Development and Implementation of Design-Based Learning

Jan 8, 2019 - A hands-on design activity named electrochemistry designette that incorporates design thinking with the aims to strengthen electrochemis...
1 downloads 0 Views 7MB Size
Download PDF
Article Cite This: J. Chem. Educ. XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX

pubs.acs.org/jchemeduc

Development and Implementation of Design-Based Learning Opportunities for Students To Apply Electrochemical Principles in a Designette Shun Yu Tan,† Katja Hölttä-Otto,*,‡,∥ and Franklin Anariba*,§ †

Information Systems Technology and Design, Singapore University of Technology and Design, 487372, Singapore Engineering Product Development, Singapore University of Technology and Design, 487372, Singapore § DEsiGn CUBE, Science and Math, joint affiliation with Engineering Product Development, Singapore University of Technology and Design, 487372, Singapore

J. Chem. Educ. Downloaded from pubs.acs.org by UNIV OF LOUISIANA AT LAFAYETTE on 01/09/19. For personal use only.

‡

S Supporting Information *

ABSTRACT: A hands-on design activity named electrochemistry designette that incorporates design thinking with the aims to strengthen electrochemistry concepts, introduce prototyping ideas, encourage student class participation, and foster creativity is presented. This active learning activity, which lies at the interface of design and electrochemistry (mixed methods approach), allows students to experience design thinking as a creative tool through the application of electrochemical principles. The designette permits the students to design and prototype, from an available design prototyping kit, a 6-cell electrochemical device capable of turning on 4 light-emitting diodes (LEDs). The electrochemical device consists of electrode pairs composed of Cu, Zn, Al, and Sn electrodes, along with rice wine and CuSO4 solution as electrolytes, connected via staples, wires, and eyelets. The designette allows for the direct and objective evaluation of students’ performance via three critical parameters: the number of prototypes created, the power harnessed by the voltaic device, and the number of total LEDs powered on by the device. The effectiveness of the designette as a pedagogical tool for design-based learning (DBL) was evaluated through pre- and post-designette electrochemistry tests. Generally, results show that the designette improves the student’s ability to recall information, therefore enhancing the learning experience of the students. Students who participated in the designette displayed statistically significantly higher scores in the electrochemistry assessment after the designette. Furthermore, we found some evidence between performance in the designette and post-designette creativity. Interestingly, no correlations were found between performance in theoretical quizzes, designette performance, or pre-designette creativity metrics. The electrochemistry designette can be carried out as an activity in a chemistry course or a workshop on design for high school students with a background in electrochemistry, for undergraduate engineering and architecture students, and for general undergraduate students enrolled in an introductory general science course, independently of their interest in design. KEYWORDS: Interdisciplinary/Multidisciplinary, Electrochemistry, Chemical Engineering, Hands-On Learning/Manipulatives, High School/Introductory Chemistry

■

delivering, feedback gathering, and iterating.11−14 Design thinking has been embraced in the business world, especially for bringing innovation to the areas of management and entrepreneurship,12,13 and is widely used in engineering, architecture, and design schools. Design thinking is as a tool that allows students to apply analytical, creative, and iterative processes while experimenting, prototyping, gathering feedback, and redesigning.12 Furthermore, in this particular work, design thinking is being applied as a research methodology for the purpose of rendering educational research outcomes into educational practice, such as the development of a designette. Electrochemistry is an all-encompassing topic since it connects to most other topics in chemistry.15 Electrochemistry

INTRODUCTION Design-based learning (DBL) is an inquiry-based pedagogical approach that represents a paradigm shift in imparting important skill sets through creative and applied learning.1,2 DBL has its roots in design-based research (DBR), a pedagogical approach which incorporates empirical experimental design to systematically study learning environments through the use of instructional design methodologies and technological tools for the purpose of manifesting educational practices and innovations grounded on a theoretical basis.3−10 DBL seeks to provide students with deep scientific understanding and problem solving skills for the real world. Furthermore, DBL has the potential for making the learning of science concepts engaging and relevant to the students.2 DBL draws strongly on elements of design thinking, which is arguably a 21st-century skill, defined as needing analytical and creative capabilities in discovering, defining, developing, © XXXX American Chemical Society and Division of Chemical Education, Inc.

Received: September 23, 2018 Revised: December 10, 2018

A

DOI: 10.1021/acs.jchemed.8b00756 J. Chem. Educ. XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX

Journal of Chemical Education

Article

Figure 1. List of materials and tools comprising the basic electrochemical design prototyping kit.

trained in chemical engineering, chemistry, biochemistry, or biotechnology. The premise of our work is the following: Can we apply a mixed method approach (design and electrochemistry) to develop a designette that can be used to evaluate student performance, student learning on basic principles of electrochemistry, and its impact on student creativity? This paper reports on the development of the electrochemistry designette, which includes a description of a prototyping kit, design parameters for the fabrication of the electrochemical device, tests of optimal variants of the electrochemical device, and the implementation of the electrochemistry designette through a design brief: “turning on the light-emitting diodes (LEDs)”. The performance in the designette is evaluated using multiple metrics including the number of prototypes developed, power harnessed by the device, and the number of light-emitting diodes (LEDs) powered by the device. We assess student learning through students’ performance on electrochemistry quizzes pre- and post-participation in the designette while student creativity is assessed by an alternate uses test of creativity29 that is scored for idea quantity and average novelty per student.

is an attention-grabbing topic that can explain various phenomena that the student can observe in their surroundings. Of particular importance, electrochemical concepts become useful to engineering and architecture students, as electrochemistry can explain corrosion processes and energy harnessing devices, such as batteries and fuel cells. A series of active learning activities that illustrate the conversion of chemical energy to electrical energy include a household battery,16 zinc−air batteries,17,18 aluminum batteries,19 a Mg/ Cu battery used to light a red light-emitting diode,20 galvanic cells,21−23and a Zn/Cu electrochemical cell capable of generating music out of a greeting card circuit board.24 We take the concept of the conversion of chemical energy to electrical energy presented above through the various active learning activities to develop a designed-based learning platform based on electrochemical principles (designette) that can be used as a pedagogical tool (student learning) and as a research tool to evaluate other domains (student creativity and student performance). The electrochemistry designette, which lies at the interface of design and electrochemistry, utilizes elements of the design thinking process in the application of electrochemical principles to achieve solutions. A designette is a systematically developed design opportunity powerful enough to explain complex concepts and to impart a set of core skills for bringing forth innovation, and designettes have been shown to be effective.25−27 A good designette is an open-ended activity, which offers many potential solutions and not only a single optimal solution, that allows a student to design a solution to a given brief using skills learned or to be learned via the designette. A designette can be taken as a desirable creative tool to integrate design learning experiences in science and engineering classes. Here we introduce a newly developed designette that can be useful for both a student trained in engineering design28 and architecture as well as a student being

■

FABRICATION OF THE ELECTROCHEMISTRY DESIGNETTE

Prototyping Kit

The basic range of tools and materials made available to the students to facilitate rapid prototyping of ideas is based on the construction of an electrochemical voltaic array. The list of materials includes the following: • 1 6-cell plastic container • 50 mL of 0.1 M copper sulfate solution • 50 mL of rice wine • 1 zinc sheet 15 × 15 cm2 in size • 1 aluminum sheet 15 × 15 cm2 in size B

DOI: 10.1021/acs.jchemed.8b00756 J. Chem. Educ. XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX

Journal of Chemical Education

Article

Figure 2. Panel A displays the various components of the electrochemical device configured in-series. Panel B delineates the pathway of the electrons from the anode (−) to the cathode (+).

metal rectangular pieces, each composed of ∼1 mm thick with a total surface area of ∼10.75 cm2 (2.5 cm wide × 4.3 cm long), and 6 Zn/Al/Sn metal rectangular pieces, each with dimensions of ∼1 mm thick and a total surface area of ∼10.75 cm2 (2.5 cm wide × 4.3 cm long). In order to create the individual voltaic cells, 5 Cu electrodes together with 5 Zn electrodes were electrically connected via an eyelet made out of Cu material as the Zn materials could not be pierced by the stapler. In addition, 5 Cu electrodes together with 5 Al electrodes and 5 Cu electrodes together with 5 Sn electrodes were electrically connected via the eyelets and through staples. The external contacts of the voltaic array were formed by attaching a conductive wire to either a Zn/Al/Sn electrode on one end and to a Cu electrode on the other end. The external electrical contact is created when the Cu wire is knotted through a hole created by an eyelet puncher on both the Cu and either Zn/Al/Sn electrodes, as shown in Figure 2A. For further details on the electrochemical cell construction, please see Figures S1 and S2 in the Supporting Information (SI). The voltaic array is completed by adding 120 mL (20 mL per cell) of either rice wine or 0.1 M CuSO4 solution. The composition of rice wine has been previously discussed;30 however, its composition is rice water, 20% ethanol by volume, and 0.27 M NaCl. The oxide layer on the Cu electrodes is removed from the surface by immersion in a commercially available solution labeled artif icial vinegar, with the main component being acetic acid, followed by a rinse with distilled water. In addition, further cleaning can be carried out by polishing the surface of the Cu electrodes with sand paper as can be the case with Zn, Al, and Sn electrodes. Furthermore, immersion of Zn, Al, and Sn electrodes in the artif icial vinegar cleaning solution for oxide removal during fabrication or before electrochemical measurements is not recommended as lower current density and voltage values are observed instead. Once the multipurpose meter is used to close the circuit in the 6-cell voltaic array, electrons flow through the wire from the anode electrode to the cathode electrode as delineated in Figure 2B.

• 1 copper sheet 15 × 15 cm2 in size • 1 tin sheet 15 × 15 cm2 in size Students also received 1 set of tools, such as • 1 stapler loaded with staples • 1 eyelet puncher • 1 bag with eyelets • 1 20 cm long conductive copper wire • 1 metal cutter • 1 breadboard • 4 LEDs • 1 sandpaper sheet • 1 multipurpose meter to measure dc current and voltage values during the prototyping phase Both the materials and tools are displayed in Figure 1. Design Parameters

The electrochemical voltaic cell design allows for four parametric design opportunities for the students. 1. Electrode pair: students can experiment with 4 metals, each with different standard reduction potentials, Cu (+0.340 V vs SHE), Sn (−0.1364 V vs SHE), Zn (−0.763 V vs SHE), and Al (−1.706 V vs SHE). 2. Electrolytic solution: These are rice wine and 0.1 M CuSO4 solutions. 3. Wiring: Students can electrically connect the electrodes via eyelets, eyelets plus wires, wires, and staples. 4. Voltaic cell configuration: students can arrange the 6-cell electrochemical device in series or in parallel. These parametric opportunities provide 72 potential design permutations for exploration. Fabrication of Optimal Variants of the Electrochemical Device

The array is conveniently configured with only 6 cells, which when arranged in series provide maximum power (P = current × voltage). The electrolyte is housed in a 6-well plastic container obtained commercially; however, the array can be fabricated via 3D printing. For the purpose of fabrication and testing, the electrodes of the voltaic cells were made of 6 Cu C

DOI: 10.1021/acs.jchemed.8b00756 J. Chem. Educ. XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX

Journal of Chemical Education

Article

Figure 3. Representative current density (J) curves vs time for the Zn−Cu (eyelets), Al−Cu (eyelets), Sn−Cu (eyelets), and Al−Cu (staples) electrochemical devices when the electrolyte is (A) rice wine and (B) 0.1 M CuSO4 solution. Representative voltage curves vs time for the Zn−Cu (eyelets), Al−Cu (eyelets), Sn−Cu (eyelets), and Al−Cu (staples) electrochemical devices when the electrolyte is (C) rice wine, and (D) 0.1 M CuSO4 solution. The inset in panel A displays a magnified view of the bottom 3 curves.

■

TESTING OF THE ELECTROCHEMISTRY DESIGNETTE

respectively. Furthermore, Al−Cu (eyelets) showed 10 times greater current density than Al−Cu (staples) under rice wine electrolyte. Under 0.1 M CuSO4 electrolyte, Zn−Cu (eyelets) showed 78, 5.7, and 2.3 times greater current density than Al−Cu (staples), Al−Cu (eyelets), and Sn−Cu (eyelets), respectively. Similarly to the rice wine electrolyte, Al−Cu (eyelets) displayed 13.7 times greater current density than Al−Cu (staples) in 0.1 M CuSO4 solution. Further details on current vs time curves for the various electrochemical devices can be found in Figure S3 in the SI. The voltage curves for both rice wine and 0.1 M CuSO4(aq) electrolytes are shown in Figure 3, panels C and D, respectively, and summarized in Table 2. The voltage was measured for a time range of 20 s due to a marked stability in the readings in direct voltage mode. Under both electrolytes, electrical conduction between electrodes via eyelets displayed a greater observed voltage

Current and Voltage Profiles

The electrochemical device was tested with a wireless data logger (multimeter/datalogger, EX500, Extech Instruments). The current was measured for 60 s in direct current (dc) mode. Representative current density curves for both rice wine and 0.1 M CuSO4(aq) electrolytes for staples and eyelet electrical contact configured in-series are shown in Figure 3, panels A and B, and summarized in Table 1. Generally, Table 1. Current Density Values of Various Devices under Rice Wine and Copper Sulfate Electrolytic Solutions Configuration Al−Cu (staples) Sn−Cu (eyelets) Al−Cu (eyelets) Zn−Cu (eyelets)

Rice Wine 6.0 2.1 6.0 2.4

× × × ×

−7b

10 10−6c 10−6 10−5

Copper Sulfatea 4.6 6.3 1.6 3.6

× × × ×

10−7b 10−6 10−5 10−5

Table 2. Voltage Values of Various Devices under Rice Wine and Copper Sulfate Electrolytic Solutions

a

0.1 M copper sulfate solution. bAll values reported in A/cm2. cAll values reported after 60 s in dc current mode.

electrical connectivity via eyelets provided greater current density than electrical connectivity via staples, presumably due to lower current resistance in the eyelets. For example, Al−Cu (staples) ranked bottom in terms of current density measured. In general, the Zn−Cu (eyelets) electrochemical device displayed 39.4, 11.5, and 4.0 times greater current density than Al−Cu (staples), Sn−Cu (eyelets), and Al−Cu (eyelets),

Configuration

Rice Wine

Copper Sulfatea

Al−Cu (staples) Sn−Cu (eyelets) Al−Cu (eyelets) Zn−Cu (eyelets)

0.975b 1.35 2.78 4.58

0.189 1.63 2.59 6.34

a

0.1 M copper sulfate solution. bAll values reported in volts. All values reported after 20 s in dc current mode.

D

DOI: 10.1021/acs.jchemed.8b00756 J. Chem. Educ. XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX

Journal of Chemical Education

Article

Figure 4. Flowchart summarizing our approach. Each step is described in detail below.

and included students from the Integrated Learning Program 2 in Chemistry (ILP2-Chemistry, first-year incoming students), first-year students (no declared major), and second-year engineering and architecture students.

than staples. Moreover, the Zn−Cu (eyelets) configuration provided the highest voltage values, 4.58 V in rice wine and 6.34 V in 0.1 M CuSO4(aq), respectively. In summary, the Zn−Cu (eyelets) electrochemical device delivers greater current density and voltage than any other configuration in either rice wine or 0.1 M CuSO4(aq) electrolyte and hence is capable of powering 4 LEDs.

Approach

The various steps in the implementation of our study are shown in Figure 4 below. Each of the steps is subsequently described in further detail.

■

HAZARDS Since the 6-cell voltaic array provides an optimal voltage of 6.35 V and a maximum reported current output of 12.63 mA, its power output is 80.2 mJ as determined by students. Hence, the voltaic array grants safe conditions for students to work through the electrochemistry designette without fear of electrical bodily harm. Students are encouraged to wear gloves at all times to avoid skin contact with CuSO4 solution at all times and to wear goggles at all times for eye protection against any sharp metal. Students must take caution in handling the metal cutter and the corresponding cut-out metal electrodes, with an emphasis on sharp metal corners and sharp metals in general. During implementation of the electrochemistry designette, no student was hurt.

■

Refresher Lesson on Principles of Electrochemistry

Since students recruited were at different stages of their tenure at SUTD, their ability to recall their knowledge on electrochemistry was uncertain. Therefore, in order to help the students recall, at each independent session students were first given a 20 min presentation titled “refresher lesson on voltaic devices”, which also served as a refresher and set the stage for the beginning of the activity. A PowerPoint presentation saved as a PDF can be found in the Supporting Information. The objectives of the lesson were 3-fold: (1) to review the components of a voltaic cell, (2) to provide a historical context by describing the history of electrochemical devices, and (3) to examine batteries designs and current applications.

ASSESSMENT OF THE ELECTROCHEMISTRY DESIGNETTE

Pre-tests on Creativity and Electrochemistry

In order to assess the effect of the designette on the students, knowledge of electrochemistry and student creativity were assessed before the designette. Thus, after completion of the refresher lesson, the participating students were given the first quiz (2 min). The first quiz consisted of an alternate uses test29 for either a paper clip, listed as Quiz 1a in Supporting Information, or a paper cup, listed as Quiz 1b in Supporting Information. Students were given either the paper clip or the paper cup test in a random manner, but with a ∼50/50 distribution among the participants. Quiz 1a reads “Take the following 2 min to list as many possible ways to use the paper clip shown below.” Quiz 2a reads “Take the following 2 min to list as many possible ways to use the paper cup shown below”. Both questions were open-ended and had the purpose of monitoring baseline creativity before participating in the activity. Upon finalization of the first quiz, the second quiz was administered immediately (10 min). Quiz 2 (Supporting Information) addresses electrochemical questions addressing anode and cathode redox reactions, the nature of the salt bridge, electrolytes, electrode potentials, and battery configuration, all required components in the functioning of a voltaic device. The format used for Quiz 2 was multiple choice questions (MCQ), and the purpose was to set a baseline of

Experimental Section

We assess an electrochemistry designette on how it helps students in learning the basic principles of electrochemistry, the interaction of student creativity, and the ability of the students in accomplishing the design task. In brief, the electrochemistry designette is an active learning activity that involves the applications of electrochemistry principles in an effort to design, build, and test a voltaic device. The designette is evaluated using multiple metrics, including (1) the number of prototypes developed, (2) the power harnessed by the device, and (3) the number of light-emitting diodes (LEDs) powered on by the device. Student creativity is assessed by an alternate uses test of creativity29 that is scored for (4) idea quantity, and (5) average novelty per student. Furthermore, we assess students’ performance on electrochemistry quizzes pre- and post-participation on the electrochemistry designette. Student Population

A total number of 35 Singapore University of Technology and Design (SUTD) students participated in the assessment process. Students were recruited and the designette tested in five independent sessions carried out at two different suitable classroom locations at various times (daytime and evening), E

DOI: 10.1021/acs.jchemed.8b00756 J. Chem. Educ. XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX

Journal of Chemical Education

Article

Figure 5. Illustration of the paper cup ideas binning process from direct student responses. Ideas were clustered according to key attributes/ function as displayed in columns under cup ideas. Current solutions (single idea types) are binned along each row and counted on the basis of their repetition as shown under count of current solutions (Ck). A novelty score is assigned accordingly on the basis of eq 1. The novelty score was obtained using a Tk = 82. A similar analysis for the paper clip ideas binning was performed and is shown in Figure S7 in the SI.

Similarly to the administration of Quiz 1, Quiz 4 as shown in Supporting Information was randomly given to the students with a ∼50/50% distribution.

students’ electrochemistry knowledge before their participation in the electrochemistry designette. Designette

Designette Performance: Metrics and Data Analysis

After administration of Quizzes 1 and 2, the students were given all of the materials necessary to carry out the designette, whereby students were granted 2 h to accomplish the design and testing of an electrochemical device. In order to accomplish the design brief, students followed four steps: (1) fabrication of the various components, (2) assembly of the device, (3) acquisition of current and voltage readings, and (4) turning on the LEDs. The LEDs used were 5 mm Red Color LEDs with a voltage ∼1.6 V as measured via the forward bias function of a multipurpose meter (Fluke, 115 True RMS Multimeter). As displayed in the Design Brief and Data Collection Form given to students shown in Supporting Information, the design brief reads “Use the materials provided to design, assemble, and optimize a voltaic device that ensures maximum power (W = voltage × current) capable of powering all 4 LEDs. Feel free to experiment with all types of metal electrodes, electrolytes, cell configuration, and metal connecting ways.” The light-emitting diodes (LEDs) to be powered on were arranged in a series configuration in the breadboard.

In the process of assessing the electrochemistry designette as a pedagogical tool, a series of metrics were recorded for each participating students. These metrics include voltage values, dc current measurements of the fabricated device, and the number of prototypes used before the voltage and dc current measurements, as shown in Figure S4 in SI. For Quizzes 2 and 3 related to the effectiveness of the designette as a pedagogical tool, MCQ questions 1−4 were given 1 point if correct and 0 points if incorrect, whereby the maximum score was 4 points per quiz, refer to Figure S5 in SI for further details. Depending on the number of participants, the data analysis of the metrics can take anywhere from 1 to 4 weeks and does not involve the students. In order to assess how the electrochemistry designette impacted creativity, Quizzes 1 and 4 were implemented, see Supporting Information for details. The responses provided by the students were organized and analyzed according to two main criteria: (1) idea quantity (fluency) and (2) the average novelty of ideas32,33 produced by a student. We use the metrics developed by Shah that have been validated and used by others.34−37 With over 800 citations in Google Scholar (July 2018), these sets of metrics are the most common metric used in engineering design, a field traditionally considered to be pedagogically close to chemistry. The idea quantity per student participant pre- and post-activity was simply counted. Novelty was calculated following the Novelty metric by Shah et al.33 Novelty was rated at idea level, not at feature level, since in this study the ideas are simple results of a test that resembles the classic alternate uses test29 rather than more complex engineering system with subsystems and features. Novelty score is a value for one concept (key attribute/function) while

Post-Tests on Creativity and Electrochemistry

Immediately upon completion of the designette, students were allowed to take Quiz 3 (10 min). In order to maintain all variables constant, Quiz 3 is identical to Quiz 2 as shown in Supporting Information, allowing us to directly and readily evaluate the response of the students to the questions. Questions 1−4 were assessed, tabulated, and are reported here, while the open-ended question 5 and its sketch-related31 importance regarding the battery configuration will be analyzed and reported at a later time. Quiz 3 provided insight into the effectiveness of the electrochemistry designette as an active learning activity. Subsequently, students were allowed to take Quiz 4 (2 min) to assess their post-designette creativity. F

DOI: 10.1021/acs.jchemed.8b00756 J. Chem. Educ. XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX

Journal of Chemical Education

Article

Figure 6. (A) Plot of number of prototype used by the students while participating on the electrochemistry designette. (B) Distribution of the power harnessed by the fabricated voltaic device among the participating students. (C) Plot of number of turned-on light-emitting diodes (LEDs) arranged in-series versus number of students according to the configuration of the voltaic device prototyped by the students. Data analyzed from 35 participating students.

■

average novelty is the average of the sum of all the novelty scores for a single student. The ideas were binned by placing the same or very similar ideas in the same bin (same idea types). The smaller the number of ideas placed in one bin, the more novel or unique the idea was considered. The bins were not defined a priori but rather were a result of the coding process. The resulting 29 ideas for paper clips and 26 ideas for paper cups from a pilot study with 5 students were independently binned by two researchers. A 95% agreement was reached for paper clip and 98% for the paper cup ideas. The respective Cohen’s Kappa values were 0.91 for the clips and 0.96 for the paper cup Novelty training sets, see Figure S6 for more details. With such strong agreement between two researchers, all of the responses for paper cup and paper clip ideas were analyzed for quantity and novelty. All ideas were then binned according to attribute/function and counted accordingly, resulting in a count value, as illustrated in Figure 5. Note that the idea entries shown in Figure 5 are direct quotes from students. For instance, “water container” and “to store water” and “contain water” display the same attribute/function for a corresponding novelty score of 9.76 (fourth row). The assigned novelty score was performed using the following formula:33 Sk =

(Tk − Ck + 1) × 10 Tk

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION OF STUDENT PERFORMANCE

Performance in the Designette

One of the goals of the electrochemistry designette is to provide objective means for assessing the performance or understanding of electrochemical principles of the students in real time. As a result, the design brief was planned to allow the students enough freedom to experiment with all possible configurations that their imagination could bring forth, but at the same time, there were specific performance metrics that could be quantified and assessed objectively. A performance metric of interest is the number of prototypes assembled before taking voltage and dc current measurements and counting the number of LEDs turned on at the end of the designette. A different prototype can be the result of changes or additions in the various components comprising a voltaic cell. These variations can include type of electrode materials, electrode size and shape, electrolyte composition, wiring configuration of each voltaic cell, and material used to connect the voltaic cells, etc. Figure 6A displays a plot of number of prototypes reported versus number of students. From the graph, it can be observed that about half of the students (17), corresponding to 48.6%, reported designing and assembling 3 different prototypes. Four students (11.4%) indicated putting together at least 1 voltaic cell design while 6 students (17.1%) assembled 2 prototypes. Most notably, 7 students (20.0%) fabricated at least 4 prototypes, but only 1 student (2.9%) reported designing 5 prototypes during the 2 h long designette. Figure 6B presents a distribution per student of the power harnessed by the voltaic device fabricated. Power (mJ) is defined as voltage in volts × current in milliamps and is presented in bins of 4.0 mJ wide. A total of 20 students (57.1%) built a voltaic device producing less than 4 mJ, while only 1 student (2.9%) was able to put together a device

(1)

Here, S is the novelty score; T is the total number of ideas produced by all participants per key attribute/function k. C is the count of current solutions (ideas) for key attribute/ function. For example, given a total number of ideas produced by all students per key attributes/functions of cups (82 ideas), the novelty scores varied from 10.00 for a unique solution (idea) (count = 1, high novelty) to a score of 6.71 for an idea that was mentioned 28 times by the student participants (count = 28, low novelty). G

DOI: 10.1021/acs.jchemed.8b00756 J. Chem. Educ. XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX

Journal of Chemical Education

Article

Figure 7. (A) Plot of creative fluency versus electrochemistry quiz scores for pre- and post-designette. (B) Plot of novelty versus electrochemistry quiz scores for pre- and post-designette. Sample population was 35 students.

power harnessed value of 14.0 mJ only, distributed through a voltage of 6.0 V and a dc current of 2.3 mA, capable of turning on 4 LEDs. Another student reported a single prototype with a power harnessed value of 17.0 mJ, composed of a voltage of 6.2 V and a dc current 2.8 mA capable of turning on 4 LEDS as well. A third student stated building 2 prototypes with the best resulting in 21.7 mJ of power harnessed, but capable of powering only 2 LEDs. The reason was that the voltaic device produced a voltage of 3.1 V and a dc current of 7.0 mA, which is not enough voltage to light all 4 LEDs. In this designette, producing the correct voltage and dc current is critical for powering up all 4 LEDs, which is a concept that the students must grasp.

harnessing above 20 mJ. The remaining students constructed voltaic devices harnessing between 4 and 20 mJ. The distribution of the number of LEDs turned on, independent of intensity, is presented in Figure 6C. From the graph we can observe that only 2 students (5.7%) were able to turn on all 4 LEDs located in a breadboard, while 12 students (34.3%) were able to turn on 3 LEDs. We also can see that 4 students (11.4%) turned on 2 LEDs, and 8 students (22.9%) were capable of turning on 1 LED, while 9 students (25.7%) were not able to design and fabricate a voltaic device with enough power to turn on at least 1 LED. For the students who were not able to power at least 1 LED, the designette allows us to identify rather readily and in real time the design deficiencies of the prototypes. Taken together, each of these metrics provides an objective way to assess the performance of the students in achieving the design brief. Counting the number of prototypes provides a measure of the mental dexterity and persistence of the students in reaching the objectives of the design brief.38,39 It also indicates the ability of the student to modify the various device variables, such as electrodes, electrolytes, and electrical wiring, based on their understanding of electrochemical principles. For the maximum number of prototypes reported (5), this means that on average a different prototype was built every 24 min in the 120 min allocated for the designette. Quantification of the power harnessed provides insight into the effectiveness of the built prototypes in harnessing both voltage and dc current. Power generation grants information on the effectiveness in applying electrochemical principles and the ability to optimize the voltaic device. The metric on counting the number of LEDs turned on at the end of the designette provides a direct and objective assessment of the overall student performance. We also analyzed how the number of prototypes correlated with either of the other performance metrics (power generated and the number of LEDs turned on). We find no correlation between the performance metric values and the number of prototypes tested. As a result, in order to have an overall picture, it is recommended to use all three metrics. For instance, one student indicated building 1 prototype with a

Designette Impact on Learning

In order to test if the designette had an impact on the student learning we compared the means of the pre-designette quiz (Quiz 2) (mean = 2.571 (std dev = 0.884)) to the postdesignette quiz (Quiz 3) (mean = 3.114 (std dev = 0.796)). The electrochemistry quiz data is not normal according to Shapiro−Wilk test (p = 0.001 for Quiz 2, and p = 0.000 for Quiz 3). Since the data is nonparametric, thus, a related samples Wilcoxon Signed Rank test is used. With a significance value of 0.000 we reject the null hypothesis and conclude that there is a significant increase in the student performance on the electrochemistry quiz after participating in the designette. Hence, the electrochemistry designette enhanced the electrochemistry quiz scores, strongly indicating the value of the designette as a hands-on pedagogical tool. Creativity Assessment

To ensure the creativity results are the same for both metrics, we first checked if the average novelty and idea quantity values are the same for both tests. Before any analysis, we checked the data separately for paper clip and paper cup data. According to a Shapiro−Wilk test, all data but the quantity of ideas for paper clips in Quiz 1 and for paper cups in Quiz 4, as well as the average Novelty of paper cup ideas in Quiz 4, are not normal. Thus, we choose a nonparametric independent samples Mann−Whitney U test to compare the paper clip and paper H

DOI: 10.1021/acs.jchemed.8b00756 J. Chem. Educ. XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX

Journal of Chemical Education

Article

Implementation

cup data and a repeated measures Wilcoxon Signed Rank test to compare pre- and post-quiz scores. For both creativity metrics pre-designette, the creativity scores are statistically the same (p = 0.122 for idea quantity and p = 0.298 for average novelty). To further confirm, the post-test creativity scores were also tested and similar significance values were obtained (p = 0.217 for idea quantity and p = 0.061 for average novelty). We thus merge the alternate uses creativity tests into a single test for the remaining analyses. We tested if the designette had an impact on the student creativity as measured by idea quantity and average novelty. We find that the quantity of ideas increases (mean = 7.34, std dev = 2.775) from Quiz 1 to Quiz 4 (mean = 8.06, std dev = 3.589), but the increase is not significant (p = 0.095). The average Novelty remains the same (p = 0.771) from Quiz 1 (mean = 9.020, std dev = 0.382) to Quiz 4 (mean = 9.004, std dev = 0.432). We thus conclude the designette does not significantly impact student creativity in such a short time. To further understand the interaction of creativity, designette, and learning, we ran a correlation analysis of all pre-tests and post-tests as well as the performance metrics in the designette. Reporting only the significant correlations, we found out that all the different creativity measures correlate with one another. This indicates that a student who produced a high number of ideas also produced more novel ideas. Further, a student that performed well in the pre-test also performed well in the post-test. This was expected. More interesting is to see a statistically significant positive correlation (r = 0.359) between the number of LEDs powered and the post-designette average novelty of ideas. This may indicate a positive relationship of the designette and student creativity, but further studies are needed. We further analyzed how student creativity influenced the student performance in the electrochemistry quizzes. To do this we categorized students into three levels of creativity in terms of both the number of ideas they produced as well as their idea novelty. We divided the creativity scores in thirds: low, medium, and high creativity. We also wanted to see if the student baseline creativity as measured in Quiz 1 correlates with the score in the electrochemistry quiz or the performance of their device. It was observed that those students with low idea quantity scored significantly (ρ = 0.001) higher on the electrochemistry quiz. This correlation can be observed in Figure 7A. We find that whether with low, medium, or high creative fluency, students’ performance in the electrochemistry quiz increased after participating in the designette.40,41 Similarly, Figure 7B shows that students demonstrating low average novelty scored marginally (ρ = 0.093) higher on the electrochemistry quiz. Again, whether with low, medium, or high average novelty, students’ scores in the electrochemistry quiz benefited from participating in the designette.42 Thus, the electrochemistry designette was successful in teaching principles of electrochemistry independently of student creativity. We also checked if the designette performance metrics were correlated with the electrochemistry quiz performance but found no significant correlations. Thus, interestingly, performance in a theoretical quiz and a hands-on activity seems independent of one another. This may indicate the skills are separate skills that should be taught separately.

On the basis of the study, a period of 2 h should be given to the students to work on the fabrication, assembly, and optimization of the electrochemical device (design brief). The electrochemistry designette can be implemented as an active learning activity via a course after addressing the fundamental concepts of electrochemistry or can be implemented standalone as a workshop on design using principles of electrochemistry, in which a refresher on the concepts of electrochemistry via a lecture of 20 min should be provided before the student engage in the design brief.

■

SUMMARY We presented the development of the electrochemistry designette, which can be implemented via integration in an introductory course or through a workshop on design for students involved in technology and design with science backgrounds. Moreover, the designette can be utilized as a platform to test various designs of learning environments. Most importantly, the designette conceived at the interface of design and chemistry can impact both science education and engineering design. Furthermore, we assessed the electrochemistry designette for its pedagogical usefulness and as a general means of fostering creativity in students via various metrics. The results demonstrate that the designette enhances student learning, as shown by the improved electrochemistry scores post-designette. Moreover, the designette revealed that students with low creative fluency scores perform significantly higher in the electrochemistry quiz while students with average novelty scores perform marginally higher in the electrochemistry quiz. Finally, the designette does not affect creativity as measured by creative fluency and average novelty. Taken together, the development and general evaluation of the electrochemistry designette indicate that the designette is an effective tool for enhancing the overall student learning within the context of a design-based learning (DBL) pedagogy.

■

ASSOCIATED CONTENT

S Supporting Information *

The Supporting Information is available on the ACS Publications website at DOI: 10.1021/acs.jchemed.8b00756. Information on fabrication of the electrodes using an eyelet puncher and eyelets, fabrication of the electrodes using staples, current vs time curves, electrochemical reactions at the electrodes for optimal variants, metrics, quiz results, novelty training set, and clip ideas binning process (PDF, DOCX) Modifiable design brief and data collection sheet (PDF, DOCX) Quiz 1a (PDF, DOCX) Quiz 1b (PDF, DOCX) Quiz 2 (PDF, DOCX) Quiz 3 (PDF, DOCX) Quiz 4a (PDF, DOCX) Quiz 4b (PDF, DOCX) Refresher presentation (PDF)

■

AUTHOR INFORMATION

Corresponding Authors

*E-mail: [email protected]. I

DOI: 10.1021/acs.jchemed.8b00756 J. Chem. Educ. XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX

Journal of Chemical Education

Article

*E-mail: katja.holtta-otto@aalto.fi.

(20) Eggen, P.-O.; Skaugrud, B. An Easy-To-Assemble Three-Part Galvanic Cell. J. Chem. Educ. 2015, 92, 1053. (21) Brosmer, J. L.; Peters, D. G. Galvanic Cells and the Determination of Equilibrium Constants. J. Chem. Educ. 2012, 89, 763. (22) Ivey, M. M.; Smith, E. T. Electrochemical Polishing of Silverware: A Demonstration of Voltaic and Galvanic Cells. J. Chem. Educ. 2008, 85, 68. (23) Goto, H.; Yoneyama, H.; Togashi, F.; Ohta, R.; Tsujimoto, A.; Kita, E.; Ohshima, K.-i. Preparation of Conducting Polymers by Electrochemical Methods and Demonstration of a Polymer Battery. J. Chem. Educ. 2008, 85, 1067. (24) Cady, S. G. Music Generated by a Zn/Cu Electrochemical Cell, a Lemon Cell, and a Solar Cell: A Demonstration for General Chemistry. J. Chem. Educ. 2014, 91, 1675. (25) Telenko, C.; Camburn, B.; Holtta-Otto, K.; Wood, K.; Otto, K. Designettes: New Approaches to Multidisciplinary Engineering Design Education, ASME 2014 International Design Engineering Technical Conferences & Computers and Information in Engineering Conference (IDETC/CIE 2014), Buffalo, NY, 2014. (26) Telenko, C.; Wood, K.; Otto, K.; Elara, M. R.; Foong, S.; Pey, K. L.; Tan, U.-X.; Camburn, B.; Moreno, D.; Frey, D. Designettes: An Approach to Multidisciplinary Engineering Design Education. J. Mech. Des. 2016, 38, 022001−1. (27) Cooper, C. A.; Anderson, M.; Jensen, D. J.; Fulton, J.; Wood, K. L. Designettes in Capstone: Characterizing the Impact of Early Design Experiences in Capstone Education with Emphasis on Designette Project Choice, Proceedings of the 123rd ASEE Annual Conference, New Orleans, LA, June 26−29, 2016. (28) Otto, K.; Wood, K. Product Design: Techniques in Reverse Engineering and New Product Development; Prentince-Hall, Inc.: Upper Saddle River, NJ, 2001. (29) Guilford, J. P. The Nature of Human Intelligence; McGraw-Hill: New York, NY, 1967. (30) Lu, X.; Anariba, F. Fostering Innovation through an Active Learning Activity Inspired by the Baghdad Battery. J. Chem. Educ. 2014, 91, 1929. (31) Cham, J. G.; Yang, M. C. Does Sketching Skill Relate to Good Design? Proceedings of IDET/CIE 205, ASME 2005 International Design Engineering Technical Conference & Computers and Information in Engineering Conference, Long Beach, CA, 2005. (32) Yang, M. C. Observations on Concept Generation and Sketching in Engineering Design. Res. Eng. Design 2009, 20 (1), 1. (33) Shah, J. J.; Vargas-Hernandez, N.; Smith, S. M. Metrics for Measuring Ideation Effectiveness. Design Studies 2003, 24, 111−134. (34) Linsey, J. S.; Tseng, I.; Fu, K.; Cagan, J.; Wood, K. L.; Schunn, C. A Study of Design Fixation, Its Mitigation and Perception in Engineering Design Faculty. J. Mech. Des. 2010, 132, 041003−1. (35) Genco, N.; Holtta-Otto, K.; Seepersad, C. C. An Experimental Investigation of the Innovation Capabilities of Undergraduate Engineering Students. J. Engr. Education 2012, 101, 60. (36) Moreno, D. P.; Hernandez, A. A.; Yang, M. C.; Otto, K. N.; Holtta-Otto, K.; Linsey, J. S.; Wood, K. L.; Linden, A. Fundamental Studies in Design-by-Analogy: A focus on domain-knowledge experts and applications to transactional design problems. Design Studies 2014, 35, 232. (37) Chan, J.; Fu, K.; Schunn, C.; Cagan, J.; Wood, K. L.; Kotovsky, K. On the Benefits and Pitfalls of Analogies for Innovative Design: Ideation Performance Based on Analogical Distance, Commonness, and Modality of Examples. J. Mech. Des. 2011, 133, 081004−1. (38) Yang, M. C. An Examination of Prototyping and Design Outcome, Proceedings of DETC 20014 & 2004 ASME Design Engineering Technical Conferences, Salt Lake City, UT, 2004; p 1. (39) Yang, M. C. A Study of Prototype, Design Activity, and Design Outcome. Design Studies 2005, 26, 649−669. (40) Prince, M. Does Active Learning Work? A Review of the Research. J. Engr. Education 2004, 93 (3), 223−231. (41) Freeman, S.; Eddy, S. L.; McDonough, M.; Smith, M. K.; Okoroafor, N.; Jordt, H.; Wenderoth, M. P. Active Learning Increases

ORCID

Franklin Anariba: 0000-0002-6331-0781 Present Address ∥

Design Factory, Department of Mechanical Engineering, Aalto University, Betonimiehenkuja 5, 02150 Espoo, Finland. Notes

The authors declare no competing financial interest.

■

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Financial support from SUTD Pedagogy Innovations grant (no. 2014-1008) from the office of education is gratefully acknowledged.

■

REFERENCES

(1) Lee, H.-K.; Breitenberg, M. Education in the new millenium: the case for design-based learning. Int. J. Art. Des. Educ. 2010, 29, 54. (2) Kim, P.; Suh, E.; Song, D. Development of a design-based learning curriculum through design-based research for a technologyenabled science classroom. Edu. Technol. Res. Dev. 2015, 63, 575. (3) Brown, A. L. Design Experiments: Theoretical and Methodological Challenges in Creating Complex Interventions. J. of the Learning Sciences 1992, 2, 141. (4) Collins, A. Towards a Design Science of Education. In New Directions in Educational Technology; Scanlon, E., O’Shea, T., Eds.; Springer-Verlag: Berlin, 1992. (5) Edelson, D. C. Design Research: What We Learn When We Engage in Design. J. of the Learning Sciences 2002, 11 (1), 105. (6) Collins, A.; Joseph, D.; Bielaczyc, K. Design Research: Theoretical and Methodological Issues. J. of the Learning Sciences 2004, 13 (1), 15. (7) Anderson, T.; Shattuck, J. Design-Base Research: A Decade of Progress in Educational Research. Educational Researcher 2012, 41 (1), 16. (8) Koehler, M. J.; Mishra, P. Teachers Learning Technology by Design. J. Computing Teacher Education 2005, 21 (3), 94. (9) Koehler, M. J.; Mishra, P.; Yahya, K. Tracing the Development of Teacher Knowledge in a Design Seminar: Integrating Content, Pedagogy and Technology. Computers & Education 2007, 49, 740. (10) Hoardley, C. Design-Based Research: An Emerging Paradigm for Educational Inquiry. Educational Researcher 2003, 32 (1), 5−8. (11) Ng, C. H. T.; Cheah, S.-M. Chemical Product Engineering Using CDIO Enhanced with Design Thinking, Proceedings of the 8th International CDIO Conference, Brisbane, Australia, July 1−4, 2012. (12) Razzouk, R.; Shute, V. What is Design Thinking and Why is it Important? Rev. Edu. Res. 2012, 82, 330. (13) Stewart, S. C. Interpreting Design Thinking (Editorial). Design Studies 2011, 32, 515. (14) Lai, J. Y.; Roan, E. T.; Greenberg, H. C.; Yang, M. C. Prompt Versus Problem: Helping Students Learn to Frae Problems and Think Creatively, Proceedings of the 2nd Design Creativity Workshop, Third International Conference on Design Computing and Cognition, Atlanta, GA, 2008; pp 1−6. (15) Perkins, R. I.; Maloy, J. T. Goals in Teaching Electrochemistry. J. Chem. Educ. 1985, 62, 1018. (16) Furlan, P. Y.; Krupa, T.; Naqiv, H.; Anderson, K. An OpenEnded Project: Building a High Performance, yet Simple Household Battery. J. Chem. Educ. 2013, 90, 1341. (17) Kamata, M.; Paku, M. Exploring Faraday’s Law of Electrolysis Using Zinc-Air Batteries with Current Regulative Diodes. J. Chem. Educ. 2007, 84, 674. (18) Hooi, Y. K.; Nakano, M.; Koga, N. A Simple Oxygen Detector Using Zinc-Air Battery. J. Chem. Educ. 2014, 91, 297. (19) Parkes, M. A.; Chen, T.; Wu, B.; Yufit, V.; Offer, G. J. ″Can″ You Really Make a Battery Out of That? J. Chem. Educ. 2016, 93, 681. J

DOI: 10.1021/acs.jchemed.8b00756 J. Chem. Educ. XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX

Journal of Chemical Education

Article

Student Performance in Science, Engineering, and Mathematics. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 2014, 111 (23), 8410. (42) Kershaw, T. C.; Seepersad, C. C.; Holtta-Otto, K.; Williams, P. T.; Young, A. P.; Bhowmick, S.; McCarthy, M. A. The Effects of the Undergraduate Curriculum and Individual Differences on Student Innovation Capabilities, Proceedings of the ASME 2014 International Design Engineering Technical Conferences & Computer and Information in Engineering Conference IDET/CIE 2014, Buffalo, NY, 2014; p 1.

K

DOI: 10.1021/acs.jchemed.8b00756 J. Chem. Educ. XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX