Aligning Perceptions of Laboratory Demonstrators ... - ACS Publications

Jun 19, 2017 - EPI*STEM National Centre for STEM Education, University of Limerick, Limerick, Ireland. •S Supporting Information. ABSTRACT: Througho...
1 downloads 0 Views 721KB Size
Download PDF
Article pubs.acs.org/jchemeduc

Aligning Perceptions of Laboratory Demonstrators’ Responsibilities To Inform the Design of a Laboratory Teacher Development Program Aishling Flaherty,* Anne O’Dwyer, Patricia Mannix-McNamara, and JJ Leahy EPI*STEM National Centre for STEM Education, University of Limerick, Limerick, Ireland S Supporting Information *

ABSTRACT: Throughout countries such as Ireland, the U.K., and Australia, graduate students who fulfill teaching roles in the undergraduate laboratory are often referred to as “laboratory demonstrators”. The laboratory demonstrator (LD) model of graduate teaching is similar to the more commonly known graduate teaching assistant (GTA) model that is prevalent in the United States. While the responsibilities of LDs and GTAs in the undergraduate laboratory are similar, both cohorts experience different recruitment and training processes that can influence their teaching behaviors. With respect to enhancing the teaching capability of GTAs, considerable research has investigated the design, implementation, and evaluation of various GTA teacher development programs as well as identified various factors that influence their teaching behaviors. However, there has been relatively less research devoted to enhancing the teaching capability of LDs. This research study set out to inform the design of a teacher development program for graduate students who fulfill LD roles. This study involved the collection of both quantitative and qualitative data as a means of comparing LDs (N = 28) and undergraduate students’ (N = 224) perceptions of LDs’ responsibilities in addressing cognitive, affective, and psychomotor learning experiences in the noninquiry general chemistry laboratory. In catering to the misalignment of perceived LD responsibilities, this research offers faculty the evidence−align−develop framework that can inform the design of a teacher development program for LDs. Given the similarities between LDs and GTAs with respect to their status as graduate students, their relative experience in learning chemistry, as well as their role in the laboratory, this framework can also inform the design of GTA teacher development programs. KEYWORDS: Chemical Education Research, First Year Undergraduate/General, Graduate Education/Research, Laboratory Instruction, Collaborative/Cooperative Learning FEATURE: Chemical Education Research

■

LITERATURE BACKGROUND

28, p 71). LDs possess the necessary content knowledge and experience to run the laboratory but do not have input into the design of teaching activities or access to significant teacher development programs.23,27,29 Compared to the GTA model of graduate student teaching, the GTA position is renowned for being a recognized teaching positon with its main purposes of providing graduate students with teaching support and the tools to transition into a career in academia.33 While effective laboratory GTAs provide UGs with assistance before and after laboratory sessions,10 the role of the LD is mostly confined to the laboratory, as made obvious through their nomenclature. Unlike GTAs, LDs do not teach small classes, tutorials, or lessons; however, their responsibilities during UG laboratory sessions are relatively similar to the responsibilities of GTAs. Laboratory GTAs are responsible for helping students to understand what is going on in the laboratory,10 to manage a

Models of Graduate Laboratory Teaching

Drastic surges in undergraduate (UG) enrollments, accompanied by cuts in public funding,1,2 have prompted higher education institutions to place considerable reliance on graduate students to assist teaching large UG classes.3−7 In line with this, the onset of a rich profusion of educational research documents the necessity of graduate students assisting with the delivery of UG courses.8−13 Depending on the context, graduate students may fulfill teaching roles as either laboratory demonstrators (LDs) or as graduate teaching assistants (GTAs). Science education research based in Ireland,14−17 the U.K.,18−23 and Australia24−32 often refers to graduate students who teach in the undergraduate laboratory as LDs. Fulfilling LD roles is often a contractual condition that graduate students have with their institutions. A national Australian report claims LDs are “...the most signif icant resource applied to the laboratory experience. As the people who know what is to be done and how, they set the tone of the learning environment” (ref © XXXX American Chemical Society and Division of Chemical Education, Inc.

Received: March 21, 2017 Revised: May 22, 2017

A

DOI: 10.1021/acs.jchemed.7b00210 J. Chem. Educ. XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX

Journal of Chemical Education

Article

chemical laboratory, and to teach chemical concepts.12 On the other hand, LD responsibilities are reported to include (i) circulating among the students and asking questions on a friendly basis, (ii) enforcing safety rules and good laboratory behavior, and (iii) knowing what students are supposed to learn and why they have to learn these things.19 In some instances, graduate students can fulfill either principal or assistant LD roles. Principal LDs are responsible for running laboratory sessions to include marking UGs’ work, leading semiformal discussions in the laboratory, and generally assisting UGs. Assistant LDs take part in discussions and assist UGs, but have no assessment responsibilities.31,32 While the responsibilities of GTAs and LDs in the UG laboratory are relatively similar, their respective recruitment and development experiences can differ.

studies have provided rich insight into designing the features of teacher development programs for chemistry graduate students as GTAs.12,34−41 These features include modeling successful teaching practices,7,12,35,37−41 studying various learning theories (guided learning, Bloom’s taxonomy, rote, meaningful learning),12,35,39−41 aligning expectations of both graduate students and UGs,35,37−41 reviewing logistical aspects of laboratory sessions (grading, expectations, weekly laboratory agenda, and potential issues),35,37,40,41 practicing experiments,35,40,41 establishing a teaching community of practice,37,40,41 holding content-based discussions,39−41 receiving feedback on their performance,12,36,38−41 hearing advice from experienced graduate students who teach,37 developing teaching philosophy statements,38 and giving practice presentations.12,38 However, few studies have carried out research with the specific aim of informing the content and structure of teacher development programs for chemistry graduate students for either GTAs or LDs.

Recruitment and Development

The literature reports that the recruitment of graduate students for GTA positions is competitive with the head of department usually having the decision-making ability in light of available funding, teaching need, and availability of research students with appropriate subject knowledge.4 In the context of LD recruitment, the default position for faculties is to recruit LDs on a sessional basis.27 A vast area of chemical education research has been devoted to developing, implementing, and evaluating development programs for GTAs.12,34−41 This area of research has had a profound impact, evidenced by a recent ACS report claiming that 91.3% of ACS institutions have some form of teacher development opportunities available for GTAs to benefit from.42 However, two recent Australian national reports on LD teacher development document a lack of specialized teacher development opportunities available for LDs.27,29 One report, involving LDs throughout nine different universities, reported that LDs had little or no development with regard to their teaching and learning role in the laboratory in light of the assumption that discipline knowledge was all that was required for their role.27 Further, the second report indicated the absence of specialized training for LDs.29 Both reports identified that a majority of LDs in the institutions involved in the research were graduate students. Where the provision of LD preparation exists, it often is in the form of a briefing by course leaders to inform LDs of various technical and safety issues pertaining to the laboratory sessions.19,21,28,31 However, the suggestions for the effective preparation of LDs include (i) formal professional learning sessions that are linked to laboratory practice, (ii) prelaboratory briefing sessions, (iii) formal and/or informal mentoring during the semester, (iv) promotion of a learning culture where LDs share ideas and knowledge, and where new knowledge embedded in the documents and practice of the laboratory, and (v) debriefing or “lessons learned” sessions at the end of the semester.29 It is evident throughout the literature that a dearth exists in designing, implementing, and evaluating teacher development programs for LDs. Although GTAs and LDs experience different recruitment and training processes, similarities in their respective roles in the UG laboratory grant potential for the vast existing literature on GTA teacher development to inform the design of LD teacher development programs.

■

RESEARCH QUESTIONS This study is guided by the following research questions: 1. To what extent do LDs’ and UGs’ perceptions toward the responsibilities of LDs in addressing cognitive, affective and psychomotor learning experiences in a noninquiry General Chemistry laboratory align? 2. How can such insight inform the design of a teacher development program for graduate students who fulfill LD roles?

■

METHODOLOGY

Participants

This study involved 224 UG students enrolled in a General Chemistry (GC) course and 28 LDs. At the institution which hosted this research, LDs are assigned to 6 h of UG laboratory sessions per week as per their graduate contract, and its GC curriculum involves a 2 h UG laboratory session every second week. A typical GC laboratory session involving 60 UGs and 4 LDs follows a traditional, noninquiry pedagogical approach whereby the GC course leader gives UG students a prelaboratory briefing prior to following a step-by-step experimental procedure that is detailed in a laboratory manual. The extent of teacher development that is available to LDs is limited to an optional safety briefing at the beginning of the academic year. It is also optional for course leaders to brief the LDs regarding various aspects of the procedure or chemical underpinnings of a particular experiment prior to the commencement of the laboratory session. LDs are not expected or encouraged to interact with UGs nor are they required to teach any small classes, tutorials, or lessons. LDs do not receive any monetary reward for their laboratory duties. Four of the participating LDs acknowledged having previously undertaken some form of teacher development during their UG studies; however, the majority of participating LDs had no previous experience of any form of teacher development. Data Collection

Teacher Development

In pursuit of investigating the perceptions of UGs and LDs toward the responsibilities of LDs in addressing cognitive, affective, and psychomotor learning experiences in the general chemistry laboratory, this study employed a mixed methods approach44,45 of collecting and analyzing both quantitative and qualitative data. An UG questionnaire and a LD questionnaire

Literature associated with the development of GTAs’ teaching skills is vast. In 2001 a study involving 4114 doctoral students from across the United States reported that a teacher development program lasting at least one term was least available to chemistry students (28%).43 Since then, numerous B

DOI: 10.1021/acs.jchemed.7b00210 J. Chem. Educ. XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX

Journal of Chemical Education

Article

Table 1. Statistical Analysis of Participants’ Reponses to Likert Statements No.

Statements on UG Questionnaire (N = 224)

M (SD)a

MWU (p)

M (SD)a

Statements on LD Questionnaire (N = 28)

1

Completing laboratory sessions helps me to understand chemical concepts discussed in GC lectures I feel confident in the laboratory during laboratory sessions LDs are prepared for and thoroughly understand GC laboratory sessions. LDs are good at explaining chemical concepts in the GC laboratory I would enjoy learning from LDs as I see them as people to aspire to LDs make students aware of safety issues in the laboratory LDs are good at explaining how to use experimental apparatus If I did not understand how to use experimental apparatus, I would ask a LD LDs are concerned about my understanding of chemical reactions I would feel comfortable to ask a LD a question if I did not understand a GC experiment

3.0 (1.04)

954.500 (p < 0.05)

1.0 (0.74)

3.0 (1.09)

1629.500 (p < 0.05)

4.0 (0.60)

3.0 (1.14)

1859.00 (p < 0. 05)

2.0 (0.83)

3.0 (1.04)

2363.500 (p < 0. 05)

2.0 (0.92)

3.0 (1.10)

2760.000 (p = 0.168)

2.0 (0.69)

2.0 (0.93)

2517.500 (p = 0.34)

1.0 (0.90)

2.0 (1.02)

2026.000 (p = 0.76)

2.0 (0.92)

2.0 (1.02)

2396.500 (p = 0.13)

2.0 (0.83)

3.0 (1.07)

1482.000 (p < 0.05)

2.0 (1.03)

2.0 (1.03)

2920.00 (p = 0.344)

2.0 (0.80)

Completing laboratory sessions helps GC UGs to understand chemical concepts discussed in GC lectures GC UGs are confident in the laboratory during laboratory sessions. As a LD, I am prepared for and thoroughly understand GC laboratory sessions. As a LD, I think I am good at explaining chemical concepts in the GC laboratory GC UGs would enjoy learning from LDs as they could see them as people to aspire to As a LD, I make GC UGs aware of safety issues in the laboratory As a LD, I think I am good at explaining how to use experimental apparatus If GC UGs did not understand how to use experimental apparatus, they would ask a LD As a LD, I am concerned about GC UGs understanding chemical reactions I feel that GC UGs would feel comfortable to ask a LD a question if they did not understand a GC experiment

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 a

The scale for response ranges from 1, strongly agree, to 5, strongly disagree.

necessary adaptions, the adjusted questionnaire instruments were then rechecked by the pilot study participants to reaffirm their validity and reliability before distributing both questionnaire instruments to the full respective populations of UGs and LDs. A Cronbach α value was calculated for part A of each adjusted questionnaire. An acceptable Cronbach α value is 0.7,47,48 and the overall Cronbach α value of part A of the UG questionnaire was found to be 0.735 and 0.788 for part A of the LD questionnaire.

were developed in line with insights gained from a review of literature on GTAs and LDs.10,12,31,46 Each questionnaire consisted of two parts: part A and part B. Part A consisted of 10 five-point Likert-scale statements (1 = strongly agree to 5 = strongly disagree). The Likert statements in each questionnaire were similar although the stem of the statements in each questionnaire was adapted to reflect the capacity of each participant either as an UG or as a LD. To enable individual expression of opinions and thoughts, part B of both questionnaires contained an open-ended question that asked, “What are laboratory demonstrators responsible for in the laboratory?” The UG questionnaire also asked UGs a second open-ended question that asked, “What would you prioritize if you were a laboratory demonstrator?” The questionnaires are included as Supporting Information accompanying this article. The paper−pencil questionnaires were distributed to participants at the same time at the end of the final laboratory session of the term in the laboratory. It was stressed to the participants that their voluntary completion of the questionnaire was not indicative of a means of assessing the performance of the LDs nor was it a course requirement. The study was granted full ethical approval by the institution’s ethics committee.

Data Analysis

Part A: Quantitative Analysis. The Software Package for Social Sciences (SPSS v.21) was employed for the analysis of participants’ responses to the Likert statements in part A of both questionnaires. The Kolmogrov−Smirnov test revealed that the data was nonparametric. Therefore, the Mann− Whitney U test, as a nonparametric test of statistical significance in comparing the medians of two sets of scores to determine whether the difference between them is statistically significant,49 was used to compare the differences in the responses of UGs and LDs to the statements in part A of the questionnaires. A 0.05 significance level was adopted whereby the responses of the UG and LD cohorts to the questionnaire statements which differed by a p value less than 0.05 were deemed to be statistically significant.50 By identifying significant differences in the responses of UGs and LDs to the Likert statements, the researchers hoped to gain insight into how the perceptions of both cohorts toward the LD responsibilities were misaligned. These insights were then used by the researchers to develop a framework that would inform the content and structure of an LD teacher development program in order to align perceptions of LD responsibilities. Since it is more appropriate to report median values as opposed to mean values for nonparametric tests,50 Table 1 presents the median values of participants’ responses to each Likert statement along with associated standard deviation, and Mann−Whitney U and p values. Part B: Qualitative Analysis. The researchers collaborated together in using NVIVO 10 software to facilitate the thematic analysis51 of participants’ responses to the open-ended

Validity and Reliability of the Questionnaires

Three weeks prior to the distribution of the UG and LD questionnaires, the questionnaires were piloted with a separate sample of each population cohort for validation and reliability purposes. Participants involved in this pilot study consisted of 58 GC UGs, 5 LDs, 2 science education experts, 2 GC course leaders, and the chief technical officer of the laboratory where the GC laboratory sessions were held. All of the pilot study participants were asked to complete the instruments as well as provide feedback on the phrasing of the questionnaire statements and questions as a means of assessing the suitability of the statements and questions in terms of their phrasing, relevance to the study, and contribution they would make to the field of science education. Necessary adaptations included rewording two statements in each questionnaire instrument following the analysis of the pilot study findings and the feedback received from pilot study participants. After these C

DOI: 10.1021/acs.jchemed.7b00210 J. Chem. Educ. XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX

Journal of Chemical Education

Article

(17)]. No LD made any reference to addressing UGs’ affective domain.

questions in part B of both the UG and LD questionnaires. Thematic analysis involves a five step procedure which consists of the following: (i) familiarization with the data, (ii) generation of initial codes, (iii) search of themes, (iv) review of themes, and (v) definition and naming themes.51 After becoming familiar with the responses offered by both UG and LD cohorts to the open-ended questions, three initial codes were generated which pertained to aspects of learning within UGs’ cognitive, affective, and psychomotor domains of learning.52,53 The cognitive code pertained to LDs’ responsibilities in addressing UGs’ cognitive learning experiences such as their understanding of experimental calculations, reactions, and procedures. The psychomotor code pertained to LDs’ responsibilities in addressing the practical aspects of laboratory sessions including the setup of experimental apparatus as well as the maintenance of laboratory safety. The affective code pertained to LDs’ responsibilities in addressing UGs’ affective learning experiences such as perceiving and managing how UGs feel in laboratory. Participants’ responses were first categorized into one of the three codes by the principal researcher. Then, the researcher explored the responses that were categorized under each code to search for, review, and name emergent themes. In order to promote inter-rater reliability, the themes were checked and validated by the other collaborating researchers involved in this study. The number of responses which occurred under each theme and code were then quantitatively analyzed and are described in Tables 2 and 3.

Table 2. Responses to “What Are Laboratory Demonstrators Responsible for in the Laboratory?” Themes

% UG Responses (N = 224)

Cognitive Node To help UGs to understand 17 (41) procedures To answer UGs’ questions about 12 (29) the experiment To help UGs to understand 11 (26) calculations To help UGs to understand 3 (7) concepts To ask UGs questions about the 2 (6) experiment To be prepared and understand 1 (3) the experiment To help UGs with their laboratory 1 (2) reports Total 47 (114) Psychomotor Node To maintain safety 27 (66) To ensure apparatus is used and 7 (17) set up correctly To help the lecturer running the 5 (13) experiment To conduct a demonstration 2 (4) before UGs begin Total 41 (100) Affective Node To be friendly and approachable 5 (11) To understand how UGs feel in 5 (11) the laboratory To boost UGs’ confidence in the 2 (6) laboratory Total 12 (28)

■

RESULTS The responses of participants to part A and part B of both UG and LD questionnaires are summarized in Tables 1−3. Table 1 lists the median (M) and standard deviation (SD) values of participants’ responses to each Likert statement regarding their perceptions of LDs’ responsibilities in part A of the questionnaires. The UGs’ responses are on the left, and the LDs’ responses are on the right side of the table. The Mann− Whitney U (MWU) test results are in the center between the median values for each cohort. Both cohorts expressed significantly different levels of agreement to 5 out of 10 statements. These statements pertained to LDs’ perceived ability to explain chemical concepts, level of preparedness and understanding, level of concern for UGs’ understanding of chemical reactions, UGs’ perceived confidence in the laboratory, and the efficacy of laboratory sessions in promoting UGs’ understanding of chemical concepts discussed in GC lectures. Table 2 lists the emergent LD responsibilities as identified by both LDs and UGs in response to the following open-ended question: “What are Laboratory Demonstrators responsible for in the laboratory?” Some participants suggested that LDs have more than one responsibility. Therefore, 242 references were coded from 224 UGs, and 38 references were coded from 28 LDs. The number of times each reference associated with a particular theme within a node appeared was counted and is reported as a percentage of the total responses coded for all three domains as nodes. The majority of UGs’ perceptions of LDs’ responsibilities focused on addressing UGs’ cognitive domain of learning [47% (114)], followed by the psychomotor [41% (100)] and affective [12% (28)] domains of learning, respectively. In contrast, the majority of LDs’ role perceptions of their most important responsibility focused on the practical aspects associated with UGs’ psychomotor learning [55% (21)], followed by the address of their cognitive learning [45%

% LD Responses (N = 28) 16 (6) 0 0 29 (11) 0 0 0 45 (17) 53 (20) 3 (1) 0 0 55 (21) 0 0 0 0

Table 3 lists the activities that UGs reported they would prioritize if they were a LD in response to the open-ended question “What would you prioritize if you were a laboratory demonstrator?” Some UGs suggested they would prioritize more than one activity as a LD. Therefore, 240 references were coded from the responses of 224 UGs. The number of times each reference associated with a particular theme within a node appeared was counted and is reported as a percentage of the total responses coded for all three domains as nodes. The LD activities that UGs prioritized are listed in Table 3. The majority of UGs’ responses pertained to addressing UGs’ cognitive domain [69% (166)], followed by their affective [18% (43)] and psychomotor [13% (31)] domains, respectively.

■

DISCUSSION The findings of this study reveal disparate perceptions of LDs’ responsibilities in a noninquiry GC laboratory that could hinder the establishment of a positive learning environment if efforts to reduce the disparity are not addressed by faculty. Toward the alignment of such perceptions, the Discussion section of this article will offer faculty a tripartite framework that can inform the design of a teacher development program for LDs. The evidence−align−develop framework sets out an approach for faculty to develop LDs’ teaching capability with a view to promoting positive cognitive, affective, and psychomotor D

DOI: 10.1021/acs.jchemed.7b00210 J. Chem. Educ. XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX

Journal of Chemical Education

Article

graduate students need to be presented with convincing evidence of the barriers to learning faced by UGs in the laboratory with respect to each of the three domains of learning. Second, the expectations of graduate students, UGs, and faculty toward the graduate students’ teaching role in addressing UGs’ three domains of learning in the laboratory need to be aligned. Finally, the development of graduate students’ teaching capability to nurture UGs’ cognitive, affective, and psychomotor laboratory learning experiences should be addressed.

Table 3. Responses of UG Participants to What would you prioritize if you were a Laboratory Demonstrator? Themes Cognitive Node To ask UGs questions about the experiment To help UGs to understand concepts To help UGs to understand calculations To help UGs to understand procedures To be prepared and understand the experiment To help UGs with their laboratory reports Total Affective Node To be friendly and approachable To understand how UGs feel in the laboratory To boost UGs’ confidence in the laboratory Total Psychomotor Node To conduct a demonstration before UGs begin To ensure apparatus is set up correctly Total

% UG Responses (N = 224) 26 (63) 16 (39) 13 (32) 8 (18) 5 (12) 1 (2) 69 (166)

Cognitive Learning Experiences

This study provides evidence for a number of discrepant perceptions pertaining to UGs’ cognitive learning experiences and LDs’ responsibilities in addressing such learning experiences in the noninquiry GC laboratory. From the quantitative data, LDs expressed a significantly greater agreement than UGs that completing GC laboratory sessions helps UGs to understand chemical concepts discussed in lectures [LD, M = 1 (±0.74); UGs, M = 3 (±1.04)], that LDs were good at explaining chemical concepts to UGs [LD, M = 2 (±0.92); UGs, M = 3 (±1.04)], and that LDs are prepared for and thoroughly understand GC laboratory sessions [LD, M = 2 (±0.83); UG, M = 3 (±1.14)]. From the qualitative data, the majority of UGs [47% (144)] perceived that the LDs were responsible for addressing UGs’ cognitive learning experiences in the laboratory. However, the relative minority of LDs perceived that they were responsible for providing such assistance [45% (17)]. UGs perceived that it was the responsibility of the LD to help them to understand procedures [17% (41)], calculations [11% (26)], and concepts [3% (7)]. While some UGs indicated that it was the responsibility of the LD to answer UGs’ questions [12% (29)], other UGs indicated that LDs should ask UGs questions about the experiment [2% (n = 6)]. Examples of such claims made by UGs include the following: “To explain why a certain reaction is occurring. Not just show that it is” (UG 46); “To explain the concepts behind the

10 (23) 8 (18) 1 (2) 18 (43) 12 (28) 1 (3) 13 (31)

learning experiences for UGs during noninquiry GC laboratory sessions. Whether or not the prevalence of such discrepant perceptions exists between UGs and GTAs, the authors contend that this framework can apply to both LD and GTA teacher development programs given the similarities between LDs and GTAs with respect to their status as graduate students, their relative experience in learning chemistry, as well as their role in the laboratory. As such, the framework’s recommendations and suggestions will refer to LDs and GTAs collectively as graduate students for the remainder of this article. The evidence−align−develop framework encourages faculty to address three sequential steps in developing graduate students’ teaching capability to promote positive cognitive, affective, and psychomotor learning experiences for UGs (Figure 1). First,

Figure 1. Evidence−align−develop framework. E

DOI: 10.1021/acs.jchemed.7b00210 J. Chem. Educ. XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX

Journal of Chemical Education

Article

experiment and help when you are stuck” (UG 102); and to “Ask questions, they should ask questions to make sure you f ully understand what you’re doing” (UG 41). Of the responses made by LDs in relation to their responsibilities in addressing UGs’ cognitive learning experiences in the laboratory, 16% (6) and 29% (11) claimed responsibility for helping UGs to understand concepts and procedures, respectively. Examples of such claims made by LDs include the following: “To explain to them [UGs] the underlying principle of the experiment” (LD 5), “Help [UGs] to understand the experiment” (LD 17), and “The main objective is to convey and demonstrate the science behind the experiment” (LD 20). Provided UGs were given the opportunity to fulfill the LD role, the majority of UGs [69% (166)] indicated that they would prioritize addressing UGs’ cognitive learning experiences in the laboratory. The UGs outlined how this would involve asking UGs questions about the experiment [26% (63)], helping UGs to understand concepts [16% (39)], calculations [13% (32)], procedures [8% (18)], being prepared for and understanding the experience [5% (12)], and assisting with UGs’ completion of their laboratory reports [1% (2)]. Examples of such claims made by UGs include the following: “Explain to them [UGs] exactly what is happening at each stage of the experiment so they [UGs] actually understand the reactions taking place as opposed to going through the motions” (UG 76), “Show them [UGs] dif ferent ways of remembering or learning” (UG 46), and “Lead them [UGs] to an answer, not just tell them [UGs]” (UG 104).

laboratory work. However, it should also be noted that the nature of laboratory sessions may influence graduate students’ role in developing UGs’ understanding in the GC laboratory. For instance, during open-inquiry GC laboratory sessions, graduate students may facilitate UGs’ acquisition of information as opposed to deliver information during noninquiry GC laboratory sessions.61 Further, students may seek more assistance from graduate students in comprehending various aspects of open-inquiry laboratory sessions compared to noninquiry laboratory sessions.62 Develop Teaching Capability: Cognitive Domain. UGs in this study perceived LDs to be responsible for addressing several aspects of their understanding in a noninquiry laboratory, and they indicated that if they were to assume the LD role, they would first prioritize the activity of asking UGs questions to check their understanding. If graduate students are to address all of the perceived responsibilities that UGs have from them in their laboratory instructor roles, this expectation calls for graduate students to develop a profound level of pedagogical content knowledge. A significant area of science education research has been devoted to assessing and developing pedagogical frameworks for teaching in the science laboratory.63−71 Examples of these include the predict− observe−explain framework,63,64 the model−observe−reflect− explain thinking frame,65,72 the 5E (engagement, exploration, explanation, elaboration, evaluation) instructional model,66 the science writing heuristic,67,68,73 along with various peer-led guided inquiry learning techniques.69−71 However, it is acknowledged that there is a shortage of instructional models or approaches to teaching in the laboratory.74 There has been little attention focused on developing and evaluating pedagogical frameworks designed to meet the needs and capabilities of chemistry graduate students who teach in the laboratory. Existing research has worked toward defining the various ranks of GTAs’ pedagogical sophistication to teach on a conceptual level in the laboratory,12 and in an effort to enhance graduate students’ ability to develop UGs’ understanding in the laboratory, existing chemistry graduate teacher development programs have integrated a wide range of teacher development strategies such as modeling successful teaching practices,7,12,35,37−41 studying various learning theories,12,35,39−41 and holding content-based discussions.39−41 More research is required to develop, evaluate, and validate pedagogical frameworks for graduate students who teach in the chemistry laboratory in order to guide them in developing effective questioning strategies to promote UGs’ understanding in the laboratory.

Contributions to the Evidence−Align−Develop framework

Evidence Barriers to Learning: Cognitive Domain. LDs in this study were not aware of the barriers to conceptual learning faced by UGs in the laboratory. Many existing GTA teacher development programs have included literature associated with various learning theories (guided learning, Bloom’s taxonomy, rote, meaningful learning).12,35,39−41 However, it may come as a suggestion to place a greater emphasis on informing graduate students of the nature and extensive barriers to conceptual learning faced by UGs in the laboratory54−60 so that the graduate students can actively address these barriers during laboratory sessions. Align Role Expectations: Cognitive Domain. While UGs in this study perceived the LD cohort as a team of chemistry experts that could contribute to their understanding in a noninquiry laboratory session, LDs did not perceive that this was their responsibility. In order for LDs to be effective, they need to be clear on what is expected from them in their roles as well as to develop good rapports with UGs and be willing and able to deal with problems.21 Aligning expectations of graduate students’ role in the laboratory has been a common feature of several GTA teacher development programs;35,37−41 however, the nature of these expectations is not often expanded upon. Regardless of whether they have been extensively (GTAs) or less extensively (LDs) trained as teachers, UGs may expect graduate students to provide them with assistance in areas such as understanding calculations, procedures, and reactions unless faculty members see to the alignment of graduate students’ role in the noninquiry laboratory. In doing so, faculty could work with graduate students to agree on their role expectations in assisting UGs’ comprehension of various calculations, procedures, and reactions. These expectations must then be adequately conveyed to UGs in order to align UGs’ expectations of the role of graduate students in assisting their comprehension of various aspects of noninquiry

Affective Learning Experiences

Perceptions of UGs’ affective learning experiences in the laboratory and LDs’ responsibilities in addressing such learning experiences were another source of discrepancy among the responses of participants to both the Likert statements and to the open-ended questions. From the quantitative data, LDs disagreed significantly more than UGs that UGs are confident in the laboratory [LD, M = 4 (± 0.60); UG, M = 3 (±1.09)] and LDs agreed significantly more than UGs that LDs are concerned for UGs’ learning [LD, M = 2 (±1.03); LD, M = 3 (±1.07)]. From the qualitative data, no LD acknowledged being responsible for addressing UGs’ affective learning experiences while 12% (n = 28) of UGs perceived that LDs had a responsibility to address such learning experiences. UGs claimed that LDs have a responsibility for being friendly and F

DOI: 10.1021/acs.jchemed.7b00210 J. Chem. Educ. XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX

Journal of Chemical Education

Article

GC laboratory.85 Expressions of concern, warmth and friendliness, enthusiasm, and humor are purported to be traits of effective chemistry laboratory instructors by UGs.10 While it may be an inherent natural response for UGs to look to graduate students for emotional support in the laboratory, faculty could encourage graduate students to realize their potential and importance in recognizing and tuning into how students feel in the laboratory. Develop Teaching Capability: Affective Domain. Teaching, learning, and leading are all processes known as emotional practices,86 and as emotional practitioners, teachers either excite or dull learning environments.87 However, it is claimed that the keys to maintaining and improving educational quality are the emotions of teaching and teacher development.88 A lowered sense of self-efficacy experienced by teachers negatively affects student achievement as a consequence.89,90 Therefore, preparing graduate students to develop their emotional capacity in order to attend to UGs’ emotional needs is two-pronged. The emotional needs of graduate students must first be considered and appropriately addressed. Evidence for this can be attributed to expressions of desire from graduate students who completed a chemistry teacher development program for more opportunities to engage with the coaching components of a cognitive apprenticeship model that was adopted throughout the program,41 and chemistry graduate students have also be shown to lack confidence in their laboratory teaching.12 Provided the emotional needs of graduate students are considered and appropriately addressed, advances to how they can manage the emotions of UGs can then be endeavored. There is much debate regarding whether emotional intelligence can be conceptualized as an ability91,92 or as a personality trait.93,94 However, research has shown that it is possible to enhance the emotional intelligence ability of young adults, particularly in relation to how they understand and manage emotion.95,96 This was achieved through an intervention that addressed (i) perceiving emotion, (ii) using emotion, (iii) understanding emotion, and (iv) managing emotion.95,96 Future research might consider how graduate students can begin to perceive and effectively manage the emotions of UGs in the laboratory.

approachable [5% (n = 11)], understanding how UGs feel in the laboratory [5% (n = 11)], and making a conscious effort to boost UGs’ confidence in the laboratory [2% (n = 6)]. Examples of such claims made by UGs include “So that students feel more comfortable while working on an experiment” (UG 6), “To instill knowledge and conf idence in you” (UG136), and “[LDs are]... Easier to talk to as they are younger than the lecturer” (UG 92). Provided UGs had the opportunity to fulfill the LD role, addressing UGs’ affective learning experiences was a priority to more UGs [18% (n = 43)] than those who expressed priority in addressing UGs’ practical learning experiences [13% (n = 31)]. Of the UG responses that pertained to the address of UGs’ affective learning experiences, 10% (n = 23) indicated that they would prioritize being friendly and approachable, 8% (n = 18) indicated that they would prioritize efforts to understand how UGs feel in the laboratory, and 1% (n = 2) indicated that they would prioritize efforts to boost UGs’ confidence in the laboratory. As LDs, UGs emphasized their intentions to consider and respond in an appropriate manner to how UGs feel in the laboratory. Examples of such intentions include “Look out for students who may be stuck and are too shy to ask for help” (UG 79), “Let them [UGs] know that I had trouble and a lack of understanding when I was in their place” (UG 167), and “Make sure [UGs are] f ully conf ident.” Contributions to the Evidence−Align−Develop Framework

Evidence Barriers to Learning: Affective Domain. The results of this study indicate that LDs lacked awareness of how UGs felt in the laboratory. As well as exploring literature documenting the nature and extensive barriers to conceptual learning faced by UGs in the laboratory, graduate teacher development programs could also consider exploring literature documenting the extent and influence of students’ emotions in the laboratory. While emphasis is often placed on the cognitive objectives of practical work, it is argued that of equal importance to such claims are factors related to the affective domain.75,76 A wide range of literature provides evidence for the varying levels of anxiety, confidence, and self-efficacy experienced by UGs in the laboratory;76−79 research has supported the significance of UGs’ affective learning experience in influencing their cognitive and psychomotor learning experiences in first year, organic chemistry, and GC laboratories.75,80−82 Research has also shown how positive instructor behaviors have been shown to influence students’ affective learning experiences to the extent that their cognitive learning is enhanced.83 The rapport which students develop with their instructors is also an important variable that has been evidenced to predict participation, affective learning, and cognitive learning together.84 Therefore, while it is important that graduate students are aware of the extent and influence of students’ emotions in the laboratory, they should also be aware of the potential they have in promoting positive and productive learning experiences for UGs. Align Role Expectations: Affective Domain. An overwhelming trend in the responses of UGs to both open-ended questions was their desire for LDs to recognize and respond appropriately to how UGs feel in the laboratory. UGs emphasized the need for a mentor-like figure that would seek to relieve them of any apprehensions they may feel in the laboratory. However, LDs did not perceive that they had any responsibility in addressing how UGs feel in the laboratory. Research has revealed that students will seek guidance from graduate students when they are “beyond frustration” in the

Psychomotor Learning Experiences

The perceptions of participants to LDs’ responsibilities in addressing UGs’ practical learning experiences were another source of discrepancy among the responses of participants to both the Likert statements and to the open-ended questions. LDs agreed significantly more than UGs that LDs make UGs aware of safety issues in the laboratory [LD, M = 1 (±0.90); UG, M = 2 (±0.93)]. However, the LDs’ roles in explaining how to use experimental apparatus and answering questions that UGs have in using experimental apparatus were reflected in two statements to which both UG and LD cohorts shared similar agreement [LD, M = 2 (±0.92); UG, M = 2 (±1.02); LD, M = 2 (±0.83); UG, M = 2 (±1.02)]. From the qualitative data, it was clear that while LDs prioritized the address of UGs’ practical learning experiences, UGs expressed more priority in addressing UGs’ cognitive and affective learning experiences, respectively, as LDs. The majority of LDs’ perceptions [55% (n = 21)] of their responsibilities in the laboratory focused on addressing the practical aspects associated with UGs’ practical learning experiences, followed by their cognitive learning experiences [45% (n = 17)]. Specifically, LDs felt as if they were responsible for maintaining safety [53% (n = 20)] and G

DOI: 10.1021/acs.jchemed.7b00210 J. Chem. Educ. XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX

Journal of Chemical Education

Article

ensuring that UGs set up experimental apparatus correctly [3% (n = 1)]. Examples of such claims made by LDs include “Correct handling of equipment and chemicals” (LD 13), “Safety and using equipment” (LD 25), and “Ensuring the students conduct the experiment in a safe manner” (LD 11). According to UGs, LDs were also responsible for helping the lecturer with running the experiment [5% (n = 13)] as well as conducting a demonstration of the experiment before UGs begin their experiment [2% (n = 4)]. Examples of such claims made by UGs include “To ensure the students are doing everything correctly” (UG 72), “To show f irstly how and experiment is done” (UG 174), and “To help prevent accidents” (UG 15). On the other hand, provided UGs had the opportunity to fulfill LD roles, they indicated less priority in addressing UGs’ practical learning experiences [13% (n = 31)] as opposed to their cognitive [69% (n = 166)] and affective [18% (n = 43)] learning experiences during laboratory sessions. UGs who did express priority in addressing UGs’ practical learning experiences indicated that this would entail conducting a practice demonstration of laboratory activities for UGs [12% (28)] and ensuring the correct setup of experimental apparatus [1% (n = 3)]. Examples of such claims made by UGs include “Show how it’s done f irst then watch [UGs] doing it. You learn more by seeing what you have to do” (UG 30), “Show [UGs] the tricks of the trade!” (UG 67), and “Show and explain the set-up of an experiment” (UG 140).

their responsibilities in the lab focused on addressing the practical aspects associated with UGs’ practical learning experiences, this may have been attributed to the terminology used to address this particular cohort. The researchers involved in this study are currently exploring whether addressing graduate students as “Laboratory Demonstrators” may implicitly imply an emphasis on their practical responsibilities as “Demonstrators”, and as a result, their teaching responsibilities are diminished.101 Develop Teaching Capability: Psychomotor Domain. Since graduate students are often responsible for developing UGs’ practical skills in the laboratory,10 their capability to do so must be nurtured. An example of how graduate students may enhance their practical teaching capabilities is through the development of a scoring rubric.102 Here, the development of a scoring rubric as a means for graduate students to assess UGs’ practical skills enabled graduate students to identify UGs’ difficulties and employ the necessary instructional strategies to improve their teaching effectiveness.102 Graduate students could also play a role in developing and evaluating UGs’ practical skills through the application of a novel pedagogical tool known as digital badging.18,99,103 Digital badging is a process designed to promote the enhancement of UGs’ practical skills that involves UGs submitting a video of their practical skills to a virtual laboratory environment for grading.18,99,103 Involving graduate students in this process may provide them with an opportunity to enhance their practical teaching skills by being aware of the criteria used to grade UGs’ practical capabilities in order to instruct in a meaningful manner. UGs’ laboratory skills can deteriorate in the space of a three week absence, requiring time to relearn skills following their return to the laboratory.104 Therefore, the premise for the enhancement of practical skills might not always derive from a lack of practical skills in the first instance. It is important for graduate students to be aware that a considerable feature for the enhancement of UGs’ practical skills is time. Graduate students should be encouraged to give UGs necessary time and space to develop their own mastery of various practical skills.

Contributions to the Evidence−Align−Develop Framework

Evidence Barriers to Learning: Psychomotor Domain. The majority of LDs involved in this study [55% (n = 21)] identified their role in addressing the practical activities of noninquiry laboratory sessions, and chemical education research has substantiated graduate students’ efforts in addressing such activities. Graduate students could be made aware of the tendency for the verbal interactions that they engage in with students to focus on the practical aspects of noninquiry laboratory sessions,61,62,97 which may impinge on the level of cognitive and affective orientated interactions that can occur. Research has acknowledged how the misalignment of laboratory coursework goals among UGs and laboratory instructors can contribute to underwhelming outcomes on UGs’ understanding.80,98 Graduate students must also be aware that UGs can thwart such goals by dividing laboratory tasks among group members.99 Align Role Expectations: Psychomotor Domain. Graduate students are often responsible for explaining and demonstrating techniques in the laboratory.10 Developing practical skills is considered to be a key trait of the apprenticeship established between UGs and their mentors in the laboratory.100 In contrast, while both UG and LD cohorts in this study agreed that it was within the responsibilities of LDs to explain how to use experimental apparatus and to answer questions UGs have in relation to their use and handling of experimental apparatus, no LD or UG perceived that developing UGs’ practical skills was an LD responsibility. Some UGs suggested that conducting a demonstration of experiments was an LD responsibility. This disparity may suggest that faculty should either seek to promote graduate students’ responsibilities in developing UGs’ practical skills and carrying out demonstrations for them or to develop and assess UGs’ practical skills in an alternative manner prior to the commencement of the laboratory sessions. It should be noted that while the majority of LDs’ perceptions [55% (n = 21)] of

■

CONCLUSION This study has provided evidence of misalignment in the perceptions of LDs’ responsibilities in addressing cognitive, affective, and psychomotor learning experiences in a noninquiry GC laboratory. LDs were not aware of the cognitive, affective, and psychomotor difficulties faced by UGs during laboratory sessions, and they were not aware of UGs’ desire for LDs to provide them with the necessary assistance to relieve such difficulties. The prevalence of these misaligned perceptions could diminish the extent to which LDs can establish a positive learning environment for UGs in the laboratory. While 91.3% of ACS institutions have some form of teacher development opportunities available for GTAs to benefit from,42 there are still calls to enhance the teaching capabilities of chemistry graduate students and to enhance chemistry graduate teacher development programs.105,106 The authors of this research article believe that the evidence−align−develop framework can help to inform the design and enhancement of graduate teacher development programs for both GTAs and LDs who assist in the delivery of noninquiry GC laboratory sessions. The evidence−align−develop framework has also identified opportunities for future areas of research both in its application and evaluation as well as called for the development and exploration H

DOI: 10.1021/acs.jchemed.7b00210 J. Chem. Educ. XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX

Journal of Chemical Education

Article

(4) Park, C.; Ramos, M. The donkey in the department? Insights into the graduate teaching assistant (GTA) experience in the UK. Journal of Graduate Education 2002, 3 (2), 47−53. (5) Hill, D. Globalisation and its educational discontents: neoliberalisation and its impacts on education workers’ rights, pay and conditions. International studies in sociology of education 2005, 15 (3), 257−288. (6) Ryan, S.; Burgess, J.; Connell, J.; Groen, E. Casual academic staff in an Australian university: Marginalised and excluded. Tertiary Education and Management 2013, 19 (2), 161−175. (7) Shannon, D. M.; Twale, D. J.; Moore, M. S. TA teaching effectiveness: The impact of training and teaching experience. J. Higher Educ. 1998, 69 (4), 440−466. (8) Pickering, M. Report on the NEACT conference:″ The chemistry lab and its future″. J. Chem. Educ. 1988, 65 (5), 449. (9) Lazarowitz, R.; Tamir, P. Research on using laboratory instruction in science. In Handbook of Research on Science Teaching and Learning; Gabel, D., Ed.; Macmillan: New York, 1994; pp 94−130. (10) Herrington, D. G.; Nakhleh, M. B. What defines effective chemistry laboratory instruction? Teaching assistant and student perspectives. J. Chem. Educ. 2003, 80 (10), 1197. (11) Ryan, B. Graduate teaching assistants; critical colleagues or casual components in the undergraduate laboratory learning? An exploration of the role of the postgraduate teacher in the sciences. European Journal of Science and Mathematics Education 2014, 2 (2), 99. (12) Bond-Robinson, J.; Rodriques, R. A. B. Catalyzing graduate teaching assistants’ laboratory teaching through design research. J. Chem. Educ. 2006, 83 (2), 313. (13) Nicklow, J. W.; Marikunte, S. S.; Chevalier, L. R. Balancing pedagogical and professional practice skills in the training of graduate teaching assistants. Journal of Professional Issues in Engineering Education and Practice 2007, 133 (2), 89−93. (14) Kelly, O. C.; Finlayson, O. E. Providing solutions through problem-based learning for the undergraduate 1st year chemistry laboratory. Chem. Educ. Res. Pract. 2007, 8 (3), 347−361. (15) O’Sullivan, J. Laboratory Teaching in Undergraduate Hydraulic Engineering-Addressing the Negative Sentiment. Proceedings of the International Conference on Engineering Education, Budapest; 2008. http://www.ineer.org/Events/ICEE2008/full_papers/full_paper172. pdf (Accessed May 2017). (16) Robinson, G. A.; Nic a’Bhaird, N.; Kelly, V. P. Enhancing the Teaching and Learning of Laboratory Sciences through a Virtual Learning Laboratory. In The Digital Learning Revolution in Ireland: Case Studies from the National Learning Resources Services; MarcusQuinn, A., Bruen, C., Allen, M., Dundon, A., Diggins, Y., Eds.; Cambridge Scholars Publishing: Newcastle, U.K., 2012; pp 181−194. (17) Ryan, B. An intrinsic case study into the appropriateness of a bespoke training model as an approach to supporting the postgraduate demonstrator in developing pedagogical skills suitable for undergraduate scientific laboratories. Dissertation submitted to Dublin Institute of Technology in partial fulfillment of M.A. in Higher Education, 2015. (18) Seery, M. K.; Agustian, H. Y.; Doidge, E. D.; Kucharski, M. M.; O’Connor, H.; Price, A. Developing laboratory skills by incorporating peer-review and digital badges. Chem. Educ. Res. Pract. 2017, DOI: 10.1039/C7RP00003K. (19) Wood, E. Laboratory practical classes courses in biochemistry courses. Biochem. Educ. 1990, 18 (1), 9−12. (20) Johnstone, A.; Sleet, R.; Vianna, J. An information processing model of learning: Its application to an undergraduate laboratory course in chemistry. Studies in Higher Education 1994, 19 (1), 77−87. (21) Overton, T. Key aspects of teaching and learning in experimental sciences and engineering. In A Handbook for Teaching & Learning in Higher Education: Enhancing Academic Practice; Fry, H., Ketteridge, S., Marshall, S., Eds.; Kogan Page Limited: London, 2003; pp 255−277. (22) Beaton, F.; Sims, E. Supporting part-time teachers and contract faculty. In Advancing Practice in Academic Development; Baume, D., Popovic, C., Eds.; Routledge: London, 2016; pp 103−120.

of pedagogical tools for graduate students to address and nurture UGs’ cognitive, affective, and psychomotor learning needs in the laboratory. This direction for future research is in line with the recent focus on Novak’s theory of meaningful learning throughout the chemical education research community.53,80−82,107−109 However, it is important to note that thinking, feeling, and doing, in fact, are integrally connected.87 Therefore, the recommendations and suggestions associated with each of the three learning domains as purported throughout the evidence−align−develop framework should not be deemed exclusive in their own individuality. For a learning experience to be meaningful, graduate students must be aware that it will call for UGs to integrate cognitive, affective, and learning experiences. The necessity of graduate students, as skilled members of the scientific community in enculturating relatively less skilled, UG members into the community, has been emphasized throughout this study. Regardless of whether graduate students’ teaching responsibilities are explicit in either GTA or LD capacities, UGs will inherently recognize graduate students as figures of emotional and mental support in the laboratory. As such, graduate students should be encouraged to embrace the significance of their role in UGs’ laboratory learning experiences while being recognized by faculty as teaching stars, making a potent teaching constellation across laboratories all over the world.

■

ASSOCIATED CONTENT

S Supporting Information *

The Supporting Information is available on the ACS Publications website at DOI: 10.1021/acs.jchemed.7b00210. Undergraduate student questionnaire (PDF, DOCX) Laboratory demonstrator questionnaire (PDF, DOCX)

■

AUTHOR INFORMATION

Corresponding Author

*E-mail: aishling.fl[email protected]. ORCID

Aishling Flaherty: 0000-0002-0609-4568 Notes

The authors declare no competing financial interest.

■

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The authors would like to thank those who participated in this research, the EPI*STEM National Centre for STEM Education, the Department of Chemical and Environmental Sciences, and the Centre for Teaching and Learning at the University of Limerick for their support in making this research possible. Thanks are also extended to Professor Sibel Erduran who contributed valuable insight at the beginning of this research.

■

REFERENCES

(1) Scott, D.; Morrison, M. Key Ideas in Educational Research; Continuum International Publishing Group: New York, 2005. (2) Scott, P. The Meanings of Mass Higher Education; McGraw-Hill Education Buckingham: United Kingdom, 1995. (3) Austin, A. E. Preparing the next generation of faculty: Graduate school as socialization to the academic career. Journal of Higher Education 2002, 73 (1), 94−122. I

DOI: 10.1021/acs.jchemed.7b00210 J. Chem. Educ. XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX

Journal of Chemical Education

Article

(23) Lewis, J. The effectiveness of mini-projects as a preparation for open-ended investigations. In Teaching and Learning in the Science Laboratory; Springer: Dordrecht, 2002; pp 139−150. (24) Panizzon, D.; Pegg, J.; Mulquiney, C. Changing Perspectives in Tertiary Teaching: A Collaborative Approach between Science and Education Faculties. A Paper Presented at the Australian Association for Research in Education, Melbourne, 29th November−2nd December, 1999.http://www.aare.edu.au/data/publications/1999/pan99576.pdf (Accessed May 2017). (25) Read, J. R.; Kable, S. H. Educational analysis of the first year chemistry experiment ‘Thermodynamics Think-In’: an ACELL experiment. Chem. Educ. Res. Pract. 2007, 8 (2), 255−273. (26) Teakle, N. Problem based learning for first year students: Perspectives from students and laboratory demonstrators. In Preparing for the Graduate of 2015. Proceedings of the 17th Annual Teaching Learning Forum, 30−31 January 2008; Curtin University of Technology, Perth. https://clt.curtin.edu.au/events/conferences/tlf/ tlf2008/refereed/teakle.html (Accessed May 2017). (27) Rice, J. W.; Thomas, S. M.; O’Toole, P.; Pannizon, D. Tertiary Science Education in the 21st Century; Australian Council of Deans of Science, Melbourne, Australia, 2009 (Accessed at http://s3. amazonaws.com/academia.edu.documents/39062951/DS6-598_ Tertiary_science_education_in_the_21st_century_final_report_ 2009.pdf?AWSAccessKeyId=AKIAIWOWYYGZ2Y53UL3A&Expires= 1488383166&Signature= ZvxlByLmlr7fEJ0R2QKUb9ehiLk%3D&response-conte ntdisposition=inline%3B%20filename%3DTertiary_science_education_ in_the_21st_c.pdf. (28) Sarukkalige, R.; Lindsay, E.; Anwar, A. Laboratory demonstrators’ perceptions of the remote laboratory implementation of a fluid mechanics laboratory. Proceedings of the 21st Annual Conference for the Australasian Association for Engineering Education, 5−8th December 2010, Sydney, Australia. https://espace.curtin.edu.au/handle/20.500. 11937/28204 (Accessed May 2017). (29) O’Toole, P.; Crampton, A.; Rayner, G.; Beavis, A.; Beames, S.; Meier, P. Demonstrator Development: Preparing for the Learning Lab; The Australian Council of Deans of Science, Monash University, 2012. http://www.acds-tlcc.edu.au/wp-content/uploads/sites/14/2013/01/ OToole13_ACDS-Report_Demonstrator-report.pdf (Accessed May 2017). (30) Braun, M.; Kirkup, L. Non-physics peer demonstrators in undergraduate laboratories: a study of students’ perceptions. Eur. J. Phys. 2016, 37 (1), 015703. (31) Kirkup, L.; Varadharajan, M.; Braun, M. A Comparison of Student and Demonstrator Perceptions of Laboratory-Based, InquiryOriented Learning Experiences. International Journal of Innovation in Science and Mathematics Education (formerly CAL-laborate International) 2016, 24 (2), 1. (32) Kirkup, L.; Varadharajan, M.; Braun, M.; Buffler, A.; Lubben, F. Matching the background of demonstrators with those of their students: Does it make a difference? Proceedings of the STARS Conference, Melbourne, 3rd July, 2015; http://www.unistars.org/ papers/STARS2015/13F.pdf (Accessed May 2017). (33) Park, C. The graduate teaching assistant (GTA): Lessons from North American experience. Teaching in Higher Education 2004, 9 (3), 349−361. (34) Nurrenbern, S. C.; Mickiewicz, J. A.; Francisco, J. S. The impact of continuous instructional development on graduate and undergraduate students. J. Chem. Educ. 1999, 76 (1), 114. (35) Kurdziel, J. P.; Turner, J. A.; Luft, J. A.; Roehrig, G. H. Graduate teaching assistants and inquiry-based instruction: implications for graduate teaching assistant training. J. Chem. Educ. 2003, 80 (10), 1206. (36) Hampton, S. E.; Reiser, R. A. Effects of a theory-based feedback and consultation process on instruction and learning in college classrooms. Research in Higher Education 2004, 45 (5), 497−527. (37) Marbach-Ad, G.; Schaefer, K. L.; Kumi, B. C.; Friedman, L. A.; Thompson, K. V.; Doyle, M. P. Development and evaluation of a prep

course for chemistry graduate teaching assistants at a research university. J. Chem. Educ. 2012, 89 (7), 865−872. (38) Richards-Babb, M.; Penn, J. H.; Withers, M. Results of a Practicum Offering Teaching-Focused Graduate Student Professional Development. J. Chem. Educ. 2014, 91 (11), 1867−1873. (39) Pentecost, T. C.; Langdon, L. S.; Asirvatham, M.; Robus, H.; Parson, R. Graduate teaching assistant training that fosters studentcentered instruction and professional development. Journal of College Science Teaching 2012, 41 (6), 68−75. (40) Wheeler, L. B.; Maeng, J. L.; Chiu, J. L.; Bell, R. L. Do teaching assistants matter? Investigating relationships between teaching assistants and student outcomes in undergraduate science laboratory classes. J. Res. Sci. Teach. 2017, 54 (4), 463−492. (41) Wheeler, L. B.; Maeng, J. L.; Whitworth, B. A. Teaching assistants’ perceptions of a training to support an inquiry-based general chemistry laboratory course. Chem. Educ. Res. Pract. 2015, 16 (4), 824−842. (42) American Chemical Society. ACS Graduate Student Survey; https://www.acs.org/content/dam/acsorg/education/educators/ reports/2013-ACS-Graduate-Student-Survey-Report.pdf (Accessed May 2017). (43) Golde, C. M.; Dore, T. M. At Cross Purposes: What the Experiences of Today’s Doctoral Students Reveal about Doctoral Education; Pew Charitable Trusts: Philadelphia, 2001. http://files. eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED450628.pdf (Accessed May 2017). (44) Creswell, J. W. Educational Research: Planning, Conducting, and Evaluating Quantitative and Qualitative Research; Pearson Education, Inc.: Upper Saddle River, NJ, 2002. (45) Mertens, D. M. Research and Evaluation in Education and Psychology: Integrating Diversity With Quantitative, Qualitative, and Mixed Methods; Sage Publications: Thousand Oaks, CA, 2014. (46) Cho, Y.; Sohoni, S.; French, D. P. Need Assessment for Graduate Teaching Assistant Training: Identifying Important but Under-Prepared Roles. In Proceedings of the 2010 Midwest Section Conference of the American Society for Engineering Education; http:// www.asee.org/documents/sections/midwest/2010/18_Cho.pdf (Accessed May 2017). (47) McCoach, D. B.; Gable, R. K.; Madura, J. P. Instrument Development in the Affective Domain; Springer: New York, 2013; Vol. 10. (48) Nielsen, S. E.; Yezierski, E. Exploring the Structure and Function of the Chemistry Self-Concept Inventory with High School Chemistry Students. J. Chem. Educ. 2015, 92 (11), 1782−1789. (49) Martella, R. C.; Nelson, J. R.; Morgan, R. L.; Marchand-Martella, N. E. Understanding and Interpreting Educational Research; Guilford Press: New York, 2013. (50) Field, A. Discovering Statistics Using IBM SPSS Statistics; Sage: London, U.K., 2013. (51) Braun, V.; Clarke, V. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative research in psychology 2006, 3 (2), 77−101. (52) Bloom, B.; Englehart, M.; Furst, E.; Hill, W.; Krathwohl, D. Taxonomy of Educational Objectives: The Classification of Educational Goals. Handbook 1: Cognitive Domain; Longmans Green: New York, 1956. (53) Bretz, S. L. Novak’s theory of education: Human constructivism and meaningful learning. J. Chem. Educ. 2001, 78 (8), 1107. (54) Bates, G. The role of the laboratory in secondary school science programs. What research says to the science teacher 1978, 1, 55−82. (55) Blosser, P. E. A Critical Review of the Role of the Laboratory in Science Teaching; ERIC Clearinghouse for Science, Mathematics, and Environmental Education.: Columbus, OH, 1980. (56) Hofstein, A.; Kind, P. M. Learning in and from science laboratories. In Second International Handbook of Science Education; Springer: Heidelberg, 2012; pp 189−207. (57) Hofstein, A.; Lunetta, V. N. The role of the laboratory in science teaching: Neglected aspects of research. Review of educational research 1982, 52 (2), 201−217. J

DOI: 10.1021/acs.jchemed.7b00210 J. Chem. Educ. XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX

Journal of Chemical Education

Article

(58) Hofstein, A.; Lunetta, V. N. The laboratory in science education: Foundations for the twenty-first century. Sci. Educ. 2004, 88 (1), 28− 54. (59) Hawkes, S. J. Chemistry is not a laboratory science. J. Chem. Educ. 2004, 81, 1257. (60) Lunetta, V. N.; Hofstein, A.; Clough, M. P. Learning and teaching in the school science laboratory: An analysis of research, theory, and practice. In Handbook of Research on Science Education; Talbot-Smith, M., Appleton, S. A., Hanuscin, D. L., Eds. Routledge: New York, 2007; pp 393−441. (61) Krystyniak, R. A.; Heikkinen, H. W. Analysis of verbal interactions during an extended, open-inquiry general chemistry laboratory investigation. J. Res. Sci. Teach. 2007, 44 (8), 1160−1186. (62) Xu, H.; Talanquer, V. Effect of the Level of Inquiry on Student Interactions in Chemistry Laboratories. J. Chem. Educ. 2013, 90 (1), 29−36. (63) Gunstone, R. F. Reconstructing theory from practical experience. In Practical Science; Woolnough, B. E., Ed.; Open University Press: London, 1991; pp 67−77. (64) Millar, R. Practical work. In Good Practice In Science Teaching: What Research Has to Say, 2nd ed.; Osborne, J. D., Dillon, J., Eds.; Open University Press, McGraw-Hill Education: Berkshire, England, 2010; p 108. (65) Poon, C.-L.; Lee, Y.-J.; Tan, A.-L.; Lim, S. S. Knowing inquiry as practice and theory: Developing a pedagogical framework with elementary school teachers. Research in Science Education 2012, 42 (2), 303−327. (66) Bybee, R. W.; Taylor, J. A.; Gardner, A.; Van Scotter, P.; Powell, J. C.; Westbrook, A.; Landes, N. The BSCS 5E Instructional Model: Origins and Effectiveness; Colorado Springs, CO, 2006; Vol. 5, pp 88− 98. (67) Burke, K.; Greenbowe, T. J.; Hand, B. M. Implementing the science writing heuristic in the chemistry laboratory. J. Chem. Educ. 2006, 83 (7), 1032. (68) Greenbowe, T. J.; Poock, J. R.; Burke, K.; Hand, B. M. Using the science writing heuristic in the general chemistry laboratory to improve students’ academic performance. J. Chem. Educ. 2007, 84 (8), 1371. (69) Cooper, M. M.; Kerns, T. S. Changing the laboratory: Effects of a laboratory course on students’ attitudes and perceptions. J. Chem. Educ. 2006, 83 (9), 1356. (70) Farrell, J. J.; Moog, R. S.; Spencer, J. N. A Guided-Inquiry General Chemistry Course. J. Chem. Educ. 1999, 76 (4), 570. (71) Lewis, S. E.; Lewis, J. E. Departing from lectures: An evaluation of a peer-led guided inquiry alternative. J. Chem. Educ. 2005, 82 (1), 135. (72) Tien, L. T.; Rickey, D.; Stacy, A. M. The MORE thinking frame: Guiding students’ thinking in the laboratory. Journal of College Science Teaching 1999, 28 (5), 318. (73) Greenbowe, T. J.; Hand, B. Introduction to the science writing heuristic. Chemists’ Guide to Effective Teaching; Prentice Hall: Upper Saddle River, NJ, 2005; p 140. (74) Walker, J. P.; Sampson, V.; Zimmerman, C. O. Argument-driven inquiry: An introduction to a new instructional model for use in undergraduate chemistry labs. J. Chem. Educ. 2011, 88 (8), 1048− 1056. (75) Tsaparlis, G., Learning at the macro level: The role of practical work. In Multiple Representations in Chemical Education; Springer: Dordrecht, 2009; pp 109−136. (76) Bowen, C. W. Development and score validation of a chemistry laboratory anxiety instrument (CLAI) for college chemistry students. Educ. Psychol. Meas. 1999, 59 (1), 171−185. (77) Eddy, R. M. Chemophobia in the college classroom: Extent, sources, and student characteristics. J. Chem. Educ. 2000, 77 (4), 514. (78) Smist, J. M. General Chemistry and Self-Efficacy; Paper Presented at the National Meeting of the American Chemical Society, August 1993, Chicago. http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED368558.pdf (Accessed May 2017).

(79) Kurbanoglu, N. I.; Akim, A. The relationships between university students’ chemistry laboratory anxiety, attitudes, and selfefficacy beliefs. Australian Journal of Teacher Education 2010, 35 (8), 4. (80) DeKorver, B. K.; Towns, M. H. General Chemistry Students’ Goals for Chemistry Laboratory Coursework. J. Chem. Educ. 2015, 92 (12), 2031−2037. (81) Galloway, K. R.; Bretz, S. L. Development of an Assessment Tool To Measure Students’ Meaningful Learning in the Undergraduate Chemistry Laboratory. J. Chem. Educ. 2015, 92 (7), 1149− 1158. (82) Galloway, K. R.; Bretz, S. L. Measuring Meaningful Learning in the Undergraduate Chemistry Laboratory: A National, Cross-Sectional Study. J. Chem. Educ. 2015, 92 (12), 2019−2030. (83) Rodríguez, J. I.; Plax, T. G.; Kearney, P. Clarifying the relationship between teacher nonverbal immediacy and student cognitive learning: Affective learning as the central causal mediator. Communication education 1996, 45 (4), 293−305. (84) Frisby, B. N.; Martin, M. M. Instructor−student and student− student rapport in the classroom. Communication Education 2010, 59 (2), 146−164. (85) Sandi-Urena, S.; Cooper, M. M.; Gatlin, T. A.; Bhattacharyya, G. Students’ experience in a general chemistry cooperative problem based laboratory. Chem. Educ. Res. Pract. 2011, 12 (4), 434−442. (86) Denzin, N. K. On Understanding Emotion; Jossey Bass: San Francisco, 1994. (87) Hargreaves, A. Mixed emotions: Teachers’ perceptions of their interactions with students. Teaching and teacher education 2000, 16 (8), 811−826. (88) Hargreaves, A. The emotional politics of teaching and teacher development: With implications for educational leadership. International Journal of Leadership in Education 1998, 1 (4), 315−336. (89) Ashton, P. T.; Webb, R. B. Making a Difference: Teachers’ Sense of Efficacy and Student Achievement; Longman Publishing Group: White Plains, NY, 1986. (90) Rosenholtz, S. J. Teachers’ Workplace: The Social Organization of Schools; Longman: New York, 1989. (91) Salovey, P.; Mayer, J. D. Emotional intelligence. Imagination, cognition and personality 1990, 9 (3), 185−211. (92) Mayer, J. D.; Salovey, P.; Caruso, D. R. Emotional intelligence: new ability or eclectic traits? Am. Psychol. 2008, 63 (6), 503. (93) Petrides, K. V.; Furnham, A. Trait emotional intelligence: Psychometric investigation with reference to established trait taxonomies. European journal of personality 2001, 15 (6), 425−448. (94) Petrides, K. V.; Furnham, A. Trait emotional intelligence: Behavioural validation in two studies of emotion recognition and reactivity to mood induction. European journal of personality 2003, 17 (1), 39−57. (95) Pool, L. D.; Qualter, P. Improving emotional intelligence and emotional self-efficacy through a teaching intervention for university students. Learning and Individual Differences 2012, 22 (3), 306−312. (96) Nelis, D.; Quoidbach, J.; Mikolajczak, M.; Hansenne, M. Increasing emotional intelligence:(How) is it possible? Personality and Individual Differences 2009, 47 (1), 36−41. (97) Velasco, J. B.; Knedeisen, A.; Xue, D.; Vickrey, T. L.; Abebe, M.; Stains, M. Characterizing Instructional Practices in the Laboratory: The Laboratory Observation Protocol for Undergraduate STEM. J. Chem. Educ. 2016, 93 (7), 1191−1203. (98) DeKorver, B. K.; Towns, M. H. Upper-level undergraduate chemistry students’ goals for their laboratory coursework. J. Res. Sci. Teach. 2016, 53 (8), 1198−1215. (99) Towns, M.; Harwood, C. J.; Robertshaw, M. B.; Fish, J.; O’Shea, K. The Digital Pipetting Badge: A Method To Improve Student Hands-On Laboratory Skills. J. Chem. Educ. 2015, 92 (12), 2038− 2044. (100) Bell, R. L.; Blair, L. M.; Crawford, B. A.; Lederman, N. G. Just do it? Impact of a science apprenticeship program on high school students’ understandings of the nature of science and scientific inquiry. J. Res. Sci. Teach. 2003, 40 (5), 487−509. K

DOI: 10.1021/acs.jchemed.7b00210 J. Chem. Educ. XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX

Journal of Chemical Education

Article

(101) Flaherty, A.; O’Dwyer, A.; Mannix-McNamara, P.; Leahy, J. J. The Influence of Psychological Empowerment on the Enhancement of Chemistry Laboratory Demonstrators’ Perceived Teaching Self-Image and Behaviours as Graduate Teaching Assistants. In review, 2017. (102) Chen, H.-J.; She, J.-L.; Chou, C.-C.; Tsai, Y.-M.; Chiu, M.-H. Development and application of a scoring rubric for evaluating students’ experimental skills in organic chemistry: An instructional guide for teaching assistants. J. Chem. Educ. 2013, 90 (10), 1296− 1302. (103) Hensiek, S.; DeKorver, B. K.; Harwood, C. J.; Fish, J.; O’Shea, K.; Towns, M. Improving and Assessing Student Hands-On Laboratory Skills through Digital Badging. J. Chem. Educ. 2016, 93 (11), 1847−1854. (104) Ritchie, S. M.; Rigano, D. L. Laboratory apprenticeship through a student research project. J. Res. Sci. Teach. 1996, 33 (7), 799−815. (105) National Academy of Sciences. Challenges in Chemistry Graduate Education; Washington, DC, 2012. (106) Nyquist, J. D.; Woodford, B. J. Re-envisioning the Ph. D.: What Concerns Do We Have?; University of Washington: Seattle, 2000; Vol. 1. (107) Novak, J. D. Learning, Creating, and Using Knowledge: Concept Maps as Facilitative Tools in Schools and Corporations, 2nd ed.; Routledge: New York, 2010. (108) Ausubel, D. Educational Psychology: A Cognitive View; Holt, Rinehart, & Winston: New York, 1968. (109) Bruck, L. B.; Towns, M.; Bretz, S. L. Faculty Perspectives of Undergraduate Chemistry Laboratory: Goals and Obstacles to Success. J. Chem. Educ. 2010, 87 (12), 1416−1424.

L

DOI: 10.1021/acs.jchemed.7b00210 J. Chem. Educ. XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX