View PDF VersionPrevious ArticleNext Article
 
DOI: 10.1039/D3RP00154G (Paper) Chem. Educ. Res. Pract., 2024, 25, 79-91

Evaluating the level of inquiry in postsecondary instructional laboratory experiments: results of a national survey

Kendall M. Zammit , Megan C. Connor and Jeffrey R. Raker *
Department of Chemistry, University of South Florida, Tampa, Florida 33619, USA. E-mail: jraker@usf.edu

Received 21st June 2023 , Accepted 8th September 2023

First published on 21st September 2023

Abstract

A national survey on chemistry instructional laboratories was administered to faculty members at four-year postsecondary institutions in the United States for the purpose of exploring levels of inquiry-based instruction implemented in laboratory courses. Respondents were asked to rate the level of choice their students had in deciding six key characteristics of the experiments used in their course (e.g., what research questions to explore); the more choices students get to make, the more inquiry-based instructional experience. MANOVA and post hoc analyses suggest that there are differences in the level of inquiry across chemistry course levels; lower-level courses (i.e., general chemistry and organic chemistry) implement lower levels of inquiry-based laboratory instruction compared to upper-level courses (i.e. more chemistry major-focused courses). We found no evidence of association between the level of inquiry courses and institutions’ highest chemistry degree awarded, American Chemical Society approval to award certified bachelors degrees, or external funding to transform postsecondary chemistry courses. Our study contributes to the chemical education community's growing understanding of the state of postsecondary chemistry laboratory instruction. Results further suggest that there is an opportunity for faculty members and department leaders to reflect on their instructional laboratory courses and implement more inquiry-based instructional laboratory experiences across the entirety of the postsecondary chemistry curriculum.

Introduction

Instructional laboratory experiments in postsecondary chemistry courses do not tend to mirror the practice of chemistry. Whereas chemistry is iterative and cyclic, instructional laboratory experiments remain prescriptive and linear. Whereas chemistry is inquiry-based, instructional laboratory experiments often remain confirmatory and replicative (e.g., Weaver et al., 2008; Heemstra et al., 2017; Seery, 2020). There is an inherent mismatch between chemistry practice and instructional laboratories that can begin to be addressed using inquiry-based instructional laboratory experiences.

Goals of the postsecondary instructional laboratory

An overarching pedagogical goal of instructional laboratories is to engage students in the practice of science (Russell and Weaver, 2008; Bruck et al., 2010; Bruck, 2011; Bretz et al., 2013; Bretz, 2019; Santos-Díaz et al., 2019; Connor et al., 2022; Grushow et al., 2022; Connor et al., 2023). More specific outcomes for the instructional laboratory suggest a broad range of cognitive, affective, and psychomotor learning goals (Bloom, 1956) for the postsecondary chemistry laboratory instruction (Bretz et al., 2013; Bruck and Towns, 2013; Santos-Díaz et al., 2019). The instructional laboratory is the central context for students to develop hands-on skills (e.g., assembling experimental apparatus, safely handling and disposing of chemicals, keeping a laboratory notebook, proper use of glassware, preparing solutions, and using chemical instrumentation; Committee on Professional Training, 2015). Educators also hope that learners gain a set of transferable professional skills (e.g., teamwork, time management, independent learning) from their instructional laboratory experiences; students, though, often leave degree programs and institutions lacking the skills educators (and employers) desire (George-Williams et al., 2018).

Survey research studies by Bruck and Towns (2013), and later by Connor et al. (2023), suggest that instructional laboratory goals espoused by chemistry educators vary by course taught (e.g., introductory-level compared to upper-level instructional laboratory courses). Faculty members teaching general chemistry laboratory courses emphasize both cognitive and psychomotor goal domains with specific goals of groupwork, laboratory skills, and connections to lecture (Bruck et al., 2010; Bruck, 2011; Bretz et al., 2013; Bruck and Towns, 2013; DeKorver and Towns, 2015; Galloway et al., 2016). These goals are not the same, however, for faculty members teaching upper-level chemistry courses; the primary goals in this context are focused more on cognitive goals and creating research-like experiences (Bretz et al., 2013; Bruck and Towns, 2013; Connor et al., 2023). The findings from these studies could be extrapolated to conjecture that upper-level chemistry instructional laboratory courses are more inquiry-based, i.e., more akin to chemistry research practice compared to lower-level instructional laboratory courses; such a hypothesis, however, is premised on the notion that the espoused goals of chemistry educators align with their enacted pedagogies.

Students, though, have a different perspective on the purpose of the instructional laboratory (e.g., DeKorver and Towns, 2015, 2016; Galloway et al., 2016; George-Williams et al., 2018; Santos-Díaz et al., 2019). While faculty members emphasize cognitive and psychomotor domain goals, students emphasize affective domain goals (DeKorver and Towns, 2015; Galloway et al., 2016). For example, students want to get out of class early and earn good grades in their instructional laboratory courses, whereas faculty members want students to make connections between lecture and laboratories. When comparing students taking general chemistry courses to students taking upper-level chemistry courses, both groups had similar goals (DeKorver and Towns, 2015, 2016). Even when students are enrolled in courses with inquiry-based laboratory experiences, the students maintain goals of wanting to leave early and note challenges from not receiving what the students believed was enough help from teaching assistants to complete the laboratory experience (George-Williams et al., 2018). The goals for an instructional laboratory course should be clearly and repeatedly communicated to students; goals of importance and relevance for each course period should be highlighted to ensure students understand what is expected both in terms of content and skills learning.

The American Chemical Society's (ACS's) Committee on Professional Training (CPT, 2015) regard instructional laboratories as a vital setting for inquiry-based instruction. Instructional laboratories are a key context for adopting a construction of knowledge approach to teaching and learning, as compared to a more transmission of knowledge approach. ACS CPT (2015) has challenged institutions to engage students in learning laboratory skills as well as skills that can be used outside of the laboratory. The approval requirements set forth by the CPT imply that such a curriculum and desired outcomes make ACS approved programs and the certified degrees awarded distinct from non-approved programs; however, prior research (e.g., Apkarian et al., 2021; Connor et al., 2022; Connor and Raker, 2022; Gibbons et al., 2022; Raker et al., 2022) has repeatedly found no evidence of differences in instructional practices between ACS approved programs and programs not approved by ACS. There is reason, though, to still conjecture that with the desired emphasis on laboratory work by ACS CPT, that a difference should be observed between approved and non-approved programs enacting inquiry-based laboratory instruction.

Inquiry-based instruction

The instructional laboratory presents a key context for introducing the practice of chemistry to learners, i.e. how and why chemists do what they do. The activities educators have students engage in during instructional laboratory courses, though, are very different from the practice of chemistry; students are often asked to complete “cookbook” style laboratory experiments with little freedom to experiment or engage in inquiry as chemists do (Weaver et al., 2008). Chemical research, however, is ill-defined compared to the highly structured and predictable laboratory experiments in our courses. Chemical research generates new knowledge, whereas our instructional laboratory experiments typically confirm already discovered knowledge. Between these two extremes (i.e., ‘research’ and ‘confirmation’) lies an inquiry-based approach to instruction that has elements of both that results in a practical and pragmatic pedagogy for instructional laboratory courses (Wink and Weaver, 2008).

A generally accepted single definition of ‘inquiry-based instruction’ does not exist; the way in which inquiry is defined is nearly study dependent (e.g., Anderson, 2002; Leonard and Penick, 2009; Capps et al., 2012; Furtak et al., 2012). This, however, may be a feature rather a flaw when it comes to determining what is and what is not inquiry-based instruction. Noting the big ideas and aspects of inquiry-based instruction is a more fruitful way to characterize the pedagogical approach:

First, inquiry is about “doing science;” it is an open-ended, active experience that strongly contrasts with a transmission of knowledge approach akin to lecturing (Colburn, 2000). Learners in inquiry-focused learning environments are encouraged to ask research questions, develop and conduct experiments, analyze data, and communicate results (Committee on Professional Training, 2015).

Second, inquiry lies between repeating a procedure (i.e., confirmation) and generating new knowledge (i.e., research; Brown et al., 2006). As the level of inquiry approaches research, laboratory instruction more so mirrors the practice of science (Central Association for Science and Mathematics Teachers, 1907; Lederman, 2007; Russell and Weaver, 2011).

It is impractical and pedagogically inappropriate to suggest that all instructional laboratory experiences should be research-like; learners need to learn basic skills such as handling glassware and conducting chemical tests before applying those skills and knowledge to the discovery process. Nevertheless, most instructional laboratory experiences have components that could be transformed into more inquiry-based components. This can be as simple as providing a sample procedure for the experiment to build methodological skills; and, then asking students to modify the method to further conduct the study or to invite students to develop scientific justifications that require students to draw upon their own knowledge (Pavelich and Abraham, 1979; Hosbein and Walker, 2022). Creating more project-based experiences has the potential to create environments where students feel safe to fail and make mistakes (Burrows et al., 2017). Thus, small changes to a given instructional laboratory experiment could have the potential to create a more inquiry-based experience (Allen et al., 1986; Polacek and Keeling, 2005).

As learners move on to more upper-level chemistry classes where course enrollments are much smaller, it is easier for educators to provide instructional laboratory experiences that provide greater opportunities for learners to be more involved making decisions regarding their experience. These decisions, for example, could be how to communicate and analyze results, what procedures are completed, or what is the overall question they would like to investigate. Laboratory experiences could focus on new and influential chemistry published in peer-reviewed articles; students could engage with the research literature to develop procedures for yet unknown discoveries to be sought through their instructional laboratory time. We recognize that it is much easier to manage a course with 30 students with each having a more individualized, unique experience as compared to a large enrollment course (e.g., general chemistry) where managing 100 to 2000+ students each engaged in different experiences is nearly impossible even with a large teaching staff (including teaching assistants). (The specific enrollment numbers in our example are reflective of larger institutions; however, the small enrollment versus large enrollment courses argument is relative and can be extrapolated to any institutional size.) Whether inquiry-focused instruction is differently realized in upper-level versus lower-level instructional laboratory courses is unclear.

Inquiry-based instructional chemistry laboratory courses

The Journal of Chemical Education, The Chemical Educator, and other journals, for example, regularly publish inquiry-based, inquiry-focused, pseudo-research, etc. instructional laboratory experiments. There are whole communities of practice and externally funded initiatives focused on developing inquiry-based laboratory activities: e.g., the Process-Oriented Guided Inquiry Learning (POGIL) Physical Chemistry Laboratory (PCL) project (Hunnicutt et al., 2015; Grushow et al., 2021). Course-based research experiences are another avenue for implementing inquiry-based instructional laboratory experiences; these experiences often have the feature of contributing directly to publishable research or at minimum exploring research questions for which an answer is not yet known (Auchincloss et al., 2014). Reports of these efforts, though, are often focused on single laboratory experiences and do not capture the prevalence of such experiences across in the postsecondary chemistry curriculum. Project-based laboratory experiences are yet another way for incorporating a more inquiry-based approach to laboratory instruction (e.g., Mellon, 1978; Polymer Core Course Committee in General Chemistry, 1983; Kroll, 1985; Deal and Hurst, 1997; Craig, 1999; Kalivas, 2008; Yang and Li, 2009; Kiefer et al., 2012; Bliss and Reid, 2013; Graham et al., 2014; MacKay and Wetzel, 2014; Slade et al., 2014; Marchetti and DeBoef, 2015; Pontrello, 2015; Raydo et al., 2015; Mistry et al., 2016). Project-based laboratories are structured as multiweek experiences where learners have decision points about the experiment and opportunities to fill in procedures of the experiment (e.g., Cummins et al., 2004; Slade et al., 2014; Burrows et al., 2017); project-based experiences are a further step on the continuum towards a more research-like instructional laboratory experience. Project-based laboratories allow for inquiry to thrive in a more controlled and structured experience for students.

External funding provides resources for institutions and departments to develop and implement experiences focused on increasing the level of inquiry in their instructional laboratory courses; monies can support, for example, hiring new faculty members and staff to assist with development and implementation or to purchase necessary laboratory equipment, instrumentation, and chemicals to implement the new or adopted curricula. Funding has the potential to catalyze and sustain course transformations; however, funding appears to be insufficient for long term, sustained change (Apkarian et al., 2021; Connor et al., 2022; Connor and Raker, 2022; Gibbons et al., 2022; Raker et al., 2022).

For institutions with graduate student teaching assistants (TAs), implementing an inquiry-based instructional laboratory experiences requires TA buy-in and involvement (e.g., Sandi-Urena and Gatlin, 2012). Teaching using inquiry-based pedagogies is different from the cookbook laboratory experiences many TAs experienced when completing their undergraduate instructional laboratory coursework (Herrington and Nakhleh, 2003; Kurdziel et al., 2003). TAs often prefer to teach the same way they learned, making training and support needed for these TAs vital to successful learning experiences (Linenberger et al., 2014; Wheeler et al., 2015).

The inquiry level of a given instructional laboratory experience (or set of experiences) has been the purview of multiple studies (Cummins et al., 2004; Hofstein, 2004; Bruck et al., 2008). Bruck, Bretz, and Towns (2008), for example, developed a rubric for evaluating the level of inquiry for experiments based on whether a student had the autonomy to determine for themselves one or more of six characteristics: problem/question, theory/background, procedures/design, results analysis, results communication, conclusions. Based on what was prescribed to the students, an instructional laboratory activity was characterized at one of five levels: confirmation (Level 0, the lowest level of inquiry, akin to “cookbook” laboratories), structured inquiry (Level ½), guided inquiry (Level 1), open inquiry (Level 2), and authentic inquiry (Level 3, the highest level of inquiry, akin to authentic research). When applying the rubric to an array of science instructional laboratory manuals, Bruck et al. found that most of the laboratory experiments were at a confirmatory or structured level, i.e., the two lowest levels of inquiry. It should be noted, though, that only general chemistry and organic chemistry instructional laboratory manuals were evaluated as chemistry courses in their study.

While it might be easy to quickly extrapolate Bruck et al. (2008) findings to the whole of the chemistry curriculum, we anecdotally know that innovation is locally happening beyond published instructional laboratory manuals; thus, Bruck, Bretz, and Towns’ results may not be indicative of enacted practices across the entire postsecondary chemistry curriculum. For instance, it is known that many institutions utilize self-published laboratory manuals; these self-published texts, though, may not reflect large-scale published texts. In other words, we lack a good measure of the inquiry level of instructional chemistry laboratory experiences across the whole of the postsecondary chemistry curriculum.

Summary

Overall, there is a lack of understanding of how prevalent inquiry-based laboratory experiments are in postsecondary chemistry curriculum and how that prevalence differs by subdiscipline (e.g., organic chemistry versus analytical chemistry). Furthermore, there is a lack of understanding of how access to research (and thus research resources) is related to incorporation of more inquiry-based laboratory experiences in the instructional curriculum, how policy (e.g., accreditation standards) influence adoption of more inquiry-based instructional laboratory experiences, how resources (e.g., external funding) influence adoption of more inquiry-based instructional laboratory experiences. There are accounts of characterizing the level of inquiry of specific laboratory experiments or of the whole of specific courses. Additionally, there are small-scale qualitative studies that highlight course disciplinary differences, funding differences, etc. However, the postsecondary chemical education community lacks a large-scale national survey that considers the prevalence of inquiry-based instructional laboratory experiments in the curriculum and how that prevalence varies by context. Our study herein begins to address these missing areas of understanding.

Research questions

Our study is guided by two research questions:

1. How prevalent are characteristics of inquiry-based instruction in instructors’ evaluation of instructional laboratory experiences in their postsecondary chemistry courses?

2. How does the prevalence of these characteristics differ by course (e.g., general chemistry or physical chemistry), an institution's highest chemistry degree awarded (i.e., bachelor's degree or graduate degree), an institution's approval to award ACS certified bachelors-level chemistry degrees, and an educator's receipt of funding (internal or external) to improve chemistry courses?

Methods

This study explores the level of inquiry-based instruction enacted in chemistry laboratory courses taught by faculty members at four-year institutions within the United States where at least one chemistry bachelor's degree was awarded in the five years of available data prior to the survey (2014–2019). Data were collected in Spring 2022. The study was approved by the University of South Florida's Institutional Review Board on October 6, 2021 (Application STUDY003351). Institutions were identified using the Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS). A total of 1143 institutions met our criterion; 13[thin space (1/6-em)]897 faculty members in chemistry departments were identified from 1038 of those institutions. Institutions that did not have associated faculty members identified (n = 105) either did not have publicly available faculty member email lists or email addresses were not available for listed faculty members. All identified faculty members were invited to participate in the survey. The survey was distributed through Qualtrics over a three-week period, with two reminder emails sent to faculty members who had not completed the survey. Of those that were sent the survey, 1189 faculty members (8.6%) consented to participate. This response rate is comparable to analogous surveys targeting our population of interest (Apkarian et al., 2021; Connor et al., 2022; Connor and Raker, 2022; Gibbons et al., 2022; Raker et al., 2022; Yik et al., 2022a, 2022b; Connor et al., 2023).

The focus of our study is on faculty members’ evaluation of the level of inquiry for the experiments enacted in an instructional laboratory chemistry course or a chemistry course that included an instructional laboratory component they have taught in the last three years. From the respondents, 516 noted that they had taught such a course. For these courses, 50.4% are from public institutions and 49.6% from private institutions; other demographics will be reported when addressing Research Question 2. Our results are thus focused on the data collected about these 516 courses.

The key survey item for our study is a modification and reinterpretation of an instrument developed by Bruck et al. (2008) to evaluate the level of inquiry for individual instructional laboratory experiments in the postsecondary STEM education curriculum. This item was previously used in a study by Raker et al. (2022). Given the practical considerations of an online survey at our national level of analysis, the Bruck et al. (2008) instrument was modified by Raker et al. (2022) to focus on the percentage of experiments in each instructional laboratory course that allowed students to choose, look up, or determine each characteristic of inquiry-based instruction (see Fig. 1). The survey item is focused on all experiments within a given course; this is different from the Bruck et al. (2008) instrument that was focused on evaluating individual experiments. Data were collected via a slider bar with whole number increments from 0% to 100%.


image file: d3rp00154g-f1.tif
Fig. 1 Survey item for measuring percentage of inquiry characteristics for all experiments in a given instructional laboratory course.

Course description was coded by authors MCC and JRR using the course name given by faculty respondents (e.g., ‘chemical principles and applications’ was coded as general chemistry and ‘instrumental analysis’ was coded as analytical chemistry). Categories were discussed until 100% agreement was achieved. Total counts for each are: 163 general chemistry courses, 122 organic chemistry courses, 92 analytical chemistry courses, 43 physical chemistry courses, 48 inorganic chemistry courses, 35 biochemistry courses, and 13 capstone courses. Note: “capstone” refers to multi-disciplinary courses and special topic courses enrolled by students in the final terms of their bachelor's degree.

Highest chemistry degree awarded is an embedded demographic variable. Respondents are designated as a “graduate” when the highest chemistry degree awarded in the last five years per IPEDS data was one or more masters or doctoral degrees; all other respondents are designated as “undergraduate” as the highest chemistry degree awarded.

Approval to award ACS certified degrees is an additional embedded demographic available. This designation is based on the publicly available list of institutions approved to award ACS certified degrees (Committee on Professional Training, 2023).

Respondents were asked about funding (either internal or external) they had received for improving undergraduate education in the 5 years prior to the survey. Respondents are designated as “yes” if one or more funding sources (e.g., National Science Foundation grant, internal course transformation award) had been received.

To address Research Question 1, descriptive statistics are reported. These include mean, standard deviation, skewness, and kurtosis. Analyses for this and Research Question 2 are conducted using IBM SPSS Statistics (Version 29; IBM Corp, 2021).

To address Research Question 2, data are analyzed with a MANOVA for each grouping variable of interest (i.e., course discipline, highest chemistry degree awarded, ACS approval, and funding of course improvement) followed by post hoc ANOVA and Tukey Tests (Tukey, 1949), as appropriate to identify pairwise differences (Sheskin, 2020). MANOVA assumptions are evaluated by grouping variable including Box's test of equality and Levene's test (Sheskin, 2020). For most tests, violations of assumptions are reported in the Results & discussion below; however, due to the large sample size for these tests (n = 516), results of the MANOVA can be reasonably interpreted, but overinterpretation is cautioned (see Wilks, 1938). Similarly, ANOVA assumptions are evaluated by grouping variable including homogeneity of variance and normality (Eisenhart, 1947). Violations are reported in the Results & discussion below; again, given the sample size, interpretations are valid and appropriate, but overinterpretation is cautioned (see Fisher, 1919). To reduce the likelihood of spurious results, Bonferroni corrections (Dunn, 1961) were applied to alpha based on the number of groups by variable (Sheskin, 2020); for example, six disciplines were evaluated, thus the alpha value used is 0.05/6 = 0.008.

Results & discussion

Chemistry faculty members (i.e., our respondents) at four-year institutions in the United States evaluated the percentage of laboratory experiments for their postsecondary instructional laboratory course where students engaged in six characteristics associated with increasing levels of inquiry-based instruction. Overall, percentages of engagement with the six characteristics mirror those of evaluations of individual STEM laboratory experiments (Bruck et al., 2008) and also mirror those of inorganic chemistry instructional laboratory courses (Raker et al., 2022) as evaluated in an analogous survey study to ours herein. Differences by course discipline are observed (e.g., analytical chemistry versus biochemistry); however, there is no evidence to suggest differences by highest chemistry degree awarded, ACS approval to award certified bachelor's degrees, or receipt of funding to improve chemistry courses.

Research Question 1: How prevalent are characteristics of inquiry-based instruction in instructors’ evaluation of instructional laboratory experiences in their postsecondary chemistry courses?

With one exception, higher percentages of experiments were reported where students engage in low-level inquiry activities (e.g., choosing how to communicate results) than engage in high-level inquiry activities (e.g., choosing the problem to be investigated).

Descriptive statistics are reported in Table 1 for the percentage of the six inquiry characteristics of experiments conducted by students in our respondents’ instructional laboratory courses. With the exception of “Research” (i.e., students “look up/research the theory or background behind the investigation”), the percentage of experiments where students engage in each inquiry activity decreases from low-inquiry activities (i.e., “Interpret”) to high-inquiry activities (i.e., “Problem”).

Table 1 Descriptive statistics of all courses
Interpret Communicate Analyze Procedure Research Problem
→ Increasing level of inquiry →
Note: Interpret = “determine/interpret the conclusions for the experiment”; Communicate = “choose how to communicate their results/conclusions”; Analyze = “choose how to analyze their results”; Procedure = “choose what procedures/designs to use to investigate the problem”; Research = “look up/research the theory or background behind the investigation”; Problem = “choose the problem or question to be investigated” (Bruck et al., 2008).
Mean 87 33 32 18 42 14
SD 24 36 35 26 38 24
Skewness −1.96 0.76 0.81 1.75 0.45 2.17
Kurtosis 3.00 −0.87 −0.71 2.44 −1.34 4.39

Bruck et al. (2008) found a similar trend when evaluating individual experiments in laboratory manuals for an array of STEM disciplines. While levels of inquiry for individual experiences as denoted by Bruck et al. (2008) were not assigned in our study, lower percentages of high-level inquiry characteristics mirror those found by Bruck et al. (2008); it should be noted that Bruck et al. (2008) exclusively reviewed general chemistry and organic chemistry laboratory experiments. The results of our study, then, provide additional evidence for the lack of inquiry-based activities across the entire postsecondary instructional laboratory chemistry curriculum. Our results suggest that students are generally experiencing more confirmation type experiments compared to inquiry-based experiments in their instructional laboratory courses. It should be noted that the large standard deviations of characteristics suggest a wide range of instructional experiences; thus, while our characterized tendency is towards more confirmation type experiences, the range of the data suggest that more inquiry-based experience are happening, however in small numbers.

Our results are also analogous to those reported by Raker et al. (2022) in their context of inorganic chemistry instructional laboratory experiments; this is particularly key in comparison to the “Research” characteristic: respondents in our survey also reported a larger than expected percentage of laboratory experiments where students “look up/research the theory or background behind the investigation.” Raker et al. (2022) hypothesized that this finding was due to the focus on using the primary literature in upper-level chemistry courses such as the inorganic chemistry course for which their survey was the target. However, given the persistence of this trend in the broader sample reported herein, we have evidence to consider an alternative hypothesis and possible future research initiative: It is possible that the survey item as used in our study (and the study by Raker et al., 2022) does not capture the characteristic as intended by Bruck et al. (2008). In other words, ‘looking up and researching theory or background for a given laboratory experiment’ may be interpreted differently by respondents. The intent was to measure if students had to engage with research literature to support the student's laboratory experiment, though respondents could also interpret this item as referring to engagement with any theory or background information, such as that provided in a laboratory manual. As noted in our Limitations and Implications for Research, further exploration, possibly via a response-process validity study, is needed to better understand the interpretation of the survey item by respondents, explanation of our observed trend and that of Raker et al. (2022), and how to best measure the characteristic with a survey item.

Research Question 2: How does the prevalence of these characteristics differ by course (e.g., general chemistry or physical chemistry), institutions’ highest chemistry degree awarded (i.e., bachelor's degree or graduate degree), approval for institutions to award ACS Certified bachelors-level chemistry degrees, and receipt of funding (internal or external) to improve chemistry courses?

Differences in percentage of each inquiry characteristic are observed between chemistry subdisciplines (e.g., general chemistry versus analytical chemistry); no evidence of differences are observed by highest chemistry degree awarded, ACS approval to award certified bachelor's degrees, or receipt of funding to improve chemistry courses.

Course subdiscipline (e.g., biochemistry, analytical chemistry)

Descriptive statistics for the percentage of the six inquiry characteristics of experiments conducted by students in our respondents’ instructional laboratory courses by subdiscipline are reported in Table 2. For our study, “Capstone” refers to multi-disciplinary courses and special topic courses enrolled by students in the final terms of their bachelor's degree. As with the overall results (see Research Question 1), the percentage of experiments where students engage in each inquiry activity decreases from low-inquiry activities to high-inquiry activities. Again, a higher percentage of experiments where students “look up/research the theory or background behind the investigation” is observed for all disciplines. Table 2 as well, includes large standard deviations again highlighting the wide range of enacted experiences in instructional laboratories.
Table 2 Descriptive statistics by course discipline
n Interpret Communicate Analyze Procedure Research Problem
→ Increasing level of inquiry →
Mean(sd) Skew Kurt Mean(sd) Skew Kurt Mean(sd) Skew Kurt Mean(sd) Skew Kurt Mean(sd) Skew Kurt Mean(sd) Skew Kurt
General 163 79(30) 0.20 −1.24 25(34) 0.11 1.23 23(31) 0.67 1.37 14(24) 5.19 2.34 24(32) 0.51 1.37 9(20) 10.93 3.23
Organic 122 92(17) 9.72 −2.87 32(37) −0.92 0.76 32(37) −0.91 0.80 14(23) 4.53 2.20 40(36) −1.21 0.52 12(23) 5.39 2.42
Analytical 92 88(22) 3.17 −1.97 37(36) −1.08 0.54 40(37) −1.19 0.51 26(30) 0.73 1.32 49(36) −1.42 0.22 23(27) 2.04 1.57
Physical 43 94(18) 15.41 −3.82 43(38) −1.31 0.40 39(32) −0.46 0.89 29(29) 0.86 1.20 62(35) −1.50 −0.28 15(21) 2.40 1.64
Inorganic 48 88(21) 6.37 −2.34 33(38) −0.90 0.80 35(34) −0.81 0.68 16(21) 1.93 1.56 53(38) −1.61 0.07 12(19) 9.36 2.73
Biochemistry 35 91(21) 6.34 −2.63 45(36) −1.29 0.13 41(31) −1.26 0.30 22(26) 1.57 1.38 66(34) −1.59 −0.31 22(31) 0.58 1.34
Capstone 13 84(25) 2.06 −1.55 34(34) 0.27 1.08 44(29) −0.01 0.21 29(23) −1.10 0.45 57(35) −1.88 0.22 22(23) −0.27 0.79

A MANOVA test indicates an association between inquiry characteristic and course: Wilks’ Λ = 0.772, F(36, 2216) = 3.732, p < 0.001, partial η2 = 0.042 (small-medium effect size). Post hoc ANOVA and Tukey HSD tests for each of the characteristics are reported in Table 3. MANOVA assumptions were tested with few violations: in particular, normality was not observed. Specifically, Box's test and Levene's test both yielded significant results (p < 0.05). Despite these violations, which reflect the interrelationship between the six inquiry characteristics, the results are appropriately reported and overinterpretation is cautioned.

Table 3 ANOVA and Tukey test results for the six inquiry characteristics by course subdiscipline
Inquiry characteristic F(6, 509) Tukey HSD Testa
a Only significant differences are reported (p < 0.05).*p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001.
Interpret 5.286 *** General-organic***
General-analytical*
General-physical**
Communicate 2.717 * —-
Analyze 3.818 *** General-analytical**
Procedure 4.668 *** General-analytical**
General-physical*
Organic-analytical*
Organic-physical*
Research 14.584 *** General-organic**
General-analytical***
General-physical***
General-inorganic***
General-biochemistry***
General-capstone*
Organic-physical**
Organic-biochemistry**
Problem 4.752 *** General-analytical***
General-biochemistry*
Organic-analytical*

Most observed pairwise differences are between general chemistry and the other chemistry disciplines; at the same time, there are a handful of noteworthy differences between organic chemistry and the other chemistry disciplines. These results suggest that the level of inquiry found in general chemistry and organic chemistry (i.e., lower-level chemistry courses) instructional laboratory courses are at a differing level of inquiry compared to upper-level chemistry courses and that laboratory experiments used in general chemistry and organic chemistry courses are distinctly at lower levels of inquiry compared to upper-level chemistry courses. The level of inquiry of instructional laboratory experiments increases as a student progresses on to higher level courses. This might be expected based on an idealized curriculum: courses that are predominately focused on students majoring in chemistry (i.e., upper-level courses) should most mirror the practice of chemistry. Inquiry-based laboratory experiments, though, are possible and should be an essential component for all courses.

Connor et al. (2023) also found differences between lower-level and upper-level courses; in their study, faculty members teaching upper-level courses emphasized instructional goals related to research experiences, data collection, and data analysis, compared to faculty members teaching lower-level courses. This finding by Connor et al. corroborates our findings that more inquiry-based instruction is occurring in upper-level chemistry courses compared to lower-level chemistry courses. In other words, faculty members are at least self-reporting that they are enacting pedagogies congruent with their espoused goals. Nevertheless, our findings imply that there is further course transformation possible to adopt a more inquiry-based instructional laboratory pedagogical approach.

Highest chemistry degree awarded at the institution

Evidence was not found to support a difference between the six inquiry characteristics and highest chemistry degree awarded by an institution (i.e., bachelors or graduate): Wilks’ Λ = 0.990, F(6, 509) = 0.870, p = 0.517, partial η2 = 0.010 (small effect size). Descriptive statistics by highest chemistry degree awarded are reported in Table 4.
Table 4 Descriptive statistics by highest chemistry degree awarded, ACS approval to award certified degrees, and receipt of funding to improve chemistry courses
n Interpret Communicate Analyze Procedure Research Problem
→ Increasing level of inquiry →
Mean(sd) Skew Kurt Mean(sd) Skew Kurt Mean(sd) Skew Kurt Mean(sd) Skew Kurt Mean(sd) Skew Kurt Mean(sd) Skew Kurt
Bachelors degrees 359 86(25) −1.86 2.61 32(36) 0.81 −0.74 32(34) 0.87 −0.59 19(25) 1.80 2.76 40(37) 0.50 −1.25 15(23) 2.19 4.60
Graduate degrees 157 89(22) −2.24 4.21 35(38) 0.66 −1.12 34(36) 0.70 −0.94 17(27) 1.67 1.95 44(39) 0.35 −1.52 13(24) 2.16 4.13
ACS approval 403 84(29) −1.96 3.11 32(36) 0.74 −0.90 33(37) 0.82 −0.63 17(25) 1.65 2.10 41(37) 0.45 −1.34 15(25) 2.17 4.41
No ACS approval 113 86(22) −1.81 2.00 33(36) 0.85 −0.71 32(34) 0.80 −0.96 19(26) 2.15 4.12 42(38) 0.45 −1.34 14(23) 2.21 4.50
Receipt of funding 236 88(22) −2.23 4.60 35(36) 0.71 −0.93 35(34) 0.66 −0.91 21(26) 1.43 1.35 45(37) 0.34 −1.41 15(22) 2.00 3.87
No receipt of funding 280 86(25) −1.78 2.08 31(36) 0.82 −0.80 30(35) 0.96 −0.47 16(25) 2.08 3.85 39(38) 0.56 −1.24 13(25) 2.29 4.62

Access to “research” ought to be indicative of opportunity. Thus, we might assume more inquiry-based instruction or more research-like instruction should occur at institutions with higher research activity. Our results do not suggest this. This may point to a need to train and gain buy-in from multiple people including colleagues, support staff, and teaching assistants that may be hindering such implementation.

At the same time, faculty members at predominately undergraduate institutions (PUIs) who are engaging in research have an opportunity to realize their research through course-based research experiences. Additionally, laboratory educators in PUI settings have graduate degrees with firsthand experience conducting chemistry research; thus, one could hypothesize that the needed level of experience to mentor students through inquiry-based experiences is as present as possible in such instructional laboratory contexts. Our results, though, do not suggest any disproportionate amount of inquiry-based laboratory instruction at institutions granting only bachelor's degrees in chemistry.

It is important to note that this finding, and all our findings, are at the group level. Especially given our discussion of the findings in this section, it is important to note that we are not saying that individual faculty members are not engaged in such instruction or that they are not implementing such pedagogies effectively. There is evidence to suggest that great work is being done (e.g., Hofstein et al., 2001; Hofstein, 2004; Hofstein et al., 2005; Hammond et al., 2007; Ferreira et al., 2022). We are concluding, nonetheless, that at four-year institutions that award chemistry degrees in the United States, there is little overall implementation of inquiry-based laboratory instruction.

ACS approval to award certified bachelor's degrees

Evidence was not found to support a difference between the six inquiry characteristics and ACS approval to award certified bachelor's degrees: Wilks’ Λ = 0.992, F(6, 509) = 0.654, p = 0.687, partial η2 = 0.008 (negligible effect size). Descriptive statistics by ACS approval are reported in Table 4.

Institutions approved to award ACS certified bachelors chemistry degrees, based on the 2015 ACS CPT guidelines, are required to have students experience 400 or more laboratory hours across a student's degree experience (Committee on Professional Training, 2015). Institutions with ACS approval have unique opportunities to engage students in inquiry-based instruction, including project-based curricula, CUREs, etc. The ACS CPT guidelines, as well, suggest that such pedagogies are desirable for promoting the kind of learning expected of students enrolled in approved programs (Committee on Professional Training, 2015).

The enactment of inquiry between institutions with ACS approval and those without approval showed no evidence of a difference. In other words, our results show no evidence that approval was associated with, what we might expect to be, higher levels of inquiry-based instruction in the laboratory. This finding, thus, may give cause to the ACS CPT and other policy makers to consider if more explicit expectations for inquiry-based instructional laboratory experiences are necessary in their approval processes and guideline documents giving departments clearer guidance on the enactment of inquiry. A future study would need to be conducted to determine if new guidelines published by ACS CPT in 2023 show differences as our study herein was completed with the 2015 guidelines still in place.

Receipt of funding to improve chemistry courses

Evidence was not found to support a difference between the six inquiry characteristics and receipt of funding to improve chemistry courses: Wilks’ Λ = 0.985, F(6, 509) = 1.320, p = 0.246, partial η2 = 0.015 (small effect size). Descriptive statistics by receipt of funding are reported in Table 4.

Funding can be a strong driver for course and program transformation. We see this enacted in the request for proposal documents from the National Science Foundation and analogous funding agencies, where change, growth, and transformation are required outcomes. Bruck et al. (2010) found through an interview-based study that faculty goals for the instructional laboratory differed by those who had received funding to support course transformations compared to those that had not; in a follow-up national survey study, Bruck and Towns (2013) corroborated the qualitative results with varying levels of quantitative differences in the goals espoused by faculty members teaching instructional laboratory courses and prior receipt of funding for course transformation. Our results, however, serve to contrast with these prior studies; we did not find differences in our measures based on funding for course transformation. This may lead to questions then of the assumptions placed on faculty members seeking funding for laboratory course transformation for how money is being used and how faculty choose to transform the instructional curricula. We acknowledge that the funding survey item was not specific towards transformation of the particular laboratory course for which the respondent focused their other responses; nevertheless, a similar survey item and assumption was made in studies where funding was found to be associated with differences (Abraham, 2005; Bruck, 2011; Bruck and Towns, 2013; Connor and Raker, 2022; Raker et al., 2022; Connor et al., 2023).

Summary of Research Question 2 findings

The results of Research Question 2 support disciplinary differences between the prevalence of inquiry-based instructional laboratory experiences in lower-level (i.e., general chemistry and organic chemistry) compared to upper-level courses. Our results corroborate other analyses of the chemistry curriculum and reinforce the lower-level/higher-level disparity in the chemistry curriculum and enacted pedagogies (e.g., Connor et al., 2023).

Additionally, we found no evidence to suggest differences in enacted inquiry in instructional laboratory courses by highest chemistry degree awarded, ACS approval to award certified bachelor's degrees, or receipt of funding to improve chemistry courses. Our findings challenge and add nuance to existing research on the postsecondary chemistry instructional laboratory curriculum. In particular, should courses offered as part of ACS-approved bachelor's degree programs be required to enact more inquiry-based, science-like pedagogies? Can we assume that faculty members who have received monies to develop, implement, and sustain course transformations demonstrate innovation in all their courses?

Implications for instruction

We highlight two key implications for instruction based on the findings of our study: First, our results serve as a point of reflection for those enacting and making decisions about instructional laboratory courses. Second, the results also serve as a point of reflection for those responsible for the development and overall evaluation of the postsecondary chemistry curriculum.

External reference points, such as the results of our study, provide an opportunity for individual faculty members to reflect on the instructional practices enacted in their courses. The work presented herein adds to a series of studies characterizing the postsecondary chemistry curriculum (Kroll, 1985; Craig, 1999; Kurdziel et al., 2003; Bruck et al., 2010; Russell and Weaver, 2011; Sandi-Urena and Gatlin, 2012; DeKorver and Towns, 2015; George-Williams et al., 2018; Connor et al., 2022; Connor and Raker, 2022; Raker et al., 2022; Connor et al., 2023). For this particular study, our focus is on the level of inquiry-based laboratory instruction. While we assert that more inquiry-based instruction is important for meaningful learning and development of science practice skills, it is equally important for faculty members to evaluate what instructional methods best serve the students in their courses. For example, the average percentages of each of the six inquiry characteristics could serve as a goal when reflecting on a revising laboratory course. An organic instructor, for example, could look at their own instructional laboratory and determine if they fall above, below, or with the national average of other organic instructional laboratories. The percentages could also serve to evaluate the distinction of a course, for example, where the six inquiry characteristics are enacted far above the averages reported in our results. We hesitate to declare a goal or minimum level of inquiry level for chemistry courses; however, we do argue that routine, purposeful reflection on instructional practices should be central to quality laboratory instruction. Our results provide a point for that reflection.

While the focus of pedagogical implementation research is on individual courses and faculty members, each chemistry course exists in departments where learning outcomes beyond a single course are envisioned. We have noted that the level of inquiry enacted in instructional laboratory courses appears to increase from lower-level to upper-level courses; general chemistry and organic chemistry courses appear to differ from more chemistry major-centric courses such as analytical chemistry or physical chemistry. From a curriculum development perspective, these results may confirm an idealized structure of the curriculum. At the same time, more inquiry-based instruction may be desired across the entire postsecondary curriculum. Thus, department leaders might consider surveying courses within their program to identify opportunities for growth in adopting more inquiry-based instructional practices or points of pride in their enacted curricula.

Student-level data were not collected as part of our study; however, there is a strong body of research that provides evidence of the benefit in enacting inquiry-based instruction, both in instructional laboratory courses and lecture-based courses (e.g.Herrington and Nakhleh, 2003; Russell and Weaver, 2008; Russell and Weaver, 2011; Burrows et al., 2017; Santos-Díaz et al., 2019; Hosbein and Walker, 2022). Learning benefits extend beyond content and include interest, motivation, and overall science literacy, for example (Lederman, 2007; Furtak et al., 2012; Santos-Díaz et al., 2019). There are real inhibitors to (and promoters of) inquiry-based instruction that must be realized (e.g.Kurdziel et al., 2003; Polacek and Keeling, 2005; Leonard and Penick, 2009; Russell and Weaver, 2011; Linenberger et al., 2014); nevertheless, the overall learning gains that result from such instruction are an incentive to considering how such instruction could be enacted for a given course and degree program.

Limitations and implications for research

We offer two key limitations that simultaneously serve as launching points for further research: first, stronger quality measures of inquiry-based laboratory instruction implementation are needed. Second, clearer understanding of factors associated with enactment of inquiry-based laboratory instruction are needed.

As noted in our Results and discussion, one of the dimensions of our measure (i.e., “Research”) is not functioning as intended. Our results corroborate those of Raker et al. (2022), but challenge a claim by Raker et al. as to their observed trend; it is more likely that the survey item is not measuring what is intended. There is an opportunity for a full response-process validity study of the item to better understand how respondents coming to their answer; and, an opportunity for researchers to modify or rewrite the item to better capture the intent of Bruck et al. (2008) inquiry rubric. Such a response-process validity study also opens the possibility for an investigation into faculty members view of inquiry, inquiry-based instruction, and implementation of inquiry-based instruction in laboratory courses. Do faculty members, for example, conceptualize inquiry as presented in our study and as operationalized by Bruck et al. (2008) in their inquiry rubric? Are the goals for lower-level instructional laboratory courses viewed by faculty members writ large antithetical to adoption of inquiry-based pedagogies? Why are faculty members enacting or not enacting more inquiry-based experiences in chemistry instructional laboratory courses?

Also, in the realm of quality measures of inquiry-based instruction implementation, more programmatic-level evaluations of individual laboratory experiences should be made. Studies of this nature are likely routinely occurring, yet not necessarily making it into formal dissemination channels such as this Journal, the Journal of Chemical Education, etc. Case studies of such work should be encouraged from which the chemical education community can reflect on the strengths and weaknesses of their local instructional laboratory curriculum. The ACS CPT (2023), for example, in their recently published 2023 guidelines, expressed an expectation that faculty members use research-based pedagogies in their teaching, of which inquiry-based instruction has sufficient research to support its effectiveness (e.g., Hofstein et al., 2001; Hofstein, 2004; Hofstein et al., 2005; Hammond et al., 2007; Ferreira et al., 2022). Such instruction, evidenced by curricular reviews using the Bruck, Bretz, and Towns (2008) inquiry rubric for example, should be necessary to achieving distinction as programs of excellence as in the 2023 ACS CPT guidelines for bachelor's degree awarding institutions.

Another deficiency in our work is the lack of information about promoters and inhibitors of implementing inquiry-base laboratory instruction. From a qualitative perspective, many such factors would likely emerge in the interview investigation we propose to address the measurement/response process limitation of our work. As more large-scale studies explore the facilitation of and barriers to implementation of active learning strategies in classroom-based instructional settings (Apkarian et al., 2021; Connor et al., 2022; Connor and Raker, 2022; Gibbons et al., 2022; Raker et al., 2022; Yik et al., 2022a, 2022b; Connor et al., 2023), parallel work should explore how factors specific to laboratory instruction aid or prevent adoption of inquiry-based pedagogies in laboratory-based instructional settings. Enacting inquiry in both classroom and laboratory settings requires reform that focuses on what faculty members desire for their courses and how to best engage student learning in those. The teacher-centered systemic reform model centers faculty members at the forefront of course, departmental, and institutional change (Woodbury and Gess-Newsome, 2002; Gess-Newsome et al., 2003). Before such work can be executed though, a reasonable measure of inquiry-based pedagogy implementation in instructional laboratories should be developed to best evaluate any transformation initiative.

Conclusions

Through a national survey research study on the implementation of inquiry-based instruction in postsecondary chemistry laboratory courses, we found that confirmation or “cookbook” type instruction persists. The level of inquiry between lower-level chemistry courses and upper-level chemistry courses differs with upper-level courses including more inquiry-based instruction; there is no evidence of a difference, however, in inquiry-based instruction implemented in courses by institutions’ highest chemistry degree awarded, ACS approval, or external funding to transform the chemistry curriculum. These findings point to a need for educators and curriculum developers to consider how more inquiry-based instructional laboratory experiences could be implemented to better meet the goals they have for student learning. There is also a need for researchers to gain a better understanding of the promoters and inhibitors of inquiry-based instruction implementation. The chemistry education community has an obligation for instruction to be congruent with the practice of chemistry; the results of our study suggest we have an opportunity to bring the two into better alignment. Adoption of more inquiry-based learning experiences throughout the postsecondary chemistry curriculum is the means for creating such needed alignment.

Author contributions

M. C. C. and J. R. R. conceived the project. M. C. C. and J. R. R. collected the data. K. M. Z. conducted the statistical analyses. K. M. Z., M. C. C., and J. R. R. discussed and interpreted study results. K. M. Z. authored the paper. All authors read, edited, and approved the final manuscript.

Conflicts of interest

There are no conflicts to declare.

Acknowledgements

We thank the 516 faculty members who gave of their time to complete the survey, describe their instructional laboratory courses and the level of inquiry for the experiments conducted by students in their courses.

References

  1. Abraham M. R., (2005), Inquiry and the learning cycle approach, Chemists’ Guide Effective Teach., 1, 41–52.
  2. Allen J. B., Barker L. N. and Ramsden J. H., (1986), Guided inquiry laboratory, J. Chem. Educ., 63(6), 533.
  3. Anderson R. D., (2002), Reforming science teaching: What research says about inquiry, J. Sci. Teach. Educ., 13(1), 1–12.
  4. Apkarian N., Henderson C., Stains M., Raker J., Johnson E. and Dancy M., (2021), What really impacts the use of active learning in undergraduate stem education? Results from a national survey of chemistry, mathematics, and physics instructors, PLoS One, 16(2), e0247544.
  5. Auchincloss L. C., Laursen S. L., Branchaw J. L., Eagan K., Graham M., Hanauer D. I., Lawrie G., McLinn C. M., Pelaez N., Rowland S., Towns M., Trautmann N. M., Varma-Nelson P., Weston T. J. and Dolan E. L., (2014), Assessment of course-based undergraduate research experiences: a meeting report, CBE—Life Sci. Educ., 13(1), 29–40.
  6. Bliss J. M. and Reid C. W., (2013), Medical mycology and the chemistry classroom: Germinating student interest in organic chemistry, J. Chem. Educ., 90(10), 1320–1324.
  7. Bloom D. R. K. A. B. S., (1956), Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification of educational goals, New York: David McKay Company.
  8. Bretz S. L., (2019), Evidence for the importance of laboratory courses, J. Chem. Educ., 96(2), 193–195.
  9. Bretz S. L., Fay M., Bruck L. B. and Towns M. H., (2013), What faculty interviews reveal about meaningful learning in the undergraduate chemistry laboratory, J. Chem. Educ., 90(3), 281–288.
  10. Brown P. L., Abell S. K., Demir A. and Schmidt F. J., (2006), College science teachers' views of classroom inquiry, Sci. Educ., 90(5), 784–802.
  11. Bruck A. D., (2011), Faculty perspectives of the undergraduate laboratory: A survey of faculty goals for the laboratory and comparative analysis of responses using statistical techniques.
  12. Bruck A. D. and Towns M., (2013), Development, implementation, and analysis of a national survey of faculty goals for undergraduate chemistry laboratory, J. Chem. Educ., 90(6), 685–693.
  13. Bruck L. B., Bretz S. L. and Towns M. H., (2008), Characterizing the level of inquiry in the undergraduate laboratory, J. College Sci. Teach., 38(1), 52–58.
  14. Bruck L. B., Towns M. and Bretz S. L., (2010), Faculty perspectives of undergraduate chemistry laboratory: goals and obstacles to success, J. Chem. Educ., 87(12), 1416–1424.
  15. Burrows N. L., Nowak M. K. and Mooring S. R., (2017), Students’ perceptions of a project-based organic chemistry laboratory environment: a phenomenographic approach, Chem. Educ. Res. Pract., 18(4), 811–824.
  16. Capps D. K., Crawford B. A. and Constas M. A., (2012), A review of empirical literature on inquiry professional development: alignment with best practices and a critique of the findings, J. Sci. Teach. Educ., 23(3), 291–318.
  17. Central Association for Science and Mathematics Teachers, (1907), A consideration of the principles that should determine the courses in biology in secondary schools, School Sci. Mathe., 7241–7247.
  18. Colburn A., (2000), An inquiry primer, Sci. Scope, 23(6), 42–44.
  19. Committee on Professional Training, (2015), ACS guidelines for bachelor's degree programs.
  20. Committee on Professional Training, (2023), ACS guidelines for bachelor's degree programs.
  21. Connor M. C. and Raker J. R., (2022), Instrumentation use in postsecondary instructional chemistry laboratory courses: Results from a national survey, J. Chem. Educ., 99(9), 3143–3154.
  22. Connor M. C., Pratt J. M. and Raker J. R., (2022), Goals for the undergraduate instructional inorganic chemistry laboratory when course-based undergraduate research experiences are implemented: a national survey, J. Chem. Educ., 99(12), 4068–4078.
  23. Connor M. C., Rocabado G. A. and Raker J. R., (2023), Revisiting faculty members’ goals for the undergraduate chemistry laboratory, Chem. Educ. Res. Pract., 24(1), 217–233.
  24. Craig P. A., (1999), A project-oriented biochemistry laboratory course, J. Chem. Educ., 76(8), 1130.
  25. Cummins R. H., Green W. J. and Elliott C., (2004), “Prompted” inquiry-based learning in the introductory chemistry laboratory, J. Chem. Educ., 81(2), 239.
  26. Deal S. T. and Hurst M. O., (1997), Utilizing isolation, purification, and characterization of enzymes as project-oriented labs for undergraduate biochemistry, J. Chem. Educ., 74(2), 241.
  27. DeKorver B. K. and Towns M. H., (2015), General chemistry students’ goals for chemistry laboratory coursework, J. Chem. Educ., 92(12), 2031–2037.
  28. DeKorver B. K. and Towns M. H., (2016), Upper-level undergraduate chemistry students’ goals for their laboratory coursework, J. Res. Sci. Teach., 53(8), 1198–1215.
  29. Dunn O. J., (1961), Multiple comparisons among means, J. Am. Stat. Assoc., 56(293), 52–64.
  30. Eisenhart C., (1947), The assumptions underlying the analysis of variance, Biometrics, 3(1), 1–21.
  31. Ferreira D. M., Sentanin F. C., Parra K. N., Negrao Bonini V. M., de Castro M. and Kasseboehmer A. C., (2022), Implementation of inquiry-based science in the classroom and its repercussion on the motivation to learn chemistry, J. Chem. Educ., 99(2), 578–591.
  32. Fisher R. A., (1919), Xv.—the correlation between relatives on the supposition of mendelian inheritance, Trans. R. Soc. Edinburgh, 52(2), 399–433.
  33. Furtak E. M., Seidel T., Iverson H. and Briggs D. C., (2012), Experimental and quasi-experimental studies of inquiry-based science teaching: A meta-analysis, Rev. Educ. Res., 82(3), 300–329.
  34. Galloway K. R., Malakpa Z. and Bretz S. L., (2016), Investigating affective experiences in the undergraduate chemistry laboratory: Students’ perceptions of control and responsibility, J. Chem. Educ., 93(2), 227–238.
  35. George-Williams S. R., Soo J. T., Ziebell A. L., Thompson C. D. and Overton T. L., (2018), Inquiry and industry inspired laboratories: the impact on students’ perceptions of skill development and engagements, Chem. Educ. Res. Pract., 19(2), 583–596.
  36. Gess-Newsome J., Southerland S. A., Johnston A. and Woodbury S., (2003), Educational reform, personal practical theories, and dissatisfaction: the anatomy of change in college science teaching, Am. Educ. Res. J., 40(3), 731–767.
  37. Gibbons R. E., Reed J. J., Srinivasan S., Murphy K. L. and Raker J. R., (2022), Assessment tools in context: Results from a national survey of postsecondary chemistry faculty, J. Chem. Educ., 99(8), 2843–2852.
  38. Graham K. J., Jones T. N., Schaller C. P. and McIntee E. J., (2014), Implementing a student-designed green chemistry laboratory project in organic chemistry, J. Chem. Educ., 91(11), 1895–1900.
  39. Grushow A., Hunnicutt S., Muñiz M., Reisner B. A., Schaertel S. and Whitnell R., (2021), Journal of Chemical Education call for papers: special issue on new visions for teaching chemistry laboratory, J. Chem. Educ., 98(11), 3409–3411.
  40. Grushow A., Hunnicutt S. S., Muñiz M. N., Reisner B. A., Schaertel S. and Whitnell R., (2022), A community's vision of instruction in the chemistry laboratory, J. Chem. Educ., 99(12), 3811–3813.
  41. Hammond C. N., Mohrig J. R. and Colby D. A., (2007), On the successful use of inquiry-driven experiments in the organic chemistry laboratory, J. Chem. Educ., 84(6), 992.
  42. Heemstra J. M., Waterman R., Antos J. M., Beuning P. J., Bur S. K., Columbus L., Feig A. L., Fuller A. A., Gillmore J. G. and Leconte A. M., (2017), Throwing away the cookbook: Implementing course-based undergraduate research experiences (cures) in chemistry, Educational and outreach projects from the cottrell scholars collaborative undergraduate and graduate education volume, 1ACS Publications, pp. 33–63.
  43. Herrington D. G. and Nakhleh M. B., (2003), What defines effective chemistry laboratory instruction? Teaching assistant and student perspectives, J. Chem. Educ., 80(10), 1197.
  44. Hofstein A., (2004), The laboratory in chemistry education: thirty years of experience with developments, implementation, and research, Chem. Educ. Res. Pract., 5(3), 247–264.
  45. Hofstein A., Levy Nahum T. and Shore R., (2001), Assessment of the learning environment of inquiry-type laboratories in high school chemistry, Learn. Environ. Res., 4(2), 193–207.
  46. Hofstein A., Navon O., Kipnis M. and Mamlok-Naaman R., (2005), Developing students' ability to ask more and better questions resulting from inquiry-type chemistry laboratories, J. Res. Sci. Teach., 42(7), 791–806.
  47. Hosbein K. and Walker J., (2022), Assessment of scientific practice proficiency and content understanding following an inquiry-based laboratory course, J. Chem. Educ., 99(12), 3833–3841.
  48. Hunnicutt S. S., Grushow A. and Whitnell R., (2015), Guided-inquiry experiments for physical chemistry: the pogil-pcl model, J. Chem. Educ., 92(2), 262–268.
  49. IBM Corp, (2021), IBM SPSS statistics for Windows, 28.0.
  50. Kalivas J. H., (2008), A service-learning project based on a research supportive curriculum format in the general chemistry laboratory, J. Chem. Educ., 85(10), 1410.
  51. Kiefer A. M., Bucholtz K. M., Goode D. R., Hugdahl J. D. and Trogden B. G., (2012), Undesired synthetic outcomes during a project-based organic chemistry laboratory experience, J. Chem. Educ., 89(5), 685–686.
  52. Kroll L., (1985), Teaching the research process via organic chemistry lab projects, J. Chem. Educ., 62(6), 516.
  53. Kurdziel J. P., Turner J. A., Luft J. A. and Roehrig G. H., (2003), Graduate teaching assistants and inquiry-based instruction: Implications for graduate teaching assistant training, J. Chem. Educ., 80(10), 1206.
  54. Lederman N., (2007), Nature of science: Past, present, and future, pp. 831–879.
  55. Leonard W. H. and Penick J. E., (2009), Is the inquiry real? Working definitions of inquiry in the science classroom, Sci. Teach., 76(5), 40–43.
  56. Linenberger K., Slade M. C., Addis E. A., Elliott E. R., Mynhardt G. and Raker J. R., (2014), Training the foot soldiers of inquiry: Development and evaluation of a graduate teaching assistant learning community, J. College Sci. Teach., 44(1), 97–107.
  57. MacKay J. A. and Wetzel N. R., (2014), Exploring the Wittig reaction: a collaborative guided-inquiry experiment for the organic chemistry laboratory, J. Chem. Educ., 91(5), 722–725.
  58. Marchetti L. and DeBoef B., (2015), Solution-phase synthesis of dipeptides: A capstone project that employs key techniques in an organic laboratory course, J. Chem. Educ., 92(9), 1536–1538.
  59. Mellon E. K., (1978), Flexible general chemistry laboratory programs, J. Chem. Educ., 55(8), 517.
  60. Mistry N., Fitzpatrick C. and Gorman S., (2016), Design your own workup: A guided-inquiry experiment for introductory organic laboratory courses, J. Chem. Educ., 93(6), 1091–1095.
  61. Pavelich M. J. and Abraham M. R., (1979), An inquiry format laboratory program for general chemistry, J. Chem. Educ., 56(2), 100.
  62. Polacek K. M. and Keeling E. L., (2005), Easy ways to promote inquiry in a laboratory course, J. College Sci. Teach., 35(1), 52.
  63. Polymer Core Course Committee in General Chemistry, (1983), Polymer chemistry for introductory general chemistry courses, J. Chem. Educ., 60(11), 973.
  64. Pontrello J. K., (2015), Metalloprotease peptide inhibitors: a semester-long organic synthetic research project for the introductory laboratory course, J. Chem. Educ., 92(5), 811–818.
  65. Raker J. R., Pratt J. M., Connor M. C., Smith S. R., Stewart J. L., Reisner B. A., Bentley A. K., Lin S. and Nataro C., (2022), The postsecondary inorganic chemistry instructional laboratory curriculum: Results from a national survey, J. Chem. Educ., 99(5), 1971–1981.
  66. Raydo M. L., Church M. S., Taylor Z. W., Taylor C. E. and Danowitz A. M., (2015), A guided inquiry liquid/liquid extractions laboratory for introductory organic chemistry, J. Chem. Educ., 92(1), 139–142.
  67. Russell C. B. and Weaver G., (2008), Student perceptions of the purpose and function of the laboratory in science: A grounded theory study, Int. J. Scholarship Teach. Learn., 2(2), 9.
  68. Russell C. B. and Weaver G. C., (2011), A comparative study of traditional, inquiry-based, and research-based laboratory curricula: Impacts on understanding of the nature of science, Chem. Educ. Res. Pract., 12(1), 57–67.
  69. Sandi-Urena S. and Gatlin T. A., (2012), Experimental chemistry teaching: Understanding teaching assistants’ experience in the academic laboratory, Educ. Química, 23, 141–148.
  70. Santos-Díaz S., Hensiek S., Owings T. and Towns M. H., (2019), Survey of undergraduate students’ goals and achievement strategies for laboratory coursework, J. Chem. Educ., 96(5), 850–856.
  71. Seery M. K., (2020), Establishing the laboratory as the place to learn how to do chemistry, J. Chem. Educ., 97(6), 1511–1514.
  72. Sheskin D. J., (2020), Handbook of parametric and nonparametric statistical procedures, 5th edn, CRC Press.
  73. Slade M. C., Raker J. R., Kobilka B. and Pohl N. L. B., (2014), A research module for the organic chemistry laboratory: multistep synthesis of a fluorous dye molecule, J. Chem. Educ., 91(1), 126–130.
  74. Tukey J. W., (1949), Comparing individual means in the analysis of variance, Biometrics, 5(2), 99–114.
  75. Weaver G. C., Russell C. B. and Wink D. J., (2008), Inquiry-based and research-based laboratory pedagogies in undergraduate science, Nat. Chem. Biol., 4(10), 577–580.
  76. Wheeler L. B., Maeng J. L. and Whitworth B. A., (2015), Teaching assistants' perceptions of a training to support an inquiry-based general chemistry laboratory course, Chem. Educ. Res. Pract., 16(4), 824–842.
  77. Wilks S. S., (1938), Weighting systems for linear functions of correlated variables when there is no dependent variable, Psychometrika, 3(1), 23–40.
  78. Wink D. J. and Weaver G. C., (2008), Evaluation of the center for authentic science practice in education (CASPIE) model of undergraduate research.
  79. Woodbury S. and Gess-Newsome J., (2002), Overcoming the paradox of change without difference: A model of change in the arena of fundamental school reform, Educ. Policy, 16(5), 763–782.
  80. Yang S.-P. and Li C.-C., (2009), Using student-developed, inquiry-based experiments to investigate the contributions of ca and mg to water hardness, J. Chem. Educ., 86(4), 506.
  81. Yik B. J., Raker J. R., Apkarian N., Stains M., Henderson C., Dancy M. H. and Johnson E., (2022a), Association of malleable factors with adoption of research-based instructional strategies in introductory chemistry, mathematics, and physics, Front. Educ., 7, 1016415.
  82. Yik B. J., Raker J. R., Apkarian N., Stains M., Henderson C., Dancy M. H. and Johnson E., (2022b), Evaluating the impact of malleable factors on percent time lecturing in gateway chemistry, mathematics, and physics courses, Int. J. STEM Educ., 9(1), 15.
This journal is © The Royal Society of Chemistry 2024
Click here to see how this site uses Cookies. View our privacy policy here.