Development and Preliminary Impacts of the Implementation of an

Jul 11, 2013 - “Less structured than others—It took more time than any other lab.” “It was a little harder and took forever.” “This has be...
0 downloads 0 Views 860KB Size
Download PDF
Article pubs.acs.org/jchemeduc

Development and Preliminary Impacts of the Implementation of an Authentic Research-Based Experiment in General Chemistry Janice Hall Tomasik,* Katelyn E. Cottone, Mitchell T. Heethuis, and Anja Mueller Department of Chemistry, Central Michigan University, Mount Pleasant, Michigan 48859, United States S Supporting Information *

ABSTRACT: Incorporating research-based lab activities into general chemistry at a large university can be challenging, considering the high enrollments and costs typically associated with the courses. Performing sweeping curricular overhauls of the general chemistry laboratory can be difficult, and in some cases discouraged, as many would rather maintain the status quo. This paper describes the development, implementation, and evaluation of a research-based lab that fits into a two-hour general chemistry laboratory period. The new lab involves testing an imprinted polymer for removal of heavy-metal ions in wastewater, and both highlights and adds to the current research of a faculty member. Also discussed are the evaluation results of the first three years of implementation in the honors general chemistry lab section. A lab questionnaire was developed to measure effects on students on seven aspects, including learning gains, attitudes toward chemistry, and level of research interest. Evaluation results suggest positive impacts on attitudes toward chemistry and for seeking further research opportunities. This approach can be used as an initial step toward more sweeping research-based curricular changes at the general chemistry level. KEYWORDS: First-Year Undergraduate/General, Graduate Education/Research, Inquiry-Based/Discovery Learning, Hands-On Learning/Manipulatives, Chromatography, Undergraduate Research

■

INTRODUCTION Over the past two decades there has been an increasing drive to incorporate research experiences into the undergraduate curriculum.1−3 The Undergraduate Research Summit, sponsored by the National Science Foundation, discussed recommendations for enhancing undergraduate chemistry research at predominately undergraduate institutions.4 In its recent publications, the Council on Undergraduate Research encourages faculty to incorporate research into undergraduate curricula.4−6 Studies have shown that undergraduate students benefit from a researchemphasized laboratory course in which they experience fundamental chemistry concepts in a context that exemplifies practical and current research applications.7,8 This method has been shown to promote students’ interest in chemistry, increase students’ independent thinking, and encourage students to look beyond textbooks and faculty for answers.9−12 With the potential benefits for students in mind, many institutions are seeking ways to incorporate research-based lab experiences into their classrooms. Researchers at the University of Southern Maine have reported their experiences revising their organic and general chemistry lab curricula to be more research-based.7,13 The authors found that if students were given only little guidance on procedures, some felt the tasks were overwhelming. Student response was more positive when instructor guidance was increased,7 and student performance using this approach was found to be superior.13 Even at this early stage in their careers students appreciated that the projects made them think about chemistry and how it can be applied to real-life situations.13 © 2013 American Chemical Society and Division of Chemical Education, Inc.

The Center for Authentic Science Practice in Education has also described their work to incorporate research-based modules into undergraduate courses.8 The modules are designed to be completed in six−eight weeks in a standard first- or second-year laboratory course. Other programs working to incorporate research-based laboratories into the curriculum include the Research Experiences to Enhance Learning at The Ohio State University, and the Freshman Research Initiative at The University of Texas at Austin.14,15 At Central Michigan University, we have a large general chemistry program that serves around 1000 undergraduates a year. Many of these students, including chemistry majors, are required to complete undergraduate research as part of their major program. A more research-based lab experience in general chemistry would better prepare students for their program and for their future careers. We believe that the greatest chance for influencing and encouraging students’ interests in seeking a career in chemistry is during their first years at the university. Also, we wish for students to join research groups earlier, so they have time to sufficiently develop and complete their projects. Thus, in this article, we focus on the general chemistry lab because most students take this course during their first two years. The large student body and high costs associated with general chemistry lab necessitate that we start with a small focus, with an experiment for one lab period instead of a several-week experience. In this case, the experiment should fit into the allotted two-hour lab period. We expect this approach for incorporating a short, research-based lab experience will be a valuable first step in the curricular overhaul process. Published: July 11, 2013 1155

dx.doi.org/10.1021/ed300328p | J. Chem. Educ. 2013, 90, 1155−1161

Journal of Chemical Education

Article

through 3 while developing an imprinted polymer lab for wastewater remediation. These experiences and our evaluation results on student impacts are significant for others researching in this field, and to other institutions wishing to similarly transform their general chemistry lab classes.

Eventually, depending on our results, we envision incorporating more research-based projects that could be completed over more weeks during the semester. We wondered about two questions: Could we design effective, research-based lab activities that highlight current research? Would it be possible to create an experience that can be completed in one lab period, so that institutions with large sections of general chemistry would be encouraged to try this approach? Our research goals were to study the best methods for development and implementation, and to study the effects of this research-based approach for teaching general chemistry. This article describes the development, implementation, and evaluation results for a new research-based lab that highlights a current faculty member’s research. The module introduces chemistry students to a research topic, presents fundamental chemistry concepts in an applied context, and exposes students to undergraduate research opportunities. By doing this, we hope to retain more students as science majors and encourage them to consider future careers in scientific research.

Purification of Cadmium-Contaminated Wastewater Using Imprinted Polymers

One of us (A.M.) designs imprinted polymers for use in wastewater remediation; the resins are specifically developed to target heavy-metal ions.16 Residential wastewater is treated by a series of methods: primary methods to remove suspended solids (e.g., sedimentation, flocculation); advanced primary methods (filtration, chemical addition); secondary methods to remove biodegradable matter (aerobic bacteria); tertiary methods to remove the remaining suspended solids (granular medium or microscreen filtration, often including disinfection); and advanced methods for water reuse.17,18 Heavy-metal ions have been found to inhibit the bacteria used for sewage treatment, but they are difficult to remove using these processes.19 The imprinted polymer designed can be exceptionally effective at removing Cd2+ ions from contaminated sources.16,20 The polymer may be used in a chromatography column for testing. Initially, A.M. and her research group were consulted to identify an appropriate portion of the work for adaptation to the general chemistry lab. Their research had already demonstrated that the imprinted polymers are effective at removing Cd2+ ions. The questions that had yet to be answered were the following: (i) How does the residency time of the Cd2+ in the column change the polymer’s removal efficiency? (ii) How does the swelling time of the polymer before loading it in the column affect the residency time of the Cd2+ solution in the column? We developed a lab experience that enables students to collect and interpret data to help answer these questions. We decided that general chemistry students could collect data on the ideal swelling time and quantity of polymer to use, as well as on the ideal residency time for successful Cd2+ removal. Students could also collect comparative data for sand and charcoal. During the prelab lecture, A.M. discusses her research with students and explains the purpose of the lab activity. In this lab, students use column chromatography and polymer, provided by A.M.’s research group, as a stationary phase to remove cadmium ions from solution. Students analyze the imprinted polymer in comparison to sand and charcoal for its ability to remove cadmium ions from an aqueous solution.

■

LAB DEVELOPMENT This research seeks to develop new laboratories for the twosemester sequence of general chemistry, Introduction to Chemistry I and II (CHM 131 and CHM 132), and to study the impacts of the new laboratories on students. We focus on general chemistry I (CHM 131) in this paper. Students majoring in chemistry, biology, premedicine, and other science- and mathematics-related fields are required to take these courses. Per week, both courses consist of three 1 h lectures (215 students), one prelab lecture (215 students), and one 2 h lab session (24 students per section). The basic stages we undertake in this research are outlined in Box 1. In this paper, we discuss our experiences during stages 1 Box 1. General Stages for Developing Research-Based Lab Experiments Stage 1: Familiarization with Faculty Research Project • Consult with faculty and research students • Study recent articles and in-progress research • Together with faculty, devise lab activity research plan Stage 2: Lab Development • The lab must-haves: fundamental chemistry concepts; relation to current research • Considerations: instrument usage; amount and cost of materials; short two-hour lab period; special lab supplies; special chemical handling and waste, if applicable Stage 3: Pilot Test (20+ Students) • Test lab procedure with student volunteer(s) • Implement pilot in the honors general chemistry lab section • Collect and analyze student response survey and learning gains data • Revise lab activity based on implementation and student response data Stage 4: Wide-Scale Implementation (640+ Students/ Semester) • Incorporate into all general chemistry lab sections • Collect and analyze student response survey and learning gains data • Revise lab procedures for subsequent years

■

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Evaluation findings from the first three years of implementation are discussed in this paper; the same instructor taught the course each year. The new lab was piloted during the Fall of 2009 in the honors 131 lab section (20 students). Students worked in pairs, as is customary for most laboratories during the semester, with each group assigned one of three stationary phases (sand, activated charcoal, or imprinted polymer). Groups used column chromatography and their assigned separation medium to remove Cd2+ ions from a 20 ppm solution. Students chose how much stationary phase to use from a range of acceptable limits. Outside of this predetermined range, the flow rate for the columns would be too slow for the allotted lab period, or the columns would not have enough material for ion removal. Students collected data on the length of time solutions took to pass through the column versus the 1156

dx.doi.org/10.1021/ed300328p | J. Chem. Educ. 2013, 90, 1155−1161

Journal of Chemical Education

Article

In spite of the length of the lab, positive comments emerged during the procedure from some students, mostly in reference to the fact that their work would be used for a greater purpose beyond their course. Some showed increased concern about getting “good” data because it would be used for research. To shorten the length of the lab, in 2010 each group ran a total of three columns: one with the imprinted polymer, and two with their assigned medium of sand or charcoal. Most groups finished the chromatography procedure after about 45 min. Although students had more time to work on the postlab questions, a few still struggled to finish within the 120 min. In 2011 the postlab questions were removed, and the students used the extra time to write reports and graph their data. Unfortunately, this year the activated charcoal columns were very slow because the charcoal was in powder form, rather than pellets, as in previous years. Most students still did not finish the procedures and their reports until the end of the 120 min period.

amount of material used, and they determined the initial and final concentrations of Cd2+. Concentrations of Cd2+ were measured by flame atomic absorption spectroscopy (FAAS) using a working curve for the instrument that was produced in advance of the lab period. Students shared data to compare the separating ability of all three media and determined which was the most effective on a per-gram basis at removing the cadmium ions. After finishing the procedures, students completed three postlab questions on the experiment. Lab reports and postlab questions were collected at the end of the period, and student data were compiled and given to A.M.’s research group. The impacts of the lab on students were determined using qualitative and quantitative methods. The instructor and research assistants made observations during lab implementation. A research-based lab survey was developed to measure student opinions and their assessments of learning gains from the experiment. Based on results, the lab was modified for subsequent years. Most of the students taking this course are first-year students with an undeclared or undecided major (Table 1). Students

Student Lab Questionnaire Results

The lab questionnaire was developed in consultation with the CMU Faculty Center for Innovative Teaching (FaCIT), the university’s teaching and instructional design center, which has specialists in evaluation.21 Two volunteer students completed a pilot version of the experiment and survey and made suggestions that were incorporated into the revised survey. The questionnaire consists of items with five-point Likert scales (1, “no gain” or “strongly disagree”; 5, “great gain” or “strongly agree”), as well as open-ended questions regarding students’ general opinions on the lab. Questions assessing students’ perceptions of learning gains were based on those from the Student Assessment of Learning Gains Survey (SALG).22 Questions regarding student attitudes were based on those from the Chemistry Attitudes and Experiences Questionnaire (CAEQ).23 Differences between means were measured using one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA). Internal consistencies of scales in the survey were measured using the Cronbach’s α statistic (Supporting Information), and survey responses were supported by qualitative observations made by researchers during the lab implementation. Cronbach α values for scales ranged from 0.773 (scientific methods gains) to 0.970 (gains in interest toward chemistry). The questions in the survey attempt to measure students’ perceived impacts of the lab on seven scales (Table 2): 1. Interest toward chemistry 2. Interest in seeking out research opportunities 3. Ability to perform the steps of the scientific method 4. Knowledge of the chemistry concepts addressed by the lab 5. Self-efficacy for learning 6. Critical thinking abilities 7. Perceived real-world relevancy of the lab (See Supporting Information for all survey questions.) Students were also surveyed after two “traditional” chemistry laboratories in the same semester. These traditional laboratories differed from the imprinted polymer lab in that they did not relate to current chemistry research, and they covered different concepts and techniques (Supporting Information). Comparing the traditional laboratories to the new lab is difficult because each lab differs markedly from the others. Therefore, not unexpectedly, no statistically significant differences in survey data were found between this lab and the traditional laboratories. However, students did indicate higher gains in seeking further research opportunities after the research-based lab (Table 3). In the open-ended responses discussed below,

Table 1. Demographics of Student Enrollment in CHM 131H for the Years 2009, 2010, and 2011 Majors

Year

Students Enrolled in Year in CHM 131H University (N) Undeclared, N

2009

20

First-year (11) Second-year (4) Third-year (5)

15

2010

19

First-year (16)

16

20

Second-year (2) Third-year (1) First-year (14)

18

2011

Second-year (6)

Declared, N (Major Subject) 2 (Psychology) 1 (Meteorology) 1 (Integrated Science) 1 (Biology, Environmental Science, History triple major) 1 (Integrative Public Relations) 1 (Integrated Science) 1 (Dietetics) 1 (Therapeutic Recreation) 1 (Anthropology)

typically choose a major within the year after taking the course, and the majority become STEM majors (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics; this also includes biomedical sciences, chemistry, biology, physics, and environmental sciences).

■

IMPLEMENTATION OBSERVATIONS For all students in CHM 131H, this lab is the first time they are exposed to the methods of column chromatography and FAAS in their coursework. In 2009, we observed students as they completed the procedures. Some struggled with packing the columns, and many took a long time finishing the column chromatography portion of the lab. Groups assigned sand and charcoal finished the chromatography within 30 min, but those assigned the imprinted polymer took up to 80 min. This was due to the small particle size of the polymer in comparison to the sand and charcoal. These students did not have adequate time to complete the FAAS lab, answer postlab questions, and finish their reports. The rest of the class waited in order to compile data and to finish writing conclusions for their lab reports. 1157

dx.doi.org/10.1021/ed300328p | J. Chem. Educ. 2013, 90, 1155−1161

Journal of Chemical Education

Article

scientific method gains; lab concepts gains; and critical thinking (Table 4). Likely, this is due to lab procedure improvements

Table 2. Scales and Questions Used To Measure Student Perceived Impacts of the Research-Based Lab Scale Research Interest

Gains in Interest Toward Chemistry

Scientific Method Gains

Lab Concepts Gainsa

Learning SelfEfficacy

Critical Thinking

Real-World Relevancy

Survey Items

Table 4. Summary of Means and Standard Deviations for Scores Related to the Imprinted Polymer Lab

Rate how strongly you agree or disagree with the following statements. a. This experiment made me more likely to get involved in chemistry research b. This experiment made me more likely to get involved in research As a result of your work in THIS EXPERIMENT, what gains did you make with the following aspects? a. Enthusiasm for the subject b. Level of interest in chemistry c. Interest in taking or planning to take additional classes in chemistry To what extent did THIS EXPERIMENT help you perform the steps of the scientif ic method? a. Making observations b. Forming hypotheses c. Designing an experiment d. Collecting and interpreting data e. Drawing a conclusion As a result of your work in THIS EXPERIMENT, what gains did you make in your understanding of each of the following concepts or techniques? a. Column chromatographya b. Flame Atomic Absorption Spectroscopya c. Using a calibration curve to determine the unknown concentration from absorbancea As a result of your work in THIS EXPERIMENT, what gains did you make with the following aspects? a. Confidence that you understand the material b. Your comfort level in working with complex ideas As a result of your work in THIS EXPERIMENT, what gains did you make in the following cognitive abilities? a. Connecting key CHM131 ideas with other knowledge b. Using systematic reasoning in your approach to problems c. Using critical approaches to analyze data Rate how strongly you agree or disagree with the following statements. a. This experiment related to real-world problems

Mean Scores (SD) by Year Scale Research Interest Interest Toward Chemistry Gains Scientific Method Gains Lab Concepts Gains Learning Self-Efficacy Critical Thinking Real-World Relevancy

Imprinted Polymer Lab Traditional Lab: Infrared Spectroscopy Traditional Lab: Qualitative Analysis of Anions Traditional Lab: Titration of a Weak Acid Total

Research Interest Scale Means (SD)

2009, 2010, 2011 2009, 2011

29 27

3.17 (1.07) 3.15 (0.94)

2009, 2010

21

3.10 (1.25)

2010

12

3.08 (1.06)

2009, 2010, 2011

89

3.09 (0.94) 2.88 (1.10)

3.12 3.64 3.23 3.10 4.17

3.05 3.80 2.70 2.40 4.60

3.56 3.94 3.09 3.43 4.36

(0.95) (0.97) (1.05) (1.08) (1.03)

(1.11) (1.39) (1.30) (1.14) (0.55)

(0.68) (0.77) (1.02) (0.99) (0.67)

The survey also contained the following open-ended questions: 1. What did you think of this experiment? 2. What is something new that you learned during the course of this experiment? 3. Do you have any suggestions on how to improve this experiment? 4. How does this experiment compare to other experiments you are asked to complete in the CHM 131 laboratory? Responses to these questions were similar in each year. Combining the survey data over the three years, a total of 25 students (out of 29 survey respondents) answered these openended questions. For Question 1, 16 students responded positively about the lab. The responses included 8 students who said they found the lab “interesting” or “informative”; 3 who mentioned that they found the lab “fun”; 5 who indicated they appreciated the realworld relevancy of the experiment; and 5 who indicated that they appreciated being part of a research project. For example, one student wrote, “I thought it was very interesting and I was glad to be a part of the research for a new method to remove harmful chemicals from water.” Another wrote, “I thought this experiment was fun and I felt effective helping to further research.” The majority of negative responses for Question 1 (4) indicated that the lab was too long to complete in the given time period. Additionally, 2 students’ comments reflected that they found the lab difficult, including during data analysis. For Question 2, 12 responses indicated column chromatography or FAAS were new techniques learned in this lab. Some (9) mentioned learning about the polymer’s ability for removing Cd2+ ions, and 3 mentioned learning about the negative effects of Cd2+ ions in the water supply. According to 2 respondents, the experiments helped them learn more basic lab concepts, like how to carefully consider how much reagent to use, or to be “careful and aware” during the lab. For Question 3, the majority (19) responded that they did not have any suggestions for improving the lab. Of those who did have suggestions, 6 students indicated that we should shorten the lab, or allow more time to complete it, and 3 students in 2011 suggested

Table 3. Summary of Research Interest Scale by Lab Type N

2011, N = 11

3.80 (1.10) 2.73 (1.59)

Responses to Open-Ended Questions

Questions for this scale reflected the lab concepts covered by that particular experiment. The questions reported in the table reflect those on the survey used with the new imprinted polymer lab.

Years of Combined Survey Data

2010, N = 5

3.00 (1.15) 2.69 (1.41)

made by the third year, as supported by observations of the experiment in progress. Scales that did not show highest means in 2011 were research interest and learning self-efficacy. A couple of the trends are linear over the three years (gains in interest toward chemistry and lab concepts gains), yet many show either an increase or decrease in the second year, 2010.

a

Lab Experiment

2009, N = 13

many commented that they appreciated that the lab was based on current research. In contrast, no such comments were found in responses for the traditional laboratories (Supporting Information). When comparing the research-based lab over the three years of this study, most means were highest in 2011, including means for the following scales: gains in interest in chemistry; 1158

dx.doi.org/10.1021/ed300328p | J. Chem. Educ. 2013, 90, 1155−1161

Journal of Chemical Education

Article

ANOVA (see the Supporting Information). No statistically significant differences exist between groups, although average grades of groups that completed the new lab were higher than those that did not. The similarity of grades between groups suggests that the new lab, at the least, matched the traditional laboratories for conveying chemistry concepts.

we should use larger charcoal particles to improve the rate of separation. For Question 4, the responses to this question varied among students. The majority of student responses mentioned either (i) real-world or research-oriented aspects or (ii) the difficulty of the lab in comparison to the traditional experiments. Box 2

Benefits for Faculty through Collaborations

Box 2. Student Responses to Survey Question 4

We also found that this collaboration between faculty members in chemical education and chemistry resulted in important benefits. One of us, A.M., is a chemistry faculty member who learned about curriculum development and assessment, and gained experience explaining the research project to a general audience. A.M. has continued work in assessment and obtained an internal grant for developing the evaluation plan for an interdisciplinary academic program at CMU. One of us, J.H.T., is a chemical education faculty member who gained help creating a more relevant lab experience for students through the collaboration. As a new faculty member in the department, J.H.T. continues to collaborate with chemistry faculty to develop chemical education research projects. Together we successfully obtained significant external funding through the NSF to continue this research.

Question 4: How does this experiment compare to other experiments you are asked to complete in the CHM 131 lab? Comments on Real-World Relevancy or ResearchBased “It was more “real-life”I saw a direct relation to my possible future career.” “More useful to real world applications.” “More applicable to real life, therefore more interesting to me.” “It was more complex and real-world, because it is for a research team.” “Giving this lab a purpose made the experience worthwhile. I really enjoyed it.” “It was difficult because of the length, but good because I can relate it to real world problems. It helped me see where I could use chemistry to help make things better.” “It was different. I felt like my calculations and work made a difference.” “This was more research based.” “This experiment was helpful because I’ve never used column chromatography. I liked the research element.” Comments on Difficulty of the Lab “The instructions were not as detailed making it a little harder.” “Much more involved than some other experiments.” “Less structured than othersIt took more time than any other lab.” “It was a little harder and took forever.” “This has been one of the most difficult ones.” “This was much more difficult.”

■

CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE WORK A new research-based lab experiment was created for general chemistry that highlighted current faculty research. The new lab was implemented in the honors general chemistry lab sections over three years. Via the new lab experience, students were introduced to the techniques of column chromatography and FAAS in a context that was relevant to their lives and potential careers. Students also contributed to ongoing research on imprinted polymer wastewater remediation. As an initial step to redesigning the general chemistry lab curricula, we wished to make a research-based lab module that could be easily implemented into the existing lab schedule. Designing such an activity to fit into the two-hour period was one of the most challenging aspects of this work. Observations and student feedback indicated that students felt rushed to complete the lab in the allotted time. Removing the postlab questions alleviated some of the time pressure. We found that, on average, students indicated more interest in seeking further research opportunities after this research-based lab than after the traditional laboratories. Comparing the imprinted polymer lab from year to year, student response was generally more positive in the third offering. The majority of students indicated positive overall response to the new lab, and many saw value in the researchbased approach for presenting these concepts. When asked to compare this lab to others completed during the course, most students indicated that they liked the research-based aspect. They appreciated feeling a part of ongoing research and liked having an impact on something meaningful and relevant to their lives. An analysis of grades did not reveal any statistically significant differences between the control group (2008) and the treatment groups (2009−2011). We conclude the new lab at least matched the ability of the traditional laboratories for conveying concepts. We do note the promising observation that students who experienced the research-based lab achieved higher grades on average than the control group. From these results, we have learned ways to improve the lab for the future. For wide-scale implementation, we will use larger-sized charcoal particles to speed the separation.

lists the student responses that fell into these categories. Additional comments (7) indicated generally positive responses to the lab. Comparing the open-ended responses to those for the traditional laboratories, we found that students liked the traditional lab if it was “easy” and required little effort (Supporting Information). For the traditional laboratories, however, there were little or no acknowledgments of the benefits of the experience beyond the classroom, nor of how the laboratories related to the real world. In contrast, we find that the real-world relevancy of the new lab was easily apparent to students, and although the lab was challenging, they still had a generally positive response. Student Grade Data

The lab report grades were similar to those of the traditional laboratories during the semester (Supporting Information). Differences between average lab grades, overall course grades, and standardized final exam grades24 were measured using 1159

dx.doi.org/10.1021/ed300328p | J. Chem. Educ. 2013, 90, 1155−1161

Journal of Chemical Education

Article

(4) Wenzel, T. J.; Karukstis, K. K. Enhancing Research in the Chemical Sciences at Predominantly Undergraduate Institutions: Recommendations of a Recent Undergraduate Research Summit. J. Chem. Educ. 2004, 81 (4), 468. (5) Kauffman, L. R.; Stocks, J. E. Reinvigorating the Undergraduate Experience: Successful Models Supported by NSF’s AIRE/RAIRE Program; Council on Undergraduate Research: Washington, DC, 2004. (6) Karukstis, K. K. Reinvigorating the Undergraduate Experience with a Research-Supportive Curriculum. J. Chem. Educ. 2004, 81 (7), 938. (7) Newton, T. A.; Tracy, H. J.; Prudenté, C. A Research-Based Laboratory Course in Organic Chemistry. J. Chem. Educ. 2006, 83 (12), 1844. (8) Weaver, G.; Wink, D.; Varma-Nelson, P.; Lytle, F.; Morris, R.; Fornes, W.; Russell, C.; Boone, W. Developing a New Model To Provide First- and Second-Year Undergraduates with Chemistry Research Experience: Early Findings of the Center for Authentic Science Practice in Education (CASPiE). Chem. Educ. 2006, 11 (2), 125−129. (9) Amenta, D. S.; Mosbo, J. A. Attracting the New Generation of Chemistry Majors to Synthetic Chemistry without Using Pheromones: A Research-Based, Group Approach to Multistep Syntheses at the College Sophomore Level. J. Chem. Educ. 1994, 71 (8), 661. (10) Holme, T. A. Providing Motivation for the General Chemistry Course through Early Introduction of Current Research Topics. J. Chem. Educ. 1994, 71 (11), 919. (11) Eichstadt, K. E. Integrating Research Instrumentation with the General Chemistry Curriculum. Part I: Mass Spectrometry. J. Chem. Educ. 1992, 69 (1), 48. (12) Weaver, G. C.; Russell, C. B.; Wink, D. J. Inquiry-Based and Research-Based Laboratory Pedagogies in Undergraduate Science. Nat. Chem. Biol. 2008, 4 (10), 577−580. (13) Ford, J. R.; Prudenté, C.; Newton, T. A. A Model for Incorporating Research into the First-Year Chemistry Curriculum. J. Chem. Educ. 2008, 85 (7), 929. (14) Cuthbert, H.; Clark, T. Are In-Class Research Experiences Different? Do They Make a Difference? In Abstract of Presentations, 21st Biennial Conference on Chemical Education; University of North Texas: Denton TX, August 1−5, 2010. (15) Shear, R. Fostering Excellence by Teaching through Research: The Freshman Research Initiative at The University of Texas at Austin. In Abstract of Presentations, 21st Biennial Conference on Chemical Education; University of North Texas: Denton TX, August 1−5, 2010. (16) Ashraf, S.; Cluley, A.; Mercado, C.; Mueller, A. Imprinted Polymers for the Removal of Heavy Metal Ions from Water. Water Sci. Technol. 2011, 64 (6), 1325−1332. (17) Mangravite, F. J; Leitz, C. R.; Galick, P. E. Organic Polymeric Flocculants: Effect of Charge Density, Molecular Weight and Particle Concentration, Flocculation, Sedimentation, and Consolidation. In Proceedings of the Engineering Foundation Conference (The Cloister Sea Island, GA, January 27−February 1, 1985); Moudgil, B. M., Somasundaran, P., Eds.; American Institute of Chemical Engineers: New York, 1985; pp 139−158. (18) Li, D.; Zhu, S.; Pelton, R. H.; Spafford, M. Flocculation of Dilute Titanium Dioxide Suspensions by Graft Cationic Polyelectrolytes. Colloid Polym. Sci. 1999, 277 (2), 108−114. (19) Metcalf; Eddy; Tchobanoglous, G.; Burton, F. L.; Stensel, H. D. Wastewater Engineering: Treatment and Reuse, 4th ed.; McGraw-Hill: Boston, 2003; p xxviii. (20) Ashraf Syed, A.; Mercado, C.; Mueller, A. Imprinted Polymers for the Removal of Hydrophilic and Hydrophobic Metal Complexes. In New Membranes and Advanced Materials for Wastewater Treatment; Mueller, A., Guieyssem, B., Sarkar, A., Eds.; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2009; pp 53−70. (21) Central Michigan University Faculty Center for Innovative Teaching. http://facit.cmich.edu/ (accessed February, 2012). (22) Seymour, E.; Daffinrud, S. M.; Wiese, D. J.; Hunter, A. B. G. Development, Testing, and Adaptation for Wider Faculty Use of the

Additionally, considering the high costs and special handling and disposal requirements, using a toxic heavy metal such as cadmium is not desirable for scale-up to the whole general chemistry program with over 1000 students. A.M.’s group has made an imprinted polymer that targets iron ions that will be used instead. High iron levels in water can have negative environmental and health effects, so the lab will still be relevant to wastewater remediation. Wide-scale implementation into all sections of general chemistry I using this new iron-seeking polymer is planned in the near future. We are working to strengthen evaluation methods for this next phase. We are considering the use of preand posttests nearer in time to the lab experience to more accurately gauge learning gains and skill development that might be directly affected by the lab activity. We have also begun development and implementation of more researchbased laboratories in general chemistry and in analytical chemistry, with emphasis on environmental research. In these endeavors, we seek to further determine whether this method is transferable to other topics and courses. This process for development, implementation, and evaluation of this lab experience is helpful for other institutions that desire to similarly transform their general chemistry laboratory curricula. The evaluation results generally suggest positive impacts on students’ attitudes toward chemistry and their desire to seek further research opportunities.

■

ASSOCIATED CONTENT

S Supporting Information *

Imprinted polymer lab procedures and postlab questions; chemistry lab questionnaire; brief descriptions of the traditional laboratories; responses to the open-ended questions on the chemistry lab questionnaire for the traditional laboratories; grade data analyses. This material is available via the Internet at http://pubs.acs.org.

■

AUTHOR INFORMATION

Corresponding Author

*E-mail: [email protected]. Notes

The authors declare no competing financial interest.

■

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS J.H.T. would like to thank Central Michigan University’s President Investment Fund for financial support of lab development and evaluation. We thank Sara Langford and FaCIT for evaluation consultations. We thank undergraduate researchers David Squires, Sadie Murphy, and Katie Martin for help in lab development, implementation, and collecting observations. We thank the lab coordinator and lab assistant, Sharyl Majorski and Laurie Ecker, for suggestions and help with lab preparation.

■

REFERENCES

(1) Reinventing Undergraduate Education: A Blueprint for America’s Research Universities; Boyer Commission on Educating Undergraduates in the Research University: Stony Brook, NY, 1998. (2) Reinventing Undergraduate Education: Three Years after the Boyer Report; Boyer Commission on Educating Undergraduates in the Research University: Stony Brook, NY, 2001. (3) Katkin, W. The Boyer Commission Report and Its Impact on Undergraduate Research. New Dir. Teach. Learn. 2003, 93, 19−38. 1160

dx.doi.org/10.1021/ed300328p | J. Chem. Educ. 2013, 90, 1155−1161

Journal of Chemical Education

Article

Online Student Assessment of Their Learning Gains (SALG) Instrument, Originally Designed for Modular Chemistry Teachers. In Abstracts of Papers, 219th ACS National Meeting, San Francisco, CA, March 26−30, 2000; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2000. (23) Dalgety, J.; Coll, R. K.; Jones, A. Development of Chemistry Attitudes and Experiences Questionnaire (CAEQ). J. Res. Sci. Teach. 2003, 40 (7), 649−668. (24) American Chemical Society Division of Chemical Education Exam Institute, General Chemistry First-Term Form. http:// chemexams.chem.iastate.edu/ (accessed Jun 2013).

1161

dx.doi.org/10.1021/ed300328p | J. Chem. Educ. 2013, 90, 1155−1161