Integrating informal learning in college general chemistry courses

Abstract

Informal learning (IL) venues such as museums, zoos, scouting, national parks, and community activities are increasingly recognized for their important role in enhancing the public understanding of science. Many benefits to students who participate in rich informal learning experiences are reported in the literature, including improvements in scientific reasoning skills, percentages of students enrolling in science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) majors, and completion of college degrees. The research reported herein analyzes potential benefits of including informal learning experiences in college general chemistry courses, using the School Museum Learning Framework to structure the informal learning experiences. Assessment of outcomes of the informal learning activities are scaffolded upon the U.S. National Research Council's Strands of Informal Learning. Gains in science learning as they related to formal chemistry course content were quantified using pre- and post-assessment measures. Additional outcomes quantifying student motivation were evaluated using the Science Motivation Questionnaire. Results show improvement in some course-related outcomes as well as affective expressions of motivation by students who participated in informal learning experiences.

---

Introduction

Expansion of science literacy is accomplished outside of formal classroom setting through informal learning. For example, there are increasing reports of informal learning (IL) experiences at nature centers (Maddock, 1991), demonstration shows (Kerby et al., 2016), science museums (Tulley and Lucas, 1991, Stavrova and Urhahne, 2010), and scouting (Jarman, 2005). Informal learning transcends the boundaries traditionally imposed by formal classroom settings such as cost, synchronous meetings, and background preparation, and can be provided through media, libraries, and public parks (Gerber et al., 2001b). These informal portals to science knowledge provide inclusive settings for learning, and reports of their development (Bell et al., 2009, Moore, 2009) research opportunities (Christian and Yezierski, 2012) and benefits are garnering increasing attention. For example, Woolnough reported that involvement in extra-curricular activities played a significant factor in students choosing to study science after age 16 (Woolnough, 1994). Stavrova and Urhanhe found that a thoughtfully-designed museum tour can improve the visitors’ enthusiasm and intrinsic motivation (Stavrova and Urhahne, 2010). Jones’ research reports the advantages of utilizing informal learning to improve access of underrepresented groups to opportunities and experiences in science (Jones, 1997). Such research demonstrating the advantages of informal learning provides evidence of improved learning gains that educators in formal learning (FL) settings could seek for their students.

Research studies in FL/IL scrutinize the degree to which informal opportunities provide benefits in understanding formal course content and, conversely, if curricular knowledge can be applied outside the classroom (Resnick, 1987). Another study (Gerber et al., 2001a) reported the correlation of scientific reasoning (measured using the Classroom Test of Scientific Reasoning (Lawson, 1995)) with student engagement in informal learning quantified by the Informal Learning Opportunities Assay (Gerber et al., 2001b). Their results indicated that participation in rich informal activities was correlated with higher scientific reasoning abilities. Formal college STEM courses may list the exhibition of scientific reasoning as a course learning outcome, yet assessments of curriculum content knowledge typically do not specifically evaluate reasoning ability. Integration of formal and informal science learning would provide advantages to students that either learning setting in isolation may not achieve. Brody points out that formal and informal settings share a common goal in his statement that “The challenge for educational programmes in classrooms or parks is to make science information relevant to the lives of the public and to explain scientific findings in ways that the public can use” (Brody and Hall, 2002, p. 1120). This should also be the aim of formal learning professionals who work to help their students transcend factual knowledge and apply their understanding.

The union of IL and FL was advocated by Hofstein and Rosenfeld who claim that not only scientific knowledge, but students’ affective characteristics (i.e. their attitude toward science) are improved by IL (Hofstien and Rosenfeld, 1996). Many educators have accepted the challenge of creating informal learning opportunities, including activities that explore the molecules in chocolate (Amey et al., 2008), and creating artistic displays with a scientific theme (Steffan et al., 1996). There still exists a need to perform research on best practices for incorporating informal learning into formal chemistry settings and assessing the merits of various approaches. To make the most of these opportunities, the National Research Council (NRC) in the United States (Bell et al., 2009, p. 309) advises “Front-line staff should actively integrate questions, everyday language, ideas, concerns, worldviews, and histories, both their own and those of diverse learners.” This insight is repeated in Griffin's work which reiterates that teachers must be proactive in facilitating learning strategies so students can connect the informal experience to their previously-formed knowledge and assimilate new information (Griffin, 1998). A model for maximizing the benefits of informal learning settings was proposed by Griffin, called the School-Museum Learning Framework (SMLF). This model provides a theoretical base for integrating museum experiences in formal school courses, enabling student ownership and control of learning, and facilitating learning strategies appropriate to the setting. Griffin provided a scaffold that encompasses the scientific process of inquiry – allowing students to develop questions, gather data, analyze, and synthesize information.

With implementation of the SMLF in formal courses, progress in achieving outcomes should be quantified. To do so, however, desired IL outcomes must first be articulated. Fortunately, the National Research Council recently assessed the evidence for science learning in informal environments, and identified benefits, referred to as “strands,” that should be achieved by experiences in informal environments (Bell et al., 2009, p. 4). These strands of informal science articulate that participants should:

(1) Experience excitement, interest, and motivation to learn about phenomena in the natural and physical world.

(2) Come to generate, understand, remember, and use concepts, explanations, arguments, models, and facts related to science.

(3) Manipulate, test, explore, predict, question, observe, and make sense of the natural and physical world.

(4) Reflect on science as a way of knowing.

(5) Participate in scientific activities and learning practices with others, using scientific language and tools.

(6) Think about themselves as science learners and develop an identity as someone who knows about, uses, and sometimes contributes to science.

Presently, much of the research on the outcomes of integrating informal learning in chemistry curricula relate to grade-school students. Morais reported the use of chemistry storytelling to promote enthusiasm (NRC strand 1) for the field with 8–10 year-old students (Morais, 2014). Coll and Treagust sought understanding of digitally-enhanced informal learning with chemistry in a small private secondary school (Coll and Treagust, 2015). Based on our search, the reports of integrating informal learning in college chemistry courses are scarce. Studies that report increased positive attitudes toward science through informal learning participation (Vandell et al., 2005; Shernoff and Vandell, 2007) provide scant evidence that informal learning in the science domain increases cognitive learning. However, participants’ self-perception of cognitive gains related to museum attendance have been reported (Falk and Needham, 2011). Falk and Dierking made efforts to quantify science content learning gains related to museum attendance, and describe the three-fold improvement in content knowledge of Los Angeles U.S.A. adult residents, measured by the number of adults who could define the word, “homeostasis,” following the opening of a local science center (Falk and Dierking, 2010). The study reported herein expands on the investigation of cognitive learning gains and shows that incorporating targeted informal learning experiences that emphasize content related to course outcomes, can increase science domain content learning among college chemistry students.

Increasing opportunities exist for the crossing of formal (school) environment with informal (e.g., museum) settings; there are instances when informal opportunities arise that, with some flexibility, can be incorporated and incentivized in formal learning settings. Here-in, we describe informal museum learning opportunities that were integrated with formal coursework for general chemistry students at a large public undergraduate institution in the Southeast United States. Two exhibits were selected as platforms to study formal–informal learning integration in general chemistry: an art exhibit, “A History of Water,” by artist Maya Lin; and a travelling exhibit entitled “Plastics Unwrapped” at a local regional history center. The use of these informal learning experiences was necessary to compile this work due to the transient nature of the exhibits and the long time-duration of the study. “A History of Water” and “Plastics Unwrapped” were each locally accessible only for six-month periods during which this research was conducted. However, the development and assessment of the disparate informal learning activities was unified both in the target research group (general chemistry students in large-enrollment undergraduate courses) and assignment structure. The instruction and assignment structures were based on the School-Museum Learning Framework developed by Griffin which will be described more fully in the following pages (Griffin, 1998).

This research herein focuses on assessment of the first three NRC strands of informal learning in formal college general chemistry courses. Assessment of affect (strand 1), as was attempted here, is a common form of evaluation in informal settings (Christian and Yezierski, 2012); the incorporation of the IL activity in the formal classroom provided a unique opportunity to glimpse how students “understand, remember, and use concepts, explanations, arguments, models, and facts related to science,” (strand 2), and how they “manipulate, test, explore, predict, question, observe, and make sense of the natural and physical world” (strand 3).

Methods

Classroom preparation

Formal–informal learning activities were implemented in three college general chemistry courses: two large-enrollment sections of a first-semester general chemistry course (hereafter, Chem I) and one section of a second-semester general chemistry course (hereafter Chem II). The two first-semester chemistry sections had enrollment of 268 and 336 students, respectively. The enrollment in the second-semester general chemistry course was 409 students. The methods of the class instruction were the same across all courses and sections. A total of 42 lecture-periods were employed over 16 weeks, including three exam periods. One 50 minute lecture period was devoted to each of the following topics that were also identified as content related to pieces in the exhibits: electromagnetic radiation and wavelength, frequency dispersion relations, reaction enthalpy, Raoult's law, solubility of gases, intermolecular interactions and surface tension, and enthalpy of vaporization. The classroom instructor employed a combination of lecturing, classroom discussion, inquiry-based group worksheets teaching methods, and low-stakes quiz assessment. No class time was devoted to the attending the informal learning exhibits, so those who participated in the informal learning experienced the same classroom conditions as those who did not attend. Students who participated attended the informal learning exhibits on their own time outside of class, paid for their own admission to the exhibit, and arranged for their transportation to the site. In the Chem I and II courses, the topics that were related to the pieces in the exhibits were discussed in advance during the class time, and student proficiency tested in a midterm exam prior to attending the exhibit.

Informal learning settings

The exhibit, “A History of Water,” was featured at a local art museum. It was integrated in two general chemistry courses to visually stimulate interest in, and understanding of chemical concepts such as waveforms, dispersion relations, and solubility. The exhibit included sculptures, large-scale installations, and drawings inspired by satellite sensing imagery and sonar resonance scanning to reveal undersea topography, the boundary between land and water, and wave forms. Information on the construction of the exhibit and photographs of her work can be found elsewhere (Palm, 2015). Students in one of the first-semester Chem I sections (enrollment 268 students) and the second-semester Chem II section (enrollment 409 students) were provided the opportunity to go to the exhibit, observe selected pieces, and explain the artistic renderings in terms of related chemical concepts – namely surface tension, hydrophobicity/hydrophilicity, saturation, wave structure, enthalpy, solubility, and vapor pressure.

After the History of Water exhibit concluded, an alternative informal learning exhibit was selected: “Plastics Unwrapped” at local regional history center. Assignments integrating course concepts with interpretation of content at this informal learning center were included in a first-semester general chemistry Chem I course (enrollment 336 students). Originally developed by the Burke Museum of Natural History and Culture at the University of Washington, the “Plastics Unwrapped” exhibit was briefly housed near the site of this research. It featured the development of polymer technology, fossil-fuel feedstock, ubiquitous use of plastics, the environmental persistence and damage caused by plastics, and the clever ways they can be recycled or, in some cases, composted. Chemistry content with which this IL exhibit could be connected included chemical structure and VSEPR theory, thermodynamics and bond enthalpy, and polymerization.

Applying the school-museum learning framework

A framework for facilitation of learning and successful management of the museum experience is developed by Griffin, called the School-Museum Learning Framework (SMLF) (Griffin, 1998). Use of its guiding principles forestalls focus on teacher-student discipline and over-emphasis on tasks to be completed that are often characteristics of school-museum trips. With a social constructive theoretical basis for the framework, the SMLF proposes three “Guiding Principles” for teachers and designers of IL/FL experiences: integration of school-and museum learning, enabling of self-directed ownership of learning, and facilitation of learning strategies appropriate to the setting. For the FL/IL activities reported in this research, the “Guiding Principles” were incorporated in the ways described in the following paragraphs.

Embed museum content within school-based unit of learning

The first SMLF essential component of effective school-museum learning is embedding the museum visit within the context of school-based content. This is important because, as Dewey explains, sense-making of new knowledge is made more meaningful when it is connected with other experiences (Dewey, 1925). In an effort to embed the museum-learning within the course content, the course instructor (author, Heider) first attended the exhibit and created an assignment that the students could complete for course credit. Guided instructions and writing prompts were provided to connect exhibit content with course concepts. Examples of the exhibit pieces and chemical concepts which are illustrated in Fig. 1.

Fig. 1 Examples of art pieces in the exhibit, A History of Water, with corresponding illustrations of the chemistry concepts paired with it in the IL/FL integration. (A) Shows the piece “Flow” by Maya Lin (left) alongside a waveform and the frequency-wavelength dispersion relation (right). (B) Shows a photo of the piece “Dew Point 11” by Maya Lin (left) and the application of the piece to understanding contact angles and hydrophobicity (right). Photos taken by the authors are used here with permission of the museum personnel.

A similar approach was taken with the “Plastics Unwrapped.” An example of a photo from the “Plastics Unwrapped” exhibit, and illustration of the chemistry content for the assignment is shown in Fig. 2. This assignment ties IL exhibit content directly to concepts in the chemistry course (i.e., chemical structure, bonding, and bond enthalpy).

Fig. 2 Example of wall-mounted display at the “Plastics Unwrapped” exhibit and the application of the piece to understanding polymerization and reaction enthalpy. Photos taken by the authors are used here with permission of the museum personnel.

Enabling student ownership and control of learning

The second SMLF Guiding Principle empowers students with as much ownership of their learning as possible. Students exerted control in the planning of their visits to the museums as the asynchronous nature of the museum visit allowed students to schedule the visit at their convenience. They also constructed their own social groups for the visit, rather than synchronous attendance with an organized school group. This allowed students to choose their partners, and many attended with classmates, family-members, dates, roommates, or other friends. Requiring attendance at a museum may pose challenges to students with limited transportation, and museums that charge admission may also pose difficulties for low-income students. To accommodate these limitations, a museum with easy public transportation and student discounts, was selected. These considerations were intended to make the IL assignment more feasible and inclusive, and resulted in of 166 of the 268 Chem I and 304 of the 409 Chem II students attending the History of Water exhibit, and 218 of the 336 students Chem I students attending the Plastics Unwrapped exhibit. Since the extra-credit informal learning assignment was not mandatory for their grades, students had the choice of whether to participate. A smaller proportion of Chem I students chose to participate, relative to the proportion of students in Chem II but the non-participants were not interrogated to determine the reasons for their choice not to participate. Possible reasons may include: non-participants may have had onerous coursework, employment or family obligations preventing them from participating; non-participants may already have a good score in the course and were not concerned about earning the extra credit. The latter rationale may explain why a smaller proportion of students in Chem I (a relatively easier course) than in Chem II, chose to participate, although there may have been other reasons not considered here. To help students feel more comfortable and have a voice in their learning, free-choice element of the assignment was provided (e.g., select a piece from the exhibit that appeals to you, explain its scientific background and your response to the exhibit piece).

Environmental needs of the students

The final guiding principle in SMLF framework incorporated in the FL/IL assignment is to address the environmental needs of the students. Students may feel uncertain or out-of-place if they are unfamiliar with informal learning. Providing enough information about the IL sites (including bus transportation, parking, admission, restroom locations and the role of volunteers or docents) will help to accommodate the environmental needs of the students.

In all cases, regardless of the museum selected for the IL project, students attended the exhibit, observed specific pieces, and then wrote a report on the exhibit that provided analyses based on the exhibit content and their knowledge of chemical concepts that were emphasized in the course. Student reports were structured based on a prompt that was drafted by the instructor, who first visited the museum and identified some exhibit pieces that were well-correlated with course content. The prompts were divided into four parts. Part 1 required students to provide receipt evidence of museum attendance, describe a part of the exhibit that the student found to be of interest, a piece that relates to a chemical concept from the course. The subsequent three parts asked students to explain chemical concepts that were portrayed in the exhibit related to, for example, solubility of gases, concentration units, graphical analysis, reaction enthalpy, properties of electromagnetic radiation, contact angle and hydrophobicity, mole fraction calculations, and vapor pressure of fresh vs. salt water. An example prompt is included in the appendix. Depending upon which portions of the optional assignment students completed, reports ranged in length from 1–4 typed pages.

Assessments

Following the completion of the IL assignment, and after the conclusion of the course, the students who completed the activity were asked to answer multiple choice concept questions, complete an electronic survey, and donate their written reports and exams for this research. These student reports were analyzed to determine if they displayed evidence of experiencing the first three NRC strands of informal learning. Analysis of the students’ responses was conducted with oversight from the institutional review board. The construct validity of the written artifacts was addressed with a backwards design approach, such that items relating to assessment of IL strands 1–3 were included in the prompts (see appendix). For example, four separate items prompted students to describe their response (strand 1) to pieces in the exhibit, A History of Water. Similarly, four prompt items asked students to report regarding specific science items (strand 2). The exhibit pieces (at least three in each) in the IL assignment prompt were selected due to their direct correlation with making sense of the natural and physical world (strand 3). To address validity in data handling, the prompts written for the three separate IL courses were reviewed by at least one additional colleague for content. To address the concern that students may answer with exaggerated positive affect, a grading rubric was used that awarded full credit for any response to this prompt (regardless of positive or negative affect). A total of three different researchers read the reports and determined whether or not they described the informal learning strands. A score of 0 for a given strand indicated that the student report did not display evidence for that strand. A score of 1 indicated that there was at least one instance in the report when the student described the experience of the informal learning strand. In cases where researchers disagreed regarding to the extent to which the informal learning strand was described, the score defaulted to that of the researcher who had ranked the written artifact with a lower score. This conservative decision was taken to avoid unintentional inflation of the scores. Examples for the strand scoring are shown in the table below (Table 1).

Table 1 Examples from students written artifacts and the resulting scores that were generated in determining if students experienced the NRC informal learning outcomes 1–3

Strand and score	Example	Rationale
Strand 1 score 0	The Orlando Museum of Art provided multiple drawings and sculptures from Maya Lin in the art exhibit called “A History of Water.” There was important information for a student to obtain to further understand concepts in chemistry as well as other science courses.	This quote does not show that the student experienced excitement, interest, and motivation to learn about phenomena in the natural and physical world.
Strand 1 score 1	I found all of Maya Lin's work fascinating and left the museum feeling very inspired. I was very intrigued by both “Water Line” and the “Around the World” piece.	This quote indicates that the student experienced excitement, interest, and motivation to learn about phenomena in the natural and physical world.
Strand 2 score 0	I came upon what appeared to be pieces of sliced 2 by 4 pieces of wood. All of these pieces were arranged to the form of a giant wave or mountain. It also appeared to look like the imaging in early computer games, pixelated. This particular piece intrigued me because it looked like so many things we see every day, pixels in computers, imperfect, but forming something beautiful.	This quote does not show that the student generated, understood, remembered, and used concepts, explanations, arguments, models, and facts related to science.
Strand 2 score 1	Maya Lin uses the Pin River Kissimmee as a way to inform the viewer that the river has banks that overflow to nourish the surrounding wetlands. Lin wants viewers to become aware of this because the river has been made into a straight channel that negatively affects the environment. One of the most commonly used indicators of change in an ecosystem is the dissolved oxygen. Dissolved oxygen concentration was at its highest in the month of January and lowest in July and September. This observation can be explained by the inverse relationship between temperature and solubility of gas. As water heats it releases oxygen. Therefore, as temperature increases, like as in the warmer months, the solubility of the gas decreases.	This quote indicates that the student came to generate, understand, remember, and use concepts, explanations, arguments, models, and facts related to science.
Strand 3 score 0	The exhibit has several installations with different themes and mediums, including drawings, three-dimensional wood block waveforms, blown glass, marble, metal pins, and interwoven wire.	This quote does not indicate that the student manipulated, tested, explored, predicted, questioned, observed, and made sense of the natural and physical world.
Strand 3 score 1	Constructed by hundreds of black cables, the piece depicts a geographic phenomenon that only a very few can see in real life, as such beauty is masked by gallons of murky waters and extreme amounts of pressure. The reason for my high intrigue in the piece is that I have worked with three-dimensional modeling programs on the computer, and have had to design terrain; this reminded me so much of the framework of many of the layouts I designed.	This quote indicates that the student came to manipulate, test, explore, predict, question, observe, and make sense of the natural and physical world.

---

Because there were over 600 reports submitted, a random sampling procedure was used to select reports for this research analysis. A minimum of 25 student reports were drawn from each section of the course and screened to be sure the report was complete. If incomplete reports were included in the initial sample selection, they were discarded and replaced with another report chosen at random until all the reports included in the analysis represented students who had completed the entire project. The written instructions provided to the students for the exhibits and completing the written reports can be found in the appendix content. We acknowledge that these can’t be readily applied by other instructors due to their specific references to customized to local exhibits. We provide these student instructions for thoroughness in showing how this research was conducted and as potential models that can be modified by others who wish to incorporate informal learning in their courses.

The students who completed the IL experience, as well as students in a different course who did not to participate in IL, completed the Science Motivation Questionnaire II (Glynn et al., 2011). This instrument was developed based on social cognitive theory (Bandura, 1986) which defines motivation as the “internal state that arouses, directs, and sustains goal-oriented behavior.” As this internal state of motivation is not directly observable, Glynn and coworkers developed a survey to evaluate students’ motivation, characterized by the latent variables of intrinsic motivation, self-determination, self-efficacy, career motivation, and grade motivation (Glynn et al., 2011). That paper describes the use of descriptive statistics, exploratory factor analysis and confirmatory factor analysis to show construct validity, reliability, and correlation among factors. As the instrument has been validated for both science and non-science majors, it was well-suited to evaluating the motivations of students before and after completing IL projects. To maximize external validity in the research reported herein, the number of students recruited in the no-IL group was maximized by recruiting students from two different Chem I courses (that did not include informal learning). The maximum number of students that could be recruited to complete the SMQ II from the IL section was 25. The selection of the IL Chem I section was chosen at random. Surveys were de-identified prior to analysis. As reported by Glynn, construct validity of the SMQ II was verified herein by comparing motivation scores to course grade. We find the grade motivation and course grades to be correlated with a Pearson's correlation coefficient of 0.7 (34 degrees of freedom, p < 0.00001).

Results and discussion

In total, 470 students (166 in CHEM I and 304 in CHEM II) attended the exhibit, A History of Water, and submitted the follow-up assignment. In a different CHEM I course, 218 students completed an informal learning project affiliated with the Plastics Unwrapped exhibit. The writing assignments completed by students were analyzed to evaluate the extent to which integrating IL in FL courses promoted NRC's 3rd Strand of Informal Learning: “Manipulate, test, explore, predict, question, observe, and make sense of the natural and physical world.”

Evaluating strand 1: interest and attitudes

The informal learning reports submitted by students were evaluated for indications of strand 1 learning experiences.

The figure indicates that at least 80% of reports exhibited strong evidence of experiencing excitement, interest, and motivation to learn about phenomena in the natural and physical world (NRC strand 1). To determine if there was a statistically meaningful difference in the proportion of students who displayed evidence of strand 1 across the difference courses, a z-ratio of proportions was employed. The proportion of students participating in the History of Water exhibit in the Chem II who described experience strand 1 outcomes is indistinguishable from those in Chem I who attended History of Water (p = 0.617) or Plastics Unwrapped (p = 0.74). Similarly, there is no distinguishable difference in the proportion between HW Chem I and PU Chem I (p = 0.638).

Despite the many recognized benefits of integrating informal learning in school courses, Michie describes factors that negatively influence secondary science teachers in participating in field trips, including the cost of attending and transportation, complexity of managing large class sizes, and the effort required to create resource materials (Michie, 1998). Unfortunately, overcoming the obstacles still may not pay off for teachers, since poor field trips have the potential to dissuade students from future museum trips (Michie, 1998). At a minimum, the positive outcome of the strand 1 analysis indicates that, for the majority of students, these informal learning experiences are not at risk of dissuading students from future attendance at museums. Before completing this assignment, 83% of students in CHEM I, and 72% of students in CHEM II had never visited the Orlando Museum of Art. When queried as to the likelihood that they would again visit the museum, over 70% of students reported that they were likely to visit the museum again (30% extremely likely, and 45% somewhat likely).

These positive results were further investigated to determine how informal learning benefits can impact student long-term science motivation. The Science Motivation Questionnaire II was administered to student participants after the conclusion of the chemistry course. Volunteer participants from the informal learning groups, as well as participants who had completed a similar chemistry course, with no informal learning project, completed the SMQ II. This 25-item, Likert-type questionnaire assesses the motivations of students to study science using five factors: intrinsic motivation, career motivation, self-determination, self-efficacy, and grade motivation. For example, to assess intrinsic motivation, students responded to statements such as “The science I learn is relevant to my life.” For grade motivation, students responded to statements such as “Getting a good science grade is important to me,” ranking the statements as “Always,” “Usually,” “Sometimes,” “Never.” Reliability of respondents was estimated for each of the latent motivation variables amongst both IL and non-IL participants using Cronbach's alpha, yielding values 0.78–0.82. Accepting this measure as indications of respondent reliability, the instrument was therefore used in assessing student motivation. By assigning a numerical value to student responses (4 = always, 0 = never), a quantitative comparison can be made between students who decided to participate in the IL project and those that did not (Fig. 4). Interpretation of ordinal responses as continuous, as was applied in this research, may not be suited to all analyses (Sullivan and Artino, 2013). Parametric analysis of ordinal data has been shown to result in erroneous interpretation (Kahler et al., 2008), where non-parametric treatment may be more well-suited (Heider et al., 2004). Interval analysis of typical Likert-type responses, (Strongly agree, agree, neutral, disagree, agree), that may not be suitable to the analysis ordinal responses, may be more strongly justified in this case because it is temporal in nature of the response options rather than indicating an attitude direction and strength of conviction (Albaum, 1997). Following the model of Glynn et al. (Glynn et al., 2011) in the interpretation of SMQ II responses, ordinal data collected by that instrument have been parametrically interpreted with interval assumptions.

Low retention of students in STEM major fields, especially women and students from underrepresented minority groups, has a long history in the United States (Graham et al., 2013). The six-year rate of degree completion for STEM majors at U.S. colleges and universities is less than 40% (Toven-Lindsey et al., 2015). The exit rate is particularly high among women and underrepresented minorities, who collectively make up 68% of college students, but who leave STEM majors at a higher rate than their peers (Graham et al., 2013). Variables that predict low retention include confidence and motivation (Graham et al., 2013), as well as science identity (Hazari et al., 2013). In the research of Hazari et al., results of the study of science sub-discipline self-perception among college students indicated that fewer than half of female STEM students highly identify with biology, chemistry or physics. Prompted by that literature, the SMQ II scores were analyzed by disaggregated female and male participants. This was undertaken to investigate any differences in motivations among female and male informal learning participants.

When comparing the SMQ II average male to average female scores, males and females do not differ within the standard deviation for any given latent motivation variable. The SMQ plots in Fig. 4 have the unfortunate limitation that, once disaggregated by gender, the numbers in each category are relatively small. One conclusion that can be drawn from the data is that, using a comparison of means t-test with 95% confidence interval, the t-values did not exceed the critical t-value of 2.021 (for the male-female, no IL group) or 2.306 (for the male-female IL group). There are no statistically meaningful differences between males and females, nor are the differences between average formal learning and informal learning scores statistically meaningful.

Evaluating strand 2: understand and use concepts related to science

Informal learning gains in understanding science concepts were quantified by analysis of student reports (Fig. 3), which shows that at least 90% of students were able to apply scientific concepts to interpret exhibit contents. There was no statistically meaningful difference in the proportion of students describing strand 2 between the course sections or informal learning exhibits (p > 0.05). Whether these gains were lasting, and could be applied to improving chemistry course scores, was measured by pre-IL and post-IL chemistry assessments for the History of Water IL participants. The assessment items are summarized in Table 2. With the exception of the sessile drop contact angle concept, which is not typically included in the general chemistry curriculum, assessment items of concepts that were later incorporated in the IL assignment had appeared on previous exams and were tested again after the IL experience. The pre-IL exams were assessments included in the courses, whereas the post-IL assessment was an optional test offered to students who completed the IL experience. Hence, a larger number of students participated in the pre-IL assessment than participated in the optional post-IL assessment. Table 2 shows some assessment items to evaluate learning gains in chemistry concepts, and the percent of respondents who marked the answer correctly.

Fig. 3 The percentage of student reports that contain evidence for NRC strand 1, 2, and 3, evaluated as described above from samples of 25 of each report type. HW Chem I and HW Chem II represent students in first or second semester general chemistry courses who reported on the exhibit, History of Water. PU Chem I represents reports from students in a different section of chemistry fundamentals I course who attended the exhibit, Plastics Unwrapped.

Fig. 4 Science Motivation Questionnaire II scores for motivation variables among students who completed informal learning (IL) assignments and those that did not, disaggregated by gender. In total 43 males and 42 females responded to the survey in the no IL group. The IL group contained 16 females and 10 males. Numerical scores on the plots represent average responses for each motivation category.

Table 2 Questions to assess conceptual competence with chemical concepts before and after completing the informal learning assignment

Question number	Question	% Correct (before assignment)	% Correct (after assignment)	Proportion significantly different
1	The number of wave cycles that pass through a stationary point is called ______.	96.5 (N = 281)	97.2 (N = 167)	No p = 0.6, effect size = 0.04
2	Calculate the wavelength (in nm) of the blue light emitted by a mercury lamp with a frequency of 6.88 × 10^14 Hz. Planck's constant is 6.626 × 10^−34 J s, c = 3.00 × 10^8 m s^−1.	83.6 (N = 281)	91.0 (N = 167)	Yes p = 0.03 effect size 0.2
3	If 0.200 mol of propylene glycol is dissolved in 3.60 mol of water, what is the vapor pressure of the resulting solution?	59.0 (N = 409)	62.1 (N = 51)	No p = 0.7 effect size = 0.06
	The vapor pressure of pure water is 23.8 mmHg at 25 °C.
4	Under what conditions is the solubility of oxygen in water the greatest?	43.8 (N = 409)	66.0 (N = 51)	Yes p = 0.002 effect size = 0.45
	(A) high temperature and low pressure
	(B) low temperature and low pressure
	(C) high temperature and high pressure
	(D) low temperature and high pressure
5	Consider the images above [image of two sessile drops on differing surfaces], each showing a drop of water on a surface. Which of the following is NOT true of the two images?	N/A	85.0 (N = 51)	N/A
	(A) The picture in I. shows a hydrophilic surface
	(B) The surface in figure II. is likely a hydrophobic surface
	(C) The contact angle in figure I. is smaller than 90°
	(D) The picture in figure II. shows water on a nonpolar surface

---

In all cases, the proportion of correct responses apparently increased after completing the activity. To determine whether the increase in correct responses was statistically meaningful, the Z-ratio of proportions (from the Gaussian distribution) at the 90% confidence interval was calculated. For item 1 (frequency definition) the proportion of correct responses was already high, and no improvement was observed. Despite having an apparent increase in correct responses, item 3 improvement does not meet the threshold of statistical significance. The change in the proportion of correct responses for frequency-energy relationship (item 2) and solubility of gases question (item 4) is statistically meaningful and showed an improvement in understanding with effect size shown in column 5 (Cohen, 1988). The question regarding contact angle (item 5) had no pre-test data (the students were not explicitly taught about hydrophobicity/hydrophilicity and contact angles in the lecture part of the course) and so no test for significance could be performed. However, the remarkably high percentage of correct contact angle interpretation (85%) indicates that this portion of the assignment was successful.

Evaluating strand 3: question, predict, and make sense of the natural world

As with the previous strands, results of the written artifact analysis are summarized in Fig. 3. In all cases, students reported some variation of “manipulating, testing, exploring, predicting, questioning, observing, and making sense of the natural and physical world.” There was no statistically meaningful difference in the proportion of students describing strand 3 between the course sections or informal learning exhibits (p > 0.05). The reports in each course section did show evidence of the application of science concepts to real world phenomena, without explicit instructions to do so in the assignment prompt. This was particularly striking when students mentioned examples of personal interest that were unrelated to the writing prompt, but that their chemistry and exhibit experience had given them an opportunity to evaluate. For example, the “Plastics Unwrapped” exhibit contained a display of the plastic waste produced by a hospital medical procedure. Several students with medical career ambitions mentioned this display (although the assignment prompt did not draw attention to the display) and offered rational discussion of the balance of priorities such as the need for sterile, disposable, medical equipment with decomposition rate of such plastics in the environment.

Analysis of the written reports also revealed students’ creative problem-solving abilities. One example of this was demonstrated at the History of Water wave-form visualization section of the assignment. The art piece, Flow, is a depiction of multiple waves and is constructed with 2-inch × 4-inch wood pieces compressed together (see Fig. 1). One question in the assignment required the students to estimate the wavelength in the piece. No instructions were provided to tell the students how to make the measurement. Several students counted the 2 × 4 lumber pieces between wave crests and extrapolated the distance from the dimensions of the wood pieces. Others read the dimensions of the entire piece (2 ft × 35 ft × 11 ft) from the wall-mounted description, and then estimated the dimensions from the number of wave crests, assuming they were equally divided. Remarkably, some students assumed a recumbent position on the floor with their feet aligned with one wave crest and asked a friend or museum docent to take their picture – using their own height as a standard unit of measure. The diverse and creative approaches to this task provided unexpected insight into the problem-solving abilities of the students. It is often difficult to ascertain these abilities in a large enrollment, lecture format setting.

Limitations

The short duration of the stay (one semester) of the exhibits necessitated the use of multiple informal learning opportunities to complete this research project. A more ideal scenario would be the use of a single IL exhibit over multiple sections to attain more robust numbers of participants and responses. The choice to analyze 25 reports from each section for evidence of the NRC learning strands 1–3, rather than analyzing the set of over 600 reports, also introduced a sampling error. However, it may be observed in Fig. 3 (strands scores) that there was continuity between the results across the different IL opportunities used, and across three separate chemistry courses.

A further limitation of this work arose from the lens through which the IL strands were observed: specifically, a chemistry course assignment. Strands 1–3 could be readily assessed through the written works produced by the students with the chemistry-themed prompt. Several students volunteered insights related to strands 4–6, although doing so was not a requirement of the assignment. For example, one student reflected on science as a way of knowing (strand 4) with the following text:

“Human development and alteration of natural processes can cause significant changes in the environment. “Pin River Kissimmee” showed haw a vast flowing body of water could be, and highlighted important changes done to create the channel. The artwork and article impressed on me how important a task it is for governments and scientific leaders to understand and predict the impact of their decisions when changing something as influential as the course of a river. It's clear we can correct some of these mistakes, but only if we take the time to identify how important these issues are and make good decisions for our future.”

Other students volunteered descriptions of how they participated in scientific activities and learning practices with others, using scientific language and tools (strand 5) by describing conversations they had with companions at the museum. Despite this information, the chemistry-focused nature of the prompts limited the scope of the assessments to strands 1–3. A survey instrument will be more well-suited to studying outcomes related to strands 4–6. Development and validation of an instrument is a focus of future research.

Conclusions

This research demonstrates that the benefits of the first three NRC strands of informal learning can be realized in the short-term (weeks following the experience) through integrating informal learning experiences in general chemistry college courses. Previous work describes the difficulty of measuring improvement in science content knowledge (Falk and Needham, 2011) or science literacy (Miller, 2010) among adults that participate in informal learning, although varying assessments have been made for youth and adolescents. That difficulty was evidenced in the IL research design of Morais et al., who described the inclusion of a story telling experience at a science center presented to 29 elementary school students aged 8–10. Assessment of student's subsequent illustrations about the experience was undertaken and themes of what most interested the students were identified from the drawings. Although Morais et al. drew conclusions about the topics the student's found to be of greatest interest, assessment of cognitive learning gains was not undertaken (Morais, 2014). The research reported here-in makes strides toward overcoming the difficulty of measuring gains in science content knowledge resulting from informal learning participation, showing statistically meaningful improvement in science content responses on classroom assessments.

The long-term science motivation results from our research are less positive, for which informal learning participants did not show long-term increase in five motivation latent variables relative to results form a non-IL cohort. To contextualize our motivation score results within the current informal-learning literature, the work of Suter reported the longitudinal correlation of science museum attendance with science content scores on the High School Longitudinal Survey and Longitudinal Study of American Youth (Suter, 2014). In that study, improved self-efficacy among students in middle grades was not found to result from frequent science museum attendance. The hypothesis that long-term improved student affect, motivation, and self-efficacy result from informal learning science wasn’t borne out by Suter's results or by the research reported herein.

These analyses indicate that, despite overall positive student experience, science learning gains, and evidence of NRC strand 1 motivation at the informal learning site, motivation as measured by the SMQ after the course concluded was not higher among informal learning participants than among students who did not participate in the informal learning exercise. In future research, a test–retest method will be employed, where students complete the SMQ in advance of, and following, the informal learning activity. This method has the potential to reveal either positive or negative impacts of informal learning on student motivation with more clarity than the post-test only method reported herein.

It may be observed that the temporary exhibits used in this research are not available to all chemistry instructors – indeed, they are no longer available to the authors. However, since this study utilized two informal learning opportunities, it indicates that the results may be generalized more broadly to a wider range of informal learning assignments in a variety of learning environments. The exhibits, artifacts and artistic works can serve as a platform through which chemical concepts can be applied and problems can be explored. General chemistry instructors may unify their objectives with the sentiments of artist Maya Lin, who said: “Maybe, maybe, maybe my artworks can get you to be a little more fascinated. Art can help us shift our perspective on things.” (Palm, 2015) Regarding the benefit of connecting the museum trip to the chemistry course, one student anonymously volunteered, “This assignment actually made me recall the concepts that were learned at the beginning of this semester, so it was quite enjoyable! Having knowledge of the Intermolecular Forces Chapter made the trip to the museum a lot more enjoyable as well.”

Conflicts of interest

There are no conflicts to declare.

Appendix

The following are the written instructions provided to students in CHEM I and CHEM II courses before attending the exhibit, A History of Water.

Viewing and reporting on a history of water for CHEM I

The focus of this course is the study of fundamental chemistry concepts that are invaluable in understanding and interpreting phenomena in the world around us. A unique opportunity now exists to connect scientific concepts to important ecological observations through an artistic medium: an art exhibit entitled “A History of Water” at the Orlando Museum of Art features the work of world-renowned artist and architect, Maya Lin. Her work translates scientific observations regarding the earth's changing water supply, conditions and preservation into drawings, sculptures, and large-scale installations. This assignment will require you to attend the exhibit and connect observations there to fundamental ideas in chemistry

(I) View the exhibit “A History of Water” by Maya Lin at the Orlando Museum of Art and write a 1-page report. A full description of the report requirements follow.

(II) View the piece entitled “Pin River – Kissimmee.” Describe your response to it and provide analysis with instructions provided below, focusing on the concept of solute concentration and dissolved oxygen in a – page report.

(III) View the pieces entitled “2 × 4 Landscape” and “Flow.” Describe your response to them and provide analysis with instructions provided below, focusing on the concept of wave features (amplitude, wavelength and frequency) in a 1-page report.

(IV) View the series of art pieces, “Disappearing Bodies of Water,” and “Bodies of Water,” focusing in particular on the depiction of Lake Chad. Describe your response to it and provide analysis with instructions provided below, focusing on the many ways fresh water is being utilized in a 1-page report.

All of these options require you to attend the exhibit, “A History of Water” at the Orlando Museum of Art. The cost to attend the exhibit is $5 with a student ID and must be paid directly to the Museum. Your professor does not receive any portion of the admission fee.

Part I – viewing and reporting on “A History of Water”

Up to 5 points may be earned by completing this section. Part I must be completed in order to earn any additional points for Part II–Part IV.

(1) Attend the exhibit A History of Water at the Orlando Museum of Art. Obtain a ticket stub or receipt that must be turned in – STAPLED – to your other submitted content.

(2) Prepare a typed, 1-page narrative summary of the exhibit using grammatically correct and complete English sentences. Do not provide a question-answer format summary. Your report must include the following:

– Describe a piece from the exhibit that you found intriguing, and explain why. Consider the subject, the medium, and the ideas the piece evokes.

– Identify at least one piece from the exhibit that conveys some scientific concept from any of your science classes. Explain your ideas and the scientific concept.

– The concluding portion of the exhibit is entitled, “What's missing?” Describe this section of the exhibit. “What is missing” has a video and wall display that lists two animal species that were native to Florida that are now extinct – list at least one of these two species.

– The “What is Missing?” portion of the exhibit also lists practical ways to support sustainable water use and help to decelerate the loss of fresh water on the planet. What are five of those suggestions? Of those that you listed, which one would you be most likely to implement in your own life? Explain your selection.

Part II: focus on the Kissimmee River

Prepare a typed 1-page report based upon the instructions that follow. At the top of this page, write the title of this section. This report should be written as a narrative, connected flow of ideas, and should NOT be a numbered response to the questions below. The report must be written using grammatically correct and complete English sentences.

(1) Attend Maya Lin's exhibit A History of Water and view the piece entitled “Pin River – Kissimmee” Describe the piece and your response to it. Read the accompanying description at the exhibit and summarize the points the artist was trying to convey through the artwork.

(2) Read the article entitled “Interim Response of Dissolved Oxygen to Reestablished Flow in the Kissimmee River, Florida, U.S.A.” by David J. Colangelo in the scientific journal, Restoration Ecology, vol. 22, pp. 376–387.

(3) Summarize the purpose and findings of the journal article by Colangelo in your 1 page report. Use your own words in the summary. Address these salient points.

– Why was the concentration of dissolved oxygen in the Kissimmee River studied in the article?

– What was the control group and an experimental group in the research?

– What were the dissolved oxygen concentrations (don’t forget units!) before restoration and after restoration of the Kissimmee River in both the control and experimental group? Report the concentration in units of mg L⁻¹and molarity (you will have to convert mg O₂to moles).

(4) Analyze the data in the report by explaining the following phenomena:

(I) Fig. 5 on p. 384 of the article shows dissolved oxygen concentration in the river as a function of time. During which months was the concentration of dissolved oxygen the highest? During which months was it the lowest? What does this trend imply about the temperature dependence of gas solubility? Consider the average temperature of months that have the highest concentration of dissolved oxygen.

(III) Describe at least three variables from the article that contributed to the decline or increase in the concentration of dissolved oxygen. Again, you are cautioned to use your own words (do not copy directly from the article).

(5) Provide a conclusion and summary of your research in this article and your understanding of the art piece “Pin River – Kissimmee, 2008” by Maya Lin.

Part III: “2 × 4 Landscape” and “Flow”: visualizing wave structure

Prepare a 1-page report (maximum, for this section) based upon the instructions that follow. At the top of this page, write the title of this section. This report should be written as a connected flow of ideas and should NOT be a numbered response to the questions below. The report must be written using grammatically correct and complete English sentences.

(1) Attend Maya Lin's exhibit, A History of Water, and view the pieces entitled “2 × 4 Landscape” and “Flow.” Describe the pieces and your response to them. Write a description of the piece and consider the properties of waves that you have studied in class and the way those properties are conveyed through the art.

(2) Compare the amplitude of the wave in “2 × 4 Landscape” to those in “Flow.” If these waves represented light waves, which would have the higher energy? Which would have greater light intensity?

(3) Consider the concept of wavelength that we have discussed in class. Can the “2 × 4 Landscape” be utilized to provide an estimate of the wavelength? Why or why not? Provide an estimate of the wavelength of the waves in “Flow.” Photographs are allowed in this section of the exhibit and taking a picture may prove helpful in attempting to approximately measure the wavelength. Include this analysis in your 1-page report on this section.

(4) Based on your estimate of the wavelength of waves, calculate the frequency and energy of the waves. In you reporting of the frequency and energy, provide the equations used to perform the calculations.

(5) Provide a conclusion and summary of your understanding of waves and your perception of the art pieces “2 × 4 Landscape” and “Flow” by Maya Lin.

Part IV: uses and supply of fresh water – analysis of the “Disappearing Bodies of Water” and “Bodies of Water” series in the exhibit “A History of Water”

Prepare a typed report (1 page maximum, for this section) based upon the instructions that follow. At the top of this page, write the title of this section. This report should be written as a connected flow of ideas and should NOT be a numbered response to the questions below. The report must be written using grammatically correct and complete English sentences.

(1) View the series of art pieces, “Disappearing Bodies of Water,” and “Bodies of Water.” Describe this work and your response to it. Explain what is represented by the different layers of marble and, in particular, what is represented by the top layer. Contrast the medium used for the “Disappearing Bodies of Water” pieces to the medium for the “Bodies of Water.” What might the different materials represent?

(2) Two bodies of water, the Red Sea and Lake Chad, are depicted in this series. These two bodies of water are geographically near one another and yet exhibit markedly different chemistries. The surface area of Lake Chad (a fresh-water lake) measured ∼25 000 km² in 1960, and ∼2500 km² in 1980. By contrast, the sea level of the salt water Red Sea is increasing at an average rate of 3 mm year⁻¹. Review the website https://www.unep.org/dewa/vitalwater/article116.html and provide reasons for the diminished surface area of the fresh-water lake.

(3) Fresh water may be a source of energy in the near future, since it can be utilized to produce H₂, a potential fuel source both in combustion and in fuel cells. Three different mechanisms for the production of hydrogen fuel from water are electrolysis (Reaction 1 below), steam reforming (Reaction 2, below) and the water–gas shift reaction (Reaction 3, below).

Reaction 1: 2H₂O (l) → 2H₂ (g) + O₂ (g)

Reaction 2: CH₄ (g) + H₂O (l) → CO (g) + 3H₂ (g)

Reaction 3: CO (g) + H₂O (l) → CO₂ (g) + H₂ (g)

Draw Lewis structures for each molecule in the reactions (paying attention to stoichiometric coefficients to determine how many molecules are present) and calculate the ΔH_rxn for each reaction using the equation:

ΔH_rxn = Σ(ΔH bonds broken) − Σ(ΔH bonds formed)

Provide a summary of the three ways to produce the fuel H₂, stating the ΔH_rxn (kJ) for each and indicating whether each process is exothermic or endothermic. For the production of a fuel, would an endothermic or exothermic reaction be desirable? Which approach do you suppose should be pursued for energy production? Are there any limitations or drawbacks to the approach you recommend?

(4) Considering the investment of the limited supply of fresh water in each of these reactions, do you suppose fresh water, or energy will be in greater demand in the future? How should the demand for both be balanced? Summarize your thoughts and your perception of the art pieces in “Bodies of Water,” and “Disappearing Bodies of Water” in the exhibit.

Viewing and reporting on a history of water for CHEM II

The focus of this course is the study of fundamental chemistry concepts that are invaluable in understanding and interpreting phenomena in the world around us. A unique opportunity now exists to connect scientific concepts to important ecological observations through an artistic medium: an art exhibit entitled “A History of Water” at the Orlando Museum of Art features the work of world-renowned artist and architect, Maya Lin. Her work translates scientific observations regarding the earth's changing water supply, conditions and preservation into drawings, sculptures, and large-scale installations. This assignment will require you to attend the exhibit and connect observations there to fundamental ideas in chemistry

If you choose to complete this optional extra credit assignment, you may earn up to 20 exam percentage points. Note that the word percentage implies that you can, for example, change an 80% on an exam to 100% on an exam. The extra credit would not be applied to any exam in particular, but added to your overall grade at the end of the semester. You can earn the points (or some fraction of the total) by completing some or all of the following parts of the assignment:

(I) View the exhibit “A History of Water” by Maya Lin at the Orlando Museum of Art and write a 1-page report. A full description of the report requirements follow.

(II) View the piece entitled “Pin River – Kissimmee” Describe your response to it and provide analysis with instructions provided below, focusing on the concept of solubility of gases and dissolved oxygen in a 1 page report.

(III) View the piece entitled “Dew Point 11.” Describe your response to it and provide analysis with instructions provided below, focusing on the concepts of surface tension, hydrophobic and hydrophilic interactions, and contact angle in a 1-page report.

(IV) View the series of art pieces, “Disappearing Bodies of Water,” and “Bodies of Water,” focusing in particular on the depiction of Lake Chad and the Red Sea. Describe your response to it and provide analysis with instructions provided below, focusing on the concept of vapor pressure in a 1-page report.

All of these options require you to attend the exhibit, “A History of Water” at the Orlando Museum of Art. The cost to attend the exhibit is $5 with a student ID and must be paid directly to the Museum. Your professor does not receive any portion of the admission fee.

Part I – viewing and reporting on “A History of Water”

Up to 5 points may be earned by completing this section. Part I must be completed in order to earn any additional points for Part II–Part IV.

(1) Attend the exhibit A History of Water at the Orlando Museum of Art. Obtain a ticket stub that must be turned in – STAPLED – to your other submitted content.

(2) Prepare a 1-page narrative summary of the exhibit using grammatically correct and complete English sentences. Do not provide a question-answer format summary. Your report must include the following:

– Describe a piece from the exhibit that you found intriguing, and explain why. Consider the subject, the medium, and the ideas the piece evokes.

– Identify at least one piece from the exhibit that conveys some chemistry concept from any portion of the general chemistry courses. Explain your ideas and the chemical concept.

– The concluding portion of the exhibit is entitled, “What's missing?” Describe this section of the exhibit. “What is missing” lists two animal species that were native to Florida that are now extinct – list at least one of these two species.

– The “What is Missing?” portion of the exhibit also lists practical ways to support sustainable water use and help to decelerate the loss of fresh water on the planet. What are five of those suggestions? Of those that you listed, which one would you be most likely to implement in your own life? Explain your selection.

Part II: focus on the Kissimmee River

Prepare a 1-page report based upon the instructions that follow. At the top of this page, write the title of this section. This report should be written as a narrative, connected flow of ideas, and should NOT be a numbered response to the questions below. The report must be written using grammatically correct and complete English sentences.

(1) Attend Maya Lin's exhibit A History of Water and view the piece entitled “Pin River – Kissimmee” Describe the piece and your response to it. Read the accompanying description at the exhibit and summarize the points the artist was trying to convey through the artwork.

(2) Read the article entitled “Interim Response of Dissolved Oxygen to Reestablished Flow in the Kissimmee River, Florida, U.S.A.” by David J. Colangelo in the scientific journal, Restoration Ecology, vol. 22, pp. 376–387. A copy of this article is available for you to download on Webcourses.

(3) Summarize the purpose and findings of the journal article by Colangelo in your 1-page report. Use your own words in the summary. Address these salient points.

– Why was the concentration of dissolved oxygen in the Kissimmee River studied in the article?

– What was the control group and an experimental group in the research?

– What were the dissolved oxygen concentrations (don’t forget units!) before restoration and after restoration of the Kissimmee River in both the control and experimental group?

(4) Analyze the data in the report by explaining the following phenomena:

(I) Fig. 5 on p. 384 of the article shows dissolved oxygen concentration in the river as a function of time. During which months was the concentration of dissolved oxygen the highest? During which months was it the lowest? Explain this observation in terms of solubility of gases at varying temperatures. You may wish to review p. 557 in your text.

(II) The article uses the terms saturation (p. 385 in the article) and supersaturation. Explain the meaning of these terms (you may wish to reference p. 556 in your text) and offer an explanation for the case in which supersaturation could occur in the data.

(III) Henry's law (S_gas = k_HP_gas) describes the solubility of a gas as a function of the pressure of the gas above the solution (in this case, the river). Assuming that the atmospheric pressure of oxygen above the river was constant throughout the study, describe at least three variables from the article that contributed to the decline or increase in the concentration of dissolved oxygen. Again, you are cautioned to use your own words (do not copy directly from the article).

(5) Provide a conclusion and summary of your research in this article and your understanding of the art piece “Pin River – Kissimmee, 2008” by Maya Lin.

Part III: dew point 11, surface tension and intermolecular interactions

Prepare a 1-page report (maximum, for this section) based upon the instructions that follow. At the top of this page, write the title of this section. This report should be written as a connected flow of ideas and should NOT be a numbered response to the questions below. The report must be written using grammatically correct and complete English sentences.

(1) Attend Maya Lin's exhibit, A History of Water, and view the piece entitled “Dew Point 11.” Describe the piece and your response to it. Write a description of the piece and consider the properties of water that you have studied in class and the way those properties are conveyed through the art.

Consider the following information that is crucial to your analysis for the remainder of this part of the extra credit report. When water is dropped onto a surface, it either forms a spherical “bead,” or it flattens out on the surface, as depicted in the figure below. This is the result of two phenomena: surface tension and intermolecular interactions.

The term “hydrophobic” means “water hating.” This implies that a hydrophobic surface would not have shared intermolecular interactions with the water. Extremely nonpolar surfaces are hydrophobic. Most water-proof fabrics are hydrophobic so the water cannot penetrate through the fabric. According to the figure at the left, water ___________(beads up/flattens out) on a hydrophobic surface to minimize contact between the water droplet and the surface.

Using the information describing the figure above, complete the following sentence: hydrophilic mean water _____________________(hating/loving). A surface that is hydrophilic would likely be very __________________(polar/nonpolar) and have shared intermolecular interactions with the water. A drop of water would ___________________________(spread out/bead up) on a hydrophilic surface. An example of hydrophilic surface is clean glass, which has polar Si–O–H bonds on the surface. Clean glass ______________(can/cannot) form intermolecular hydrogen bonds with water.

The angle (θ) depicted in Fig. 5 is called the contact angle. If water is placed on a hydrophobic surface, the contact angle is very large (generally greater than 90°). If water is placed on a hydrophilic surface, the contact angle would be ______________(less than/greater than) 90°.

Fig. 5 Illustration of water droplets on “water hating” and “water-loving” surfaces.

The surface of the leaf in Fig. 6 must be _____________(hydrophobic/hydrophilic) because the contact angle is visually estimated to be _____________(greater than/less than) 90°. This implies that the surface of the leaf is very _____________(polar/nonpolar) and __________(does/does not) share intermolecular interactions with the droplets of water.

Fig. 6 Water droplets on leaves.

(2) Consider the shapes of the water drops in the art piece, “Dew Point 11.” Does it appear that the artist has rendered water on a hydrophobic or hydrophilic surface? Does the water appear to “bead up,” or flatten on the surface? Estimate the contact angle of the dew drops in the artwork. Photographs are allowed in this section of the exhibit and taking a picture may prove essential to providing a best estimate of the contact angle in the artwork. Include this analysis in your 1-page report on this section.

(3) In our CHM I class, we have discussed the concept of surface tension. Surface tension is the underlying physical force responsible for the shape of water droplets depicted in Fig. 5 and 6. Explain what surface tension is and why spherical water droplets are favored unless a hydrophilic surface is in contact with the droplet.

Part IV: salt water vs. fresh water analysis of the “Bodies of Water” series in the exhibit “A History of Water”

Prepare a report (1 page maximum, for this section) based upon the instructions that follow. At the top of this page, write the title of this section. This report should be written as a connected flow of ideas and should NOT be a numbered response to the questions below. The report must be written using grammatically correct and complete English sentences.

(1) View the series of art pieces, “Disappearing Bodies of Water,” and “Bodies of Water,” focusing, in particular, on the depiction of Lake Chad and the Red Sea. Describe this work and your response to it. Explain what is represented by the different layers of marble in the “Disappearing Bodies of Water,” and what is represented by the top layer. Contrast the medium used for the “Disappearing Bodies of Water” pieces to the medium for the “Bodies of Water.” What might the different materials represent?

(2) Two bodies of water, the Red Sea and Lake Chad, are depicted in this series. These two bodies of water are geographically near one another and yet exhibit markedly different chemistries. The surface area of Lake Chad (a fresh-water lake) measured ∼25 000 km² in 1960, and ∼2500 km² in 1980. By contrast, the sea level of the salt water Red Sea is increasing at an average rate of 3 mm year⁻¹. Although many factors contribute to the diminished surface area of Lake Chad and the increased surface area of the Red Sea, the low humidity and high temperatures of desert around Lake Chad cause the loss of 80% of the lake's water through evaporation with associated annual variations in water level of 1–3 m and large fluctuations in surface area.

Evaporation is inherently tied to vapor pressure, a concept we have scrutinized in class. The average temperature for Cameroon (a country bordering Lake Chad) is 28 °C; water subjected to different temperatures exhibit different vapor pressures. The relationship between these two parameters (temperature and vapor pressure) is not linear. Consider the data in the table below, and the graph of the data to the right:

These data can be made to be linear, an effort that is worth it because a linear graph would allow us to predict the vapor pressure at any temperature. These data can be linearized by plotting the ln P_vap on the y-axis and 1/T on the x-axis. Complete the table below, using the data from the table above, but calculate 1/T and ln P_vap. Prepare a graph of the data in the table and embed it in your 1-page report. Using any graphing program (such as Microsoft Excel or Origin) prepare a graph of the data with 1/T on the x-axis and ln P_vap on the y-axis.

Fit the line to a linear-least squares best fit equation. Determine the slope of the line and its intercept. This is important because the equation for the line you have just graphed is:

Report the equation for the line from your graph. For the equation given above, the slope is −ΔH_vap/R, and the intercept is ln β. Use the slope in your graph to report ΔH_vap for water (note, report your actual data – do not simply report a reference value!).

The average temperature for Cameroon (a country bordering Lake Chad) is 28 °C. Using your equation for the line you have just created, use your slope and intercept and T = 28 °C to calculate the vapor pressure of Lake Chad at this elevated temperature.

(3) Your final task is to calculate the vapor pressure of the Red Sea using the following data showing its composition and compare it to the vapor pressure of pure water at 28 °C, which you have just determined in the above graphical analysis. Compare the vapor pressure you calculate for the Red Sea to that of a freshwater lake such as Lake Chad. You may wish to review Raoult's law.

Mineral composition of the Red Sea

Component	g kg^−1
Chloride	19.53
Sodium	10.76
Sulphate	2.72
Magnesium	1.294
Calcium	0.413
Potassium	0.387
Bicarbonate	0.142
Bromide	0.067
Strontium	0.008
Boron	0.004
Fluoride	0.001

Hint: assume you have a 1 kg sample of sea water. Calculate the mass of pure water by subtracting the mass of the impurities and use the mass to calculate the mole fraction of pure water.

In what way does the vapor pressure contribute to the rate of evaporation for both bodies of water?

Acknowledgements

The authors gratefully acknowledge the Orlando Museum of Art and Orange County Regional History Center for hosting hundreds of college freshmen, allowing them to take pictures, and interact with the exhibits.

References

1. Albaum G., (1997), The Likert Scale Revisited: An Alternate Version, J. Market Res. Soc., 39, 331–348.
2. Amey, J., Fletcher M. D., Fletcher R. V., Jones A., Roberts E. W. and Roberts I. O., (2008), Meet the Molecules in Chocolate: Informal Opportunities for Building Thematic Molecular Models with Children, J. Chem. Ed., 85, 1361–1364.
3. Bandura A., (1986), Social Foundations of Thought and Action: A Social Cognitive Theory, Prentice-Hall, Englwood Cliffs.
4. Bell P., Lewenstein B., Shouse A. and Feder M., (2009), Learning Science in Informal Environments: People, Places, and Pursuits, Washington, D.C.: The National Academies Press.
5. Brody M. and Hall R., (2002), Park visitors’ understandings, values and beliefs related to their experience at Midway Geyser Basin, Yellowstone National Park, USA, Int. J. Sci. Educ., 24, 1119–1141.
6. Christian B. N. and Yezierski E. J., (2012), A New Chemistry Education Research Frontier, J. Chem. Educ., 89, 1337–1339.
7. Cohen J., (1988), Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences, USA: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
8. Coll S. and Treagust D., (2015), Using Informal Learning Experiences to Enhance Student Learning Outcomes in Chemistry, in Eilks I. and Hofstein A. (ed.), Relevant Chemistry Education, Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.
9. Dewey J., (1925), Experience and Nature, Baltimore, Maryland: Williams and Wilkins Company.
10. Falk J. H. and Dierkinig L. D., (2010), The 95 Percent Solution, Am. Sci., 98, 486–493.
11. Falk J. H. and Needham M. D., (2011), Measuring the Impact of a Science Center on Its Community, J. Res. Sci. Teach., 48, 1–12.
12. Gerber B. L., Cavallo, A. M. L. and Marek E. A., (2001a), Relationships among informal learning environments, teaching procedures and scientific reasoning ability, Int. J. Sci. Educ., 23, 535–549.
13. Gerber B. L., Marek E. A. and Cavallo A. M. L., (2001b), Development of an informal learning opportunities assay, Int. J. Sci. Educ., 23, 569–583.
14. Glynn S. M., Brickman P., Armstrong N. and Taasoobshirazi G., (2011), Science Motivation Questionnaire II: Validation with Science Majors and Nonscience Majors, J. Res. Sci. Teach., 48, 1159–1176.
15. Graham M. J., Frederick J., Byars-Winston A., Hunter A.-B. and Handelsman J., (2013), Increasing Persistence of College Students in STEM. Science, 341, 1455–1456.
16. Griffin J., (1998), Learning science through practical experiences in museums, Int. J. Sci. Educ., 20, 655–663.
17. Hazari Z., Potvin G., Lock R., Lung F., Sonnert G. and Sadler P. M., (2013), Factors that Affect the Physical Science Career Interest of Female Students: Testing Five Common Hypotheses, Phys. Educ. Res., 9, 020115.
18. Heider E. C., Davis B. G. and Frank E. L., (2004), Nonparametric Determination of Reference Intervals for Plasma Metanephrine and Normetanephrine, Clin. Chem., 50, 2381–2384.
19. Hofstien A. and Rosenfeld S., (1996), Bridging the Gap Between Formal and Informal Science Learning, Stud. Sci. Educ., 28, 87–112.
20. Jarman R., (2005), Science learning through scouting: an understudied context for informal science education, Int. J. Sci. Educ., 27, 427–450.
21. Jones L., (1997), Opening Doors with Informal Science: Exposure and Access for Our Underserved Students, Sci. Educ., 81, 663–677.
22. Kahler E., Rogausch A., Brunner E. and Himmel W., (2008), A Parametric Analysis of Ordinal Quality-of-LIfe Data Can Lead to Erroneous Results, J. Clin. Epidemiol., 61, 475–480.
23. Kerby H. W., Dekorver B. K., Cantor J., Weiland M. J. and Babiarz C. L., (2016), Demonstration Show that Promotes and Assesses Conceptual Understanding Using the Structure of Drama, J. Chem. Educ., 93, 613–618.
24. Lawson A. E., (1995), Science Teaching and the Development of Thinking, Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Company.
25. Maddock M., (1991), Education, Research and Passive Recreation: an Integrated Programme at the Wetlands Centre, Shortland, Int. J. Sci. Educ., 13, 561–568.
26. Michie M., (1998), Factors Influencing Secondary Science Teachers to Organise and Conduct Field Trips, Aus. Sci. Teach. J., 44, 43–50.
27. Miller J. D., (2010), Adult Science Learning in the Internet Era, Curator, 53, 191–208.
28. Moore J. W., (2009), Her Own Fairwest Reward, J. Chem. Educ., 86, 539.
29. Morais C., (2014), Storytelling with Chemistry and Related Hands-On Activities: Informal Learning Experiences To Prevent “Chemophobia” and Promote Young Children's Scientific Literacy, J. Chem. Educ., 92, 58–65.
30. Palm M. J., (2015), Acclaimed artist Maya Lin has first major Florida exhibition in Orlando, Orlando Sentinel.
31. Resnick L. B. (1987), The 1987 Presidential Address: Learning in school and out, Educ. Res., 16, 13–20.
32. Shernoff D. and Vandell D., (2007), Engagement in afterschool program activities: Quality of experiences from the perspective of participants, J. Youth Adolscence, 26, 891–903.
33. Stavrova O. and Urhahne D., (2010), Modification of a School Programme in the Deutsches Museum to Enhance Students' Attitudes and Understanding, Int. J. Sci. Educ., 32, 2291–2310.
34. Steffan L. K., Yarrington J., Berton M. and Sinatra M., (1996), Depicting Chemistry in a Big Way: A Joint Chemistry Club, Art Club Mural Project, Chem. Educ., 1, 1–7.
35. Sullivan G. M. and Artino A. R. J., (2013), Analyzing and Interpreting Data from Likert-Type Scales, J. Med. Educ., 5, 541–542.
36. Suter L. E., (2014), Visiting Science Museums During Middle and High School: A Longitudinal Analysis of Student Performance in Science, Sci. Educ., 98, 815–839.
37. Toven-Lindsey B., Levis-Fitzgerald M., Barber P. H. and Hasson T., (2015), Increasing Persistence of Undergraduate Science Majors: A Model for Institutional Support of Underrepresented Students, CBE-Life Sci. Educ., 14, 1–12.
38. Tulley A. and Lucas A. M., (1991) Interacting with a science museum exhibit: vicarious and direct experience and subsequent understanding, Int. J. Sci. Educ., 13, 533–542.
39. Vandell D. L., Shumow L. and Posner J., (2005), After-school programs for low-income children: Differences in program quality, in Mahoney J. L., Larson R. W. and Eccles, J. S. (ed.), Organized activities as contexts of development: Extracurriculuar activities, and after-school and community programs, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
40. Woolnough B., (1994), Effective Science Teaching, Buckingham: Open University Press.

---