Do the Students Think We Are Running the General Chemistry Laboratories Better? Mina G. Staskun University of the Witwatersrand. Johannesburg. South Africa Robert A. Russell and James 0. Glanville Virginia Polytechnic institute and State University, Blacksburg, VA 24061
It has recently been observed that "the most effective method ever devised for teaching science. . .[the] classroom laboratory" is in danger of vanishing from American schwls ( I ) . The reasons have been recited recently (2):costs, waste di'sposal, safety restrictions, lack of time, A d lack of experienced teachers. We are concerned about the demise of laboratory instruction but take it as axiomatic that a strong laboratory experience is an integral component of a general chemistry course. Our objectives for our students are wellknown to generations of chemistry instructors; they have (3): a heen listed -..--~ -hv Weimer ~ .~ . to~observe ~ h e n o m e n fint-hand. t o learn techniques of data analysis and display, to encounter the world of uncertainties, to practice scientific reporting, and to gain familiarity with measuring. However, althoueh i t is easv to state these obiectives. it is not easv t o that t i e y have been achieved, and there have been only a few such reports (4, 5). Pickering (6) suggests that improvements in large teaching programs that use GTA-run labs can come about by upgrading the human dimension of i s a report of an effort along laboratory structure. ?'bii;aper those lines. At Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University about 2000 students take the general chemistry course each semester. The laboratory and lecture are separately graded. The courses are taught using a mainstream general chemistry textbook (7) and a locally produced laboratory manual (8).There are typically six lecture sections-the largest containine 520 students. GTA's conduct the labs. which normally con&n 24 students per group, totalling around 90 lahoratory sections. At the end of the spring semester in 1989, the perceptions of all students were surveyed regarding the laboratory course. Over the summer, a-range>f changes were made, affecting many areas of the course. Some of these changes were instituted as a consequence of the initial survey responses, while others had been ongoing. At theend of the fall semester the same survey was administered again to a similar group of students in order to assess the effects of the chan~es.Survevs of student attitudes are a well-established methYod of test& the relative effectiveness of instructional methods (9). ~
