From Cookbook to Research: Redesigning an Advanced Biochemistry

Nov 8, 2017 - Laboratory courses are often designed using step-by-step protocols which encourage students to conduct experiments without thinking abou...
0 downloads 12 Views 455KB Size
Download PDF
Article Cite This: J. Chem. Educ. XXXX, XXX, XXX-XXX

pubs.acs.org/jchemeduc

From Cookbook to Research: Redesigning an Advanced Biochemistry Laboratory Debra Boyd-Kimball* and Keith R. Miller Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry, University of Mount Union, 1972 Clark Avenue, Alliance, Ohio 44601, United States ABSTRACT: Laboratory courses are often designed using step-by-step protocols which encourage students to conduct experiments without thinking about what they are doing or why they are doing it. Such course design limits the growth of our students as scientists and can make it more difficult for a student to transition to the expectations of a research laboratory experience. To facilitate student growth in the process skills necessary to transition from the teaching laboratory to the research laboratory, an advanced biochemistry laboratory was redesigned to be team-taught and project-based culminating in a 7 week group research project in which the students worked collaboratively to propose, design, and troubleshoot their own experiments. Here, we report perceived student learning gains which provide additional evidence that inquiry- and research-based pedagogies impact student confidence with respect to the process skills required for self-directed research. KEYWORDS: Upper-Division Undergraduate, Biochemistry, Laboratory Instruction, Collaborative/Cooperative Learning, Inquiry-Based/Discovery Learning, Undergraduate Research, Student-Centered Learning, Learning Theories

H

higher-level cognitive processes. Separate inquiry-based,29−31 project-oriented,45−48 and hybrid models53−56 have been previously reported in biochemistry laboratories. The structure of these hybrid models varies from a semester course with a truncated research project55 to year-long with a semester research project53,54 to student-driven, integrated, and yearlong.56 Reported educational gains from solely inquiry-based and hybrid models vary. Inquiry-based models have been reported to increase student confidence49,50 and improve student attitudes toward chemistry49,51 while hybrid models have been reported to improve project design and hypothesis development55 and critical thinking skills.53−55 Published use of inquiry-based, project-oriented, and research-based pedagogies tends to focus on their implementation and the dissemination of practical experimental details; however, little beyond empirical evidence of student learning gains is provided. Here, we report perceived student learning gains in a 2 credit hour Advanced Biochemistry Laboratory course that was redesigned to transition students from step-by-step laboratory procedures to an open-inquiry research-based experience through the purposeful use of guided-inquiry.

igher-level process and problem solving skills needed by chemistry and biochemistry graduates have previously been described,1−3 and laboratory experience is believed to play an important role in developing these skills; however, traditional expository laboratory design has not been shown to purposefully develop these skills.4−10 Inquiry-based design is an alternative approach to traditional “cookbook” style laboratories, and varying levels of inquiry in the undergraduate laboratory have been defined11 with higher levels of inquiry such as guided-inquiry and open-inquiry sometimes referred to as discovery learning.8 Process-oriented guided-inquiry learning (POGIL) is a form of student-centered inquiry-based pedagogy that was developed in chemical education.12−14 Laboratory activities and experiments based on POGIL have been incorporated into all levels and areas of chemical education,15−31 and POGIL has branched out to be incorporated into a number of other educational fields including biomechanics,32 pharmacy,33 foreign languages,34 computer science,35 and financial literacy.36 Additionally, inquiry has been utilized in other aspects of the laboratory curriculum to improve information literacy, report writing, and notebook keeping skills.37−43 As opposed to the lower-level cognitive processes of knowledge, comprehension, and application which are reinforced in the traditional expository laboratory, inquirybased laboratory methods are proposed to model the higherlevel cognitive processes of analysis, synthesis, and evaluation.44 Thus, inquiry-based laboratory methods have been suggested to increase student confidence24 and critical thinking16,22,24 and improve student attitudes toward chemistry.21 Project-oriented laboratories45−48 and course-based undergraduate research experiences (CUREs)49−52 are a subset of inquiry-based pedagogies that have been shown to focus on © XXXX American Chemical Society and Division of Chemical Education, Inc.

Received: September 23, 2016 Revised: August 31, 2017

A

DOI: 10.1021/acs.jchemed.6b00722 J. Chem. Educ. XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX

Journal of Chemical Education

■

Article

BIOCHEMISTRY CURRICULUM STRUCTURE 2009−2012 AND RATIONALE FOR COURSE REDESIGN The biochemistry major at the University of Mount Union requires all students to complete four credit hours of selfdirected research conducted during the senior year under the guidance of a faculty mentor. Students can elect to participate in self-directed research earlier; however, few students take advantage of this opportunity prior to the second semester of their junior year. Consequently, we have a number of students who progress into their senior research having no laboratory experience beyond the prescribed requirements of the major. Students typically begin their study of biochemistry in the first semester of their junior year with a foundational biochemistry 3 credit hour lecture and concurrent 1 credit hour laboratory. This biochemistry laboratory introduces students to fundamental laboratory techniques including appropriate use of micropipettes, protein separation and characterization methods, and ultraviolet/visible/fluorescent spectroscopy. Students continue their study of biochemistry by taking an advanced biochemistry lecture and lab in the second semester of the junior year. From 2009 to 2012, our previous 1 credit hour advanced biochemistry laboratory curriculum had been open-inquiry and research-based. At the beginning of the semester, students were broken into teams of 2−4 depending on the enrollment from year to year, and the teams were asked to write research proposals to address an assigned research question. The fact that a research question was provided slightly limited the openinquiry experience, but it was determined that this prevented the frustrating, continuous pattern of students proposing an idea and having that idea turned down due to feasibility issues of time, cost, etc. Additionally, it allowed the instructor to procure all the supplies and reagents necessary without having to lose valuable lab time during the semester. Following the approval of the research proposal, students spent the semester carrying out and troubleshooting their proposed work. The instructor was available during scheduled lab hours, but the work carried out over the course of the semester was entirely student driven; however, to ensure that students remained on track and that they were analyzing their data accurately, students submitted progress reports on a biweekly basis. While students appreciated the learning gains they had made by the end of the semester, it was obvious that they struggled initially in making the transition from step-by-step protocols that were provided for experiments each week in the introductory biochemistry laboratory to developing their own protocol for their research proposal in the advanced biochemistry laboratory setting. Additionally, the students were continuously challenged to consult primary literature as they worked to implement and troubleshoot their protocols. It was apparent that students needed a little more guidance transitioning from following guided, step-by-step instructions to conducting open-inquiry research and thinking like scientists.

implemented in spring 2013 purposefully to guide students from relying on step-by-step protocols to designing, carrying out, and troubleshooting team research projects. The hybrid lab is team-taught and structured such that there are two 3−3.5 week guided-inquiry projects that the students complete during the first half of the semester (Table 1); Table 1. Advanced Biochemistry Laboratory Course Structure Week

Activity

Assessment

1

Webtools

2 3 4

Guided-inquiry: immunoprecipitation project

5

Guided-inquiry: E. coli transformation and macrophage phagocytosis project

6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

Team research project

Prelab questions Notebook Prelab questions Notebook Written laboratory report Prelab questions Notebook Written laboratory report Research proposal Progress report Progress report Team research oral presentation

however, minimal instructions are provided. For example, students are not provided with any details for operation of instrumentation and software previously used. Additionally, only final concentrations of solutions are given, and students have to determine what volume they needed to make for any dilution. As a bridge between step-by-step procedure and openinquiry research projects, these guided-inquiry projects often require students to search the primary literature and use a methods section from the primary literature to develop their protocol in the laboratory. Following the guided-inquiry projects, the students are then broken into teams of two to four, depending on the enrollment from year to year, and similar to the previous research-based course, the teams are assigned a research question. The students then work as a team to develop a research proposal and spend the remainder of the semester implementing and troubleshooting their experimental protocol. Students submit biweekly progress reports similar to our previous advanced biochemistry laboratory course model and present their research findings in an oral presentation to the class at the end of the semester. The advanced biochemistry course was initially implemented as a variable credit hour course due to the need to offer a 1 credit hour lab for the students who had matriculated under catalogues prior to the 2012−2013 academic year. Students who took the 1 credit hour version completed only the guidedinquiry projects during the first half of the semester. The graduating class of 2016 was the first class required to take the 2 credit hour advanced biochemistry lab. Consequently, we have limited data on the students who elected to take the 2 credit hour option prior to 2016 (n = 2).

■

ADVANCED BIOCHEMISTRY LABORATORY COURSE STRUCTURE 2013−PRESENT In 2012, the University of Mount Union transitioned from a 3 credit hour to a 4 credit hour based curriculum, and we took the opportunity to redesign our advanced biochemistry curriculum offerings. Consequently, a new 2 credit hour advanced biochemistry laboratory design was developed and B

DOI: 10.1021/acs.jchemed.6b00722 J. Chem. Educ. XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX

Journal of Chemical Education

Article

Table 2. Pre- and Postsurvey: Circle a Number To Rate Your Current Comfort/Confidence Level with the Following Activitiesa Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5 Q6 Q7 Q8 Q9 Q10 Q11 Q12 a

Rate your comfort level with following a step-by-step laboratory procedure Rate your comfort level with following a laboratory procedure that provides little step-by-step procedural details Rate your comfort level with adapting a procedure from primary literature into a step-by-step laboratory procedure Rate your comfort level with understanding experiments, in theory and in practice, that are carried out in a single laboratory period Rate your comfort level with understanding experiments, in theory and in practice, carried out over multiple laboratory periods Rate your comfort level with troubleshooting experiments Rate your comfort level with analyzing data quality (i.e., outcome of controls, reproducibility, range of standard deviation, etc.) Rate your comfort level with using data to design and plan future studies Rate your comfort level with addressing a question through multiple experimental perspectives (i.e., techniques) Rate your comfort level with preparing hypothesis statements Rate your comfort level with connecting a hypothesis to experimental design Rate your comfort level with working in groups

1 1 1 1

2 2 2 2

3 3 3 3

4 4 4 4

5 5 5 5

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4

5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5

Note: 5 is highest, and 1 is lowest.

■

DATA COLLECTION In 2016 and 2017, a pre- and postsurvey (Table 2) was designed and administered in order to gauge student perceptions of their learning gains over the course of the semester. Survey questions were broadly classified as related to following and developing procedures, experimental design, and data analysis and interpretation. The presurvey (n = 22) was administered during the first week of the semester prior to the guided-inquiry projects, and the postsurvey (n = 22) was administered on the last day of class following the completion of the open-inquiry projects. All responses were voluntary and anonymous. The survey responses were tabulated using Excel.

■

RESULTS To improve student perceptions of their learning, high-impact practices including collaborative assignments and undergraduate research were used to design and implement a hybrid inquiry- and research-based biochemistry laboratory. According to John Hattie, “if feedback is directed at the right level, it can assist students to comprehend, engage, or develop effective strategies to process the information intended to be learnt.”57 To demonstrate the extent of growth for each student, pre- and postsurvey responses were analyzed. For our purposes, growth was measured as a survey scale increase of at least one unit. A 60% threshold was set as a measure of increased student confidence and, subsequently, of perceived student learning gains. The percentage of students indicating an increase of one survey unit or more is summarized for each question in Figure 1. Survey questions were broadly classified into three groups of laboratory process skills: following and developing a procedure, experimental design, and data analysis and interpretation. With following and developing a procedure, students reported increased confidence with respect to following a laboratory procedure that provides little step-by-step procedural details and with adapting a procedure from primary literature into a step-by-step laboratory procedure. In particular, 91% of students reported an increase in comfort with adapting a procedure from the primary literature with 59% of students reporting a growth of more than one survey unit. With respect to process skills related to experimental design, students reported increased growth with respect to understanding experiments, in theory and in practice, carried out over multiple laboratory periods, addressing a question through multiple experimental perspectives (i.e., techniques), preparing hypothesis statements, and connecting a hypothesis to

Figure 1. Perceived student learning gains. The percentage of students reporting a growth of one survey unit or more is shown for each survey question subdivided according to following and developing a procedure, experimental design, and data analysis and interpretation. The threshold level is highlighted with a dashed line (n = 22).

experimental design. 86% of students reported increased comfort with connecting a hypothesis to experimental design with 45% reporting a growth of more than one survey unit. Finally, with respect to process skills involving data analysis and interpretation, students reported gains in troubleshooting experiments, analyzing data quality, and using data to design and plan future studies. 86% of students reported an increase in comfort with using data to design and plan future studies. Notably, 64% of students reported a growth of more than one survey unit in this area. Overall, 95% of students reported increased comfort in troubleshooting experiments.

■

DISCUSSION The Association of American Colleges and Universities (AAC&U) has identified the importance of learning outcomes including inquiry and analysis, critical and creative thinking, written and oral communication, quantitative literacy, information literacy, teamwork, and problem solving in their Liberal Education and America’s Promise (LEAP) report. The extensive practice of these skills in progressively challenging problems/projects was suggested to be necessary for successful student preparation for their future careers.58 Likewise, highimpact practices (HIPs), such as those described by the AAC&U, have been suggested to support the development of these skills.59 Two of these HIPs, collaborative assignments and projects and undergraduate research, were purposefully integrated into our hybrid laboratory course design. Kuh C

DOI: 10.1021/acs.jchemed.6b00722 J. Chem. Educ. XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX

Journal of Chemical Education

■

Article

CONCLUSION Several pedagogical approaches including inquiry-based,29−31 project-oriented,45−48 and research-based53−56 methodologies have been reported for the biochemistry laboratory. Here we report perceived student learning gains in a 2 credit hour Advanced Biochemistry Lab that was redesigned to transition students from step-by-step laboratory procedures to openinquiry through the purposeful use of guided-inquiry. These results support the role of inquiry- and research-based pedagogies in facilitating student development of critical process and problem solving skills. Furthermore, these results suggest that continued exposure and reinforcement result in student confidence and learning gains.

suggests that these HIPs are particularly impactful because they create environments in which students become more intellectually invested in the educational endeavor and they require meaningful collaboration with peers and faculty mentors.60 More recently, Kilgo and colleagues have reported that these specific HIPs had significant positive effects on multiple liberal arts learning objectives including critical thinking, intellectual curiosity, and lifelong learning.61 Hybrid inquiry- and research-based biochemistry laboratories have previously been reported to increase student confidence and improve student ability to write hypotheses, design experiments, and think critically.53−56 Here, we share our experience in designing and implementing a hybrid inquiry- and researchbased biochemistry laboratory and show the impact of these pedagogies on student perceptions of learning. Overall, students reported an increased comfort in all areas surveyed except with following a step-by-step laboratory procedure and with working in groups. Given the nature of our curriculum and the previous experience of our students, it is not surprising that we did not observe much perceived growth in these areas. Likewise, while students had perceptions of significant gains, graded assessments in the course did not support that the students were indeed experts in the range of skills even if they reported a score of 5 on the survey. This indicates a disconnection in the students’ perceived skill level and actual level of growth. Teaching evaluations of our previous 1 credit hour advanced biochemistry course included comments such as “Don’t hide the fact that a calibration curve is needed!” and “No teaching done on instructor’s part” which indicated that our curriculum needed a bridge between the traditional cookbook style of laboratory and the self-directed research required of our students. Teaching evaluations from our redesigned 2 credit hour hybrid laboratory course have included comments such as “Remarkably helpful in bridging the gap between chemistry and biology for the biochemistry majors. Learned different techniques that could be used in a variety of different labs.” “This course introduced a lot of great techniques and made the student differentiate and fully understand how each plays a role in the goal of more complicated labs” “Creating the experiment on our own was a great way to contribute to my intellectual growth” “Best lab I’ve ever taken as it exposed me to real research, tons of new methods, and all kinds of scientific literature” “Aside from being interesting, this course was also incredibly challenging and I learned so much from it. I feel adequately prepared for research after taking this course.” The shift in teaching evaluation comments and the perceived student learning gains reported here indicate to us that the redesign of our advanced biochemistry laboratory has accomplished our goal of moving our students from relying on step-by-step “cookbook” experimental procedures to guiding them through the use of primary literature to propose, design, carry out, and troubleshoot their own experiments. The inquiry-based biochemistry lab encouraged students to be active participants in their learning, which has been shown as best practice for effective feedback criteria where the focus is on what is being learned and how students should go about it.62 This effective feedback to the students showcasing their own understanding in experimental design, providing evidence about their present position in relation to that goal, and providing a guided path to close the gap between the two is attributed to the success in the student perceived gains.

■

AUTHOR INFORMATION

Corresponding Author

*E-mail: [email protected]. ORCID

Debra Boyd-Kimball: 0000-0003-3059-0024 Notes

The authors declare no competing financial interest.

■

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Our thanks to Paul D. Cook for his role in the initial development and implementation of this course and to all of our students past and present.

■

REFERENCES

(1) American Chemical Society Committee on Professional Training. Undergraduate Professional Education in Chemistry: ACS Guideline and Evaluation Procedures for Bachelor’s Degree Programs; 2015. http:// www.acs.org/content/dam/acsorg/about/governance/committees/ training/2015-acs-guidelines-for-bachelors-degree-programs.pdf (accessed August 2017). (2) Caldwell, B.; Rohlman, C.; Benore-Parsons, M. A Curriculum Skills Matrix for Development and Assessment of Undergraduate Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Laboratory Programs. Biochem. Mol. Biol. Educ. 2004, 32, 11−16. (3) White, H. B.; Benore, M. A.; Sumter, T. F.; Caldwell, B. D.; Bell, E. What Skills Should Students of Undergraduate Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Programs Have Upon Graduation? Biochem. Mol. Biol. Educ. 2013, 41, 297−301. (4) Hofstein, A.; Lunetta, V. N. The Role of the Laboratory in Science Teaching: Neglected Aspects of Research. Rev. Educ. Res. 1982, 52, 201−217. (5) Kirschner, P. A.; Meester, M. A. M. The laboratory in higher science education: Problems, premises and objectives. High. Educ. 1988, 17, 81−98. (6) Hilosky, A.; Sutman, F.; Schmuckler, J. Is Laboratory-Based Instruction in Beginning College-Level Chemistry Worth the Effort and Expense? J. Chem. Educ. 1998, 75, 100−104. (7) Gabel, D. Improving Teaching and Learning through Chemistry Education Research: A Look to the Future. J. Chem. Educ. 1999, 76, 548−554. (8) Domin, D. S. A Review of Laboratory Instruction Styles. J. Chem. Educ. 1999, 76, 543−547. (9) Hart, C.; Mulhall, P.; Berry, A.; Loughran, J.; Gunstone, R. What is the Purpose of this Experiment? Or Can Students Learn Something from Doing Experiments? J. Res. Sci. Teach. 2000, 37, 655−675. (10) Hofstein, A.; Mamlok-Naaman, R. The laboratory in science education: the state of the art. Chem. Educ. Res. Pract. 2007, 8, 105− 107.

D

DOI: 10.1021/acs.jchemed.6b00722 J. Chem. Educ. XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX

Journal of Chemical Education

Article

(32) Simonson, S. R.; Shadle, S. E. Implementing Process Oriented Guided Inquiry Learning (POGIL) in Undergraduate Biomechanics: Lessons Learned by A Novice. J. STEM Educ. 2013, 14, 56−63. (33) Pierce, R.; Fox, J. Vodcasts and Active-Learning Exercises in a “Flipped Classroom” Model of a Renal Pharmacotherapy Module. Am. J. Pharm. Educ. 2012, 76, 196. (34) Johnson, C. Activities Using Process-Oriented Guided Inquiry Learning (POGIL) in the Foreign Language Classroom. Unterrichtspraxis/Teaching German 2011, 44, 30−38. (35) Hu, H. H.; Kussmaul, C. Promoting Student-Centered Learning with POGIL. SIGCSE ’12 Proceedings of the 43rd ACM technical symposium on Computer Science Education 2012, 579−580. (36) Maurer, T. W. Teaching Financial Literacy with ProcessOriented Guided-Inquiry Learning (POGIL). J. Financ. Educ. 2014, 40, 140−163. (37) Jones, C. D. The Kitchen Is Your Laboratory: A Research-Based Term-Paper Assignment in a Science Writing Course. J. Chem. Educ. 2011, 88, 1062−1068. (38) Deiner, L. J.; Newsome, D.; Samaroo, D. Directed Self-Inquiry: A Scaffold for Teaching Laboratory Report Writing. J. Chem. Educ. 2012, 89, 1511−1514. (39) Gupta, T.; Burke, K. A.; Mehta, A.; Greenbowe, T. J. Impact of Guided-Inquiry-Based Instruction with a Writing and Reflection Emphasis on Chemistry Student’ Critical Thinking Abilities. J. Chem. Educ. 2015, 92, 32−38. (40) Bruehl, M.; Pan, D.; Ferrer-Vinent, I. J. Demystifying the Chemistry Literature: Building Information Literacy in First-Year Chemistry Students through Student-Centered Learning and Experiment Design. J. Chem. Educ. 2015, 92, 52−57. (41) Ferrer-Vinent, I. J.; Bruehl, M.; Pan, D.; Jones, G. L. Introducing Scientific Literature to Honors General Chemistry Students: Teaching Information Literacy and the Nature of Research to First-Year Chemistry Students. J. Chem. Educ. 2015, 92, 617−624. (42) Hall, M. L.; Vardar-Ulu, D. Z. An Inquiry-Based Biochemistry Laboratory Structure Emphasizing Competency in the Scientific Process: A Guided Approach with an Electronic Notebook Format. Biochem. Mol. Biol. Educ. 2014, 42, 58−67. (43) Mertz, P.; Streu, C. Writing Throughout the Biochemistry Curriculum: Synergistic Inquiry-Based Writing Projects for Biochemistry Students. Biochem. Mol. Biol. Educ. 2015, 43, 408−416. (44) Bloom, B. S.; Engelhart, M. D.; Furst, E. J.; Hill, W. H.; Krathwohl, D. R. Taxonomy of Educational Objectives: Part I, Cognitive Domain; McKay: New York, 1956. (45) Craig, P. A. A Project-Oriented Biochemistry Laboratory Course. J. Chem. Educ. 1999, 76, 1130−1135. (46) Peterson, R. R.; Cox, J. R. Integrating Computational Chemistry into a Project-Oriented Biochemistry Laboratory Experience: A New Twist on the Lysozyme Experiment. J. Chem. Educ. 2001, 78, 1551− 1555. (47) Vincent, J. B.; Woski, S. A. Cytochrome c: A Biochemistry Laboratory Course. J. Chem. Educ. 2005, 82, 1211−1214. (48) MacDonald, G. Teaching Protein Purification and Characterization Techniques: A Student-Initiated, Project-Oriented Biochemistry Laboratory Course. J. Chem. Educ. 2008, 85, 1250−1252. (49) Tomasik, J. H.; Cottone, K. E.; Heethuis, M. T.; Mueller, A. Development and Preliminary Impacts of the Implementation of an Authentic Research-Based Experiment in General Chemistry. J. Chem. Educ. 2013, 90, 1155−1161. (50) Winkelmann, K.; Baloga, M.; Marcinkowski, T.; Giannoulis, C.; Anquandah, G.; Cohen, P. Improving Students’ Inquiry Skills and SelfEfficacy through Research-Inspired Modules in the General Chemistry Laboratory. J. Chem. Educ. 2015, 92, 247−255. (51) Kerr, M. A.; Yan, F. Incorporating Course-Based Undergraduate Research Experiences into Analytical Chemistry Laboratory Curricula. J. Chem. Educ. 2016, 93, 658−662. (52) Clark, T. M.; Ricciardo, R.; Weaver, T. Transitioning from Expository Laboratory Experiments to Course-Based Undergraduate Research in General Chemistry. J. Chem. Educ. 2016, 93, 56−63.

(11) Bruck, L. B.; Bretz, S. L.; Towns, M. H. Characterizing the Level of Inquiry in the Undergraduate Laboratory. J. Coll. Sci. Teach. 2008, 38, 52−58. (12) Farrell, J. J.; Moog, R. S.; Spencer, J. N. A Guided-Inquiry General Chemistry Course. J. Chem. Educ. 1999, 76, 570−574. (13) Moog, R. S.; Creegan, F. J.; Hanson, D. M.; Spencer, J. N.; Straumanis, A. R. Process-Oriented Guided Inquiry Learning: POGIL and the POGIL. Project. Metropolitan Universities 2006, 17, 41−52. (14) Process Oriented Guided Learning (POGIL); Moog, R. S., Spencer, J. N., Eds.; ACS Symposium Series 994; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2008. (15) Cheung, D. Teacher Beliefs about Implementing GuidedInquiry Laboratory Experiments for Secondary School Chemistry. J. Chem. Educ. 2011, 88, 1462−1468. (16) Mandler, D.; Blonder, R.; Yayon, M.; Mamlok-Naaman, R.; Hofstein, A. Developing and Implementing Inquiry-Based, Water Quality Laboratory Experiments for High School Students To Explore Real Environmental Issues Using Analytical Chemistry. J. Chem. Educ. 2014, 91, 492−496. (17) Yang, S. P.; Li, C. C. Using Student-Developed, Inquiry-Based Experiments To Investigate the Contributions of Ca and Mg to Water Hardness. J. Chem. Educ. 2009, 86, 506−513. (18) Zhao, N.; Wardeska, J. G. Mini-Journal Inquiry Laboratory: A Case Study in a General Chemistry Kinetics Experiment. J. Chem. Educ. 2011, 88, 452−456. (19) Avargil, S.; Bruce, M.R. M.; Amar, F. G.; Bruce, A. E. Students’ Understanding of Analogy after a CORE (Chemical Observations, Representations, Experimentation) Learning Cycle, General Chemistry Experiment. J. Chem. Educ. 2015, 92, 1626−1638. (20) Schubert, F. E. The Oxidation of Iron: Experiment, Simulation, and Analysis in Introductory Chemistry. J. Chem. Educ. 2015, 92, 517− 520. (21) Stout, R. P. CO2 Investigations: An Open Inquiry Experiment for General Chemistry. J. Chem. Educ. 2016, 93, 713−717. (22) Goeden, T. J.; Kurtz, M. J.; Quitadamo, I. J.; Thomas, C. Community-Based Inquiry in Allied Health Biochemistry Promotes Equity by Improving Critical Thinking for Women and Showing Promise for Increasing Content Gains for Ethnic Minority Students. J. Chem. Educ. 2015, 92, 788−796. (23) Luxford, C. J.; Crowder, M. W.; Bretz, S. L. A Symmetry POGIL Activity for Inorganic Chemistry. J. Chem. Educ. 2012, 89, 211−214. (24) Flynn, A. B.; Biggs, R. The Development and Implementation of a Problem-Based Learning Format in a Fourth-Year Undergraduate Synthetic Organic and Medicinal Chemistry Laboratory Course. J. Chem. Educ. 2012, 89, 52−57. (25) Hein, S. M. Positive Impacts Using POGIL in Organic Chemistry. J. Chem. Educ. 2012, 89, 860−864. (26) Fakayode, S. O. Guided-inquiry laboratory experiments in the analytical chemistry laboratory curriculum. Anal. Bioanal. Chem. 2014, 406, 1267−1271. (27) Finch, L. E.; Hillyer, M. M.; Leopold, M. C. Quantitative Analysis of Heavy Metals in Children’s Toys and Jewelry: A MultiInstrument, Multitechnique Exercise in Analytical Chemistry and Public Health. J. Chem. Educ. 2015, 92, 849−854. (28) Hunnicutt, S. S.; Grushow, A.; Whitnell, R. Guided-Inquiry Experiments for Physical Chemistry: The POGIL-PCL Model. J. Chem. Educ. 2015, 92, 262−268. (29) Childs-Disney, J. L.; Kauffmann, A. D.; Poplawski, S. G.; Lysiak, D. R.; Stewart, R. J.; Arcadi, J. K.; Dinan, F. J. A Metabolic Murder Mystery: A Case-Based Experiment for the Undergraduate Biochemistry Laboratory. J. Chem. Educ. 2010, 87, 1110−1112. (30) Roy, K. C. Teaching Upper-Division Biochemistry Students the Role of Noncovalent Interactions and Ligand Structure in DNA Binding. J. Chem. Educ. 2013, 90, 1384−1387. (31) Carolan, J. P.; Nolta, K. V. A Two-Week Guided Inquiry Protein Separation and Detection Experiment for Undergraduate Biochemistry. J. Chem. Educ. 2016, 93, 762−766. E

DOI: 10.1021/acs.jchemed.6b00722 J. Chem. Educ. XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX

Journal of Chemical Education

Article

(53) Knutson, K.; Smith, J.; Wallert, M. A.; Provost, J. Bringing the Excitement and Motivation of Research to Students; Using Inquiry and Research-Based Learning in a Year-Long Biochemistry Laboratory. Part I-Guided Inquiry-Purification and Characterization of a Fusion Protein: Histone Tag, Malate Dehydrogenase, and Green Fluorescent Protein. Biochem. Mol. Biol. Educ. 2010, 38, 317−323. (54) Knutson, K.; Smith, J.; Nichols, P.; Wallert, M. A.; Provost, J. J. Bringing the Excitement and Motivation of Research to Students; Using Inquiry and Research-based Learning in a Year-long Biochemistry Laboratory. Part II-Research-Based Laboratory-A Semester-Long Research Approach Using Malate Dehydrogenase as a Research Model. Biochem. Mol. Biol. Educ. 2010, 38, 324−329. (55) Murthy, P. P. N.; Thompson, M.; Hungwe, K. Development of a Semester-Long, Inquiry-Based Laboratory Course in Upper-Level Biochemistry and Molecular Biology. J. Chem. Educ. 2014, 91, 1909− 1917. (56) Hartings, M. R.; Fox, D. M.; Miller, A. E.; Muratore, K. E. A Hybrid Integrated Laboratory and Inquiry-Based Research Experience: Replacing Traditional Laboratory Instruction with a Sustainable Student-Led Research Project. J. Chem. Educ. 2015, 92, 1016−1023. (57) Hattie, J. C. Visible Learning: A Synthesis of Over 800 MetaAnalyses Relating to Achievement; Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group: London, 2009; 379. (58) Association of American Colleges and Universities. The LEAP Vision for Learning, Outcomes, Practices, Impact, and Employers Views; Association of American Colleges and Universities: Washington, DC, 2011. (59) The National Leadership Council for Liberal Education & America’s Promise. College Learning for the New Global Century; Association of American Colleges and Universities: Washington, DC, 2007. (60) Kuh, G. D. High-Impact Educational Practices: What They Are, Who Has Access to Them, and Why They Matter; Association of American Colleges and Universities: Washington, DC, 2008. (61) Kilgo, C. A.; Ezell Sheets, J. K.; Pascarella, E. T. The Link Between High-Impact Practices and Student Learning: Some Longitudinal Evidence. High. Educ. 2015, 69, 509−525. (62) Absolum, M. Clarity in the Classroom; Hodder Education: Auckland, 2006; pp 76−95.

F

DOI: 10.1021/acs.jchemed.6b00722 J. Chem. Educ. XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX