I have learned Mid 0 1 8 15 8 32
Post 0 1 3 22 6
Enjoyment I enjoy working in this way Mid 8 13 7 4 0 32
Post 3 20 6 3 0
I am enjoying working as a team member Mid 10 14 7 1 0 32
Post 6 19 7 0 0
Roles in the learning process I understand the learning process in these activities Mid 6 18 5 3 0 32
Post 7 21 2 2 0
The learning is relevant to my needs Mid 6 15 8 1 0 30
Post 2 18 8 1 1
I feel I am able to take more responsibility for my own learning Mid 10 16 5 1 0 32
Post 0 24 8 0 0
I feel a sense of control over my learning Mid 6 16 7 2 0 31
Post 0 19 11 1 0
The staff focus more on encouraging me to find information than on giving me the facts Mid 8 19 5 0 0 32
Post 4 21 5 1 1
I need a lot of support from staff in this activity Mid 0 5 10 15 2 32
Post 0 7 12 11 2
I receive adequate feedback Mid 5 17 7 2 0 31
Post 5 21 4 1 0

It is noticeable that there were very few changes in responses between the mid-EBL and post-EBL questionnaires. This suggests that attitudes formed in the first three EBL sessions were then relatively stable throughout the remaining parts of the course. For the same reasons discussed previously, chi-square was not used.

The learning process

Within this category the responses are largely in agreement with the given statements. The percentage of students who responded “Strongly Agree” or “Agree” Mid- and Post-EBL are respectively 56% and 63% for “learning how to plan my learning”, 56% and 63% for “better able to communicate with others”, 63% and 59% for “better able to find information from different sources”, 78% and 72% for “better able to evaluate different sources of information” and 84% and 75% for “more confident in their ability to evaluate information found”.

Difficulties and demands

This area gave rise to mixed responses. The percentage of students who responded “Strongly Agree” or “Agree” Mid- and Post-EBL are respectively 23% and 39% for “finding the activities difficult”, 78% and 69% for “finding the activities challenging”, 44% and 47% for being “enthusiastic about the EBL sessions” and 66% and 53% for “having to work hard to complete these activities”. It was interesting to note the differences in response to the questions relating to the activities being “difficult” and “challenging”—this was explored further in an additional focus group (see below).

Memorisation and application

The percentage of students who responded “Strongly Agree” or “Agree” Mid- and Post-EBL are respectively 6% and 16% for “can get through the activities simply by memorising things”, 84% and 91% for “activities are more about analysing and evaluating information than it is about memorising”, and 3% and 3% for being “I don't need to apply anything I have learned” (though this must be viewed with caution as it corresponds to a response from just one student in each case). The students' responses indicated that there was an acknowledgement that the EBL activities were not about memorisation but required application of information.

Enjoyment

The percentage of students who responded “Strongly Agree” or “Agree” Mid- and Post-EBL are respectively 66% and 72% for “enjoy working in this way”, and 75% and 78% for “enjoying working as a team member”. These findings indicate the students found EBL and working in teams an enjoyable experience.

Roles in the learning process

The percentage of students who responded “Strongly Agree” or “Agree” Mid- and Post-EBL are respectively 75% and 88% for “understand the learning process in these activities”, 70% and 67% for “learning is relevant to my needs”, 81% and 75% for “able to take more responsibility for my own learning”, 71% and 61% for “feel a sense of control over my learning” and 84% and 78% for “staff focus more on encouraging me to find information than on giving me the facts”, 16% and 22% for “need a lot of support from staff in this activity” and 71% and 84% for “receive adequate feedback”. These findings indicate an appreciation of the EBL learning processes and feedback received and recognition that EBL promotes learner independence.

Open ended questions and focus groups

The responses to the open ended questions within the Mid- and Post-EBL questionnaires and from the focus group participants enabled further investigation of the students' attitudes towards the EBL process.

The responses to the open ended question “what are the positive things about the course” highlighted the views that students found EBL enormously valuable, and phrases like “working as part of a team…developing communication skills…problem solving individually as part of a team” were heard many times. The negative points highlighted by the students mainly related to the timing of the EBL sessions (constrained by the timetable to be 4 pm to 6 pm on Fridays) and difficulties in some groups where not all of the students had participated equally.

The focus groups provided an opportunity to probe the students' attitudes towards EBL more deeply and to follow up on points of interest which emerged from the questionnaire data. The focus group findings relating to group work echoed those from the questionnaire, as they were largely positive although some groups did not function as well due to unequal participation. The students indicated that they did not find using the online discussion boards in WebCT between EBL sessions particularly helpful but preferred to contact each other by mobile phone or meet face to face. This suggests, perhaps unsurprisingly, that the students favoured synchronous communication as opposed to asynchronous and preferred to speak directly with one another. When asked about the EBL scenarios, the students had found that they were becoming somewhat repetitive towards the end of the sessions as, although the settings were slightly different for each scenario (and becoming increasingly more complex), the tasks were essentially the same. A variation in format, either in terms of content or output would address these concerns for future use of the scenarios.

There was discussion in the first focus group about the place of lectures in relation to the EBL tasks, with most students indicating that they would have preferred the lectures before, or in parallel with the EBL sessions. However, this would have detracted from the collaborative learning experience gained by learning in groups through active problem solving. It is interesting that the students acknowledged the importance of a combined learning experience which included both lectures and the EBL. The students felt that there was a need for both the EBL and lectures; for example it was said that “with EBL, we are learning to read spectra, but with the lectures we learnt about the background knowledge and how they work”. The comment of another student captured the general sentiment: “definitely more interesting than lectures—you're in a group, you're interacting, you've got the postgrads there”.

One area of concern for the facilitators had been if the students would be frustrated by not being told the answers to questions directly, but being guided towards the correct answer after the facilitator had established where the student/group was in terms of understanding at that point. This point was raised with the focus group but it emerged that the students had not been frustrated, with one student responding “I think it's better when someone gives you the answers in a way that you're actually learning from it rather than ‘this is wrong, that's the answer’. I personally like to know how I got to that answer, so that's quite a good way”. The students also indicated that the postgraduate demonstrators were generally very helpful, with one student noting that “one postgrad was giving us clues, he wouldn't just give us the answers, which I thought was quite good…”

As indicated in the analysis of the data in Table 2, it was of interest to note that students seemed to see “challenging” as somewhat different from “difficult”. This was examined in more depth in the second focus group where it became readily apparent that “challenging” was perceived as something which requires some thought, “such as “how far you can stretch yourself” whereas “difficult” was perceived more negatively, such as “something you struggle with more”.

Overall, the focus groups gave the impression that the students had found the EBL to be a highly positive experience. In addition, since they were conducted by a neutral interviewer, attempts by students to reply with what they thought we wanted to hear in answer to the questions should have been minimized. These findings are encouraging, as effective and efficient learning are often connected to positive attitudes towards the entire learning experience, although what causes what is uncertain.

Interview with a postgraduate demonstrator

In the interview with one of the postgraduate demonstrators who had experience both of demonstrating by a traditional approach and in facilitating via an EBL approach, an interesting picture emerged. Although the demonstrator felt that sufficient guidance had been given as to what to expect in EBL facilitation, it was not easy to take a less proactive position and to hold back in providing ‘answers’. The demonstrator noted that the students were so accustomed to being taught in a didactic fashion that it was not easy to adjust at the start to the EBL approach. The demonstrator felt that the whole system of teaching and learning was geared to passing examinations and EBL can sit uncomfortably with this emphasis. This is perceptive and reveals a fundamental problem to be addressed in Higher Education, and echoes some of the findings of Mackenzie et al. (2003).

Conclusions

Overall, students were mainly positive towards the various processes of EBL and attitudes remained comparatively stable from mid-way to after the course had been completed. This suggests that the students had accepted the way that the EBL course was delivered (including the differences from traditional approaches) and that students had adapted to it and were coping.

The majority of students appreciated working in groups and being given the opportunity to interact with their peers. There were, however, some students who indicated that they were frustrated with unequal participation in their groups at certain points. Students additionally felt that they had developed other transferable skills and had developed some degree of learner independence. Importantly, students understood the EBL process, including the role of staff, and indicated that they enjoyed their EBL sessions. However, the scenarios were criticised by some students for being somewhat repetitive.

It is clear that the majority of students had a positive experience of the EBL course, albeit with a few negative attitudes towards some areas. The majority of students were confident in the various areas of the spectroscopy course post-EBL, with it being shown that EBL has the potential to increase students' perceived confidence in spectroscopy, particularly within those students who are the least confident before the EBL sessions. Since the same study was not carried out using traditional teaching methods (i.e. with lectures and supporting workshops) it is not possible to draw any conclusions as to the efficacy of EBL compared to a traditional approach. However, based upon these findings, spectroscopy has continued to be delivered viaEBL to our first year chemistry undergraduate students. Although it is acknowledged that many other factors may be contributing, e.g. increasing entry grades of new students, differences in actual questions set, increased feedback through the EBL technique etc., it is noteworthy that the end of year examination question on spectroscopic interpretation, whose format has remained the same, has seen a 20% increase in mark average for several years (from ca. 60% to ca. 80%) since switching to the EBL mode of delivery.

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank the University of Birmingham for funding this research through a Learner Independence Project. We are appreciative of advice and support from Professor Norman Reid, Professor Tina Overton and Dr Mike McLinden. We are grateful to Professor Derek Raine and Dr Sarah Symons for their feedback on the scenario used in the Pilot study, to Dr Liam Cox for his help in devising the “Reaction Dilemma” scenario, and to Dr Alison Davies for running the focus groups and interview. We would also like to thank the students in the School of Chemistry who participated in this study.

References

  1. Belt S. and Overton T. L., (2005), Case studies for undergraduate chemistry courses, Cambridge, RSC.
  2. Bennett J. and Forster T., (2010), IR Cards: Inquiry-Based Introduction to Infrared Spectroscopy, J. Chem. Educ., 87(1), 73–77.
  3. CambridgeSoft ChemDraw Ultra program (version 11.0): http://www.cambridgesoft.com/.
  4. Cohen L., Manion L. and Morrison K., (2007), Research Methods in Education, (Sixth Edition), Oxford and NY: Routledge.
  5. Duch B., (1996), Problems: A Key Factor in PBL. Retrieved September 18, 2008, from University of Delaware: http://www.udel.edu/pbl/cte/spr96-phys.html.
  6. Ford J. R., Prudenté C. and Newton T. A., (2008), A Model for Incorporating Research into the First-Year Chemistry Curriculum, J. Chem. Educ., 85(7), 929–933.
  7. Goedhart M. J., Finlayson O. F. and Lindblom-Ylänne S., (2009), Research-based Teaching in Higher Level Chenistry Education, In Eilks, I and Byers, B (ed.), Innovative Methods of Teaching and Learning Chemistry in Higher Education, (pp. 43–59). Cambridge: RSC.
  8. Hutchings B., (2006), Principles of Enquiry-Based Learning, Centre for Excellence in Enquiry-Based Learning (www.campus.manchester.ac.uk/ceebl/resources/papers/ceeblgr002.pdf).
  9. Kahn P. and O'Rourke K., (2005), Understanding Enquiry-Based Learning, In T. Barrett, I. Mac Labhrainn and H. Fallon (ed.), Handbook of Enquiry and Problem Based Learning: Irish Case Studies and International Perspectives, (pp. 1–12). Galway: CELT.
  10. Kandel M. and Tonge P. J., (2001), Personalized Combined Organic Spectroscopy Problems - Online and in the Lab, J. Chem. Educ., 78(9), 1208–1209.
  11. Kelly O. C. and Finlayson O. E., (2007), Providing solutions through problem-based learning for the undergraduate 1st year chemistry laboratory, Chem. Educ. Res. Pract., 8(3), 347–361.
  12. Kelly O. and Finlayson O., (2009), A hurdle too high? Students' experience of a PBL laboratory module, Chem. Educ. Res. Pract., 10, 42–52.
  13. Kirschner P. A., Sweller J. and Clark R. E., (2006), Why Minimal Guidance During Instruction Does Not Work: An Analysis of the Failure of Constructivist, Discovery, Problem-Based, Experiential, and Inquiry-Based Teaching, Educ. Psychol., 41(2), 75–86.
  14. Likert R., (1932), A Technique for Measurement of Attitudes, Arch. Psychol., 140, 5–53.
  15. Mackenzie A. M., Johnstone A. H. and Brown R. I. F., (2003), Learning from Problem Based Learning, Univ. Chem. Educ., 7(1), 13–26.
  16. McDonnell C., O'Connor C. and Seery M. K., (2007), Developing practical chemistry skills by means of student-driven problem based learning mini-projects, Chem. Educ. Res. Pract., 82(2), 130–139.
  17. McGarvey D. J., (2004), Experimenting with undergraduate practicals, Univ. Chem. Educ., 8, 58–65.
  18. Moore I., (2007), An Evaluation Survey for EBL, Retrieved April 6, 2009, from CEEBL: http://www.campus.manchester.ac.uk/ceebl/resources/evaluation/evaluation_survey.rtf.
  19. Moore I., (2006), Towards an Evaluation Strategy: Frameworks for Evaluating the Impact of the CEEBL, External Education Consultation Document for CEEBL, Centre for Excellence in Enquiry-Based Learning, University of Manchester, UK.
  20. Newton T. A., Tracy H. J. and Prudenté C., (2006), A Research-Based Laboratory Course in Organic Chemistry, J. Chem. Educ., 83(12), 1844–1849.
  21. Overton T. L., Byers B. and Seery M. K., (2009), Context- and Problem-based Learning in Higher Level Chemistry Education. In Eilks, I. and Byers, B. (ed.), Innovative Methods of Teaching and Learning Chemistry in Higher Education (pp. 43–59). Cambridge: RSC.
  22. Osgood C. E., Suci G. J. and Tannenbaum P. H., (1957), The Measurement of Meaning. Urbana, Ill: University of Illinois Press.
  23. QAA, (2007), QAA Subject Benchmark Statements, Chemistry, The Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education (http://www.qaa.ac.uk/academicinfrastructure/benchmark/honours/chemistryfinal.pdf).
  24. Reid N., (2003), Getting Started in Pedagogical Research in Higher Education, LTSN Physical Sciences Centre, Hull: Higher Education Academy.
  25. Reid N., (2006), Thoughts on attitude measurement, Res. Sci. Technol. Educ., 24(1), 3–27.
  26. SDBSWeb: http://riodb01.ibase.aist.go.jp/sdbs/ (National Institute of Advanced Industrial Science and Technology).
  27. Siegel S., (1956). Non-parametric statistics for the behavioural sciences. New York: McGraw-Hill.
  28. Summefield S., Overton T. and Belt S., (2003), Problem-Solving Case Studies, Anal. Chem., 75(7), 181A–182A.
  29. Williams D. P., Woodward J. R., Symons S. L. and Davies D. L., (2010), A Tiny Adventure: the introduction of problem based learning in an undergraduate chemistry course, Chem. Educ. Res. Pract.11, 33–42.

Footnote

† Electronic supplementary information (ESI) available. See DOI: 10.1039/c0rp90016h
This journal is © The Royal Society of Chemistry 2011
Click here to see how this site uses Cookies. View our privacy policy here.