Implementation and Student Perceptions on ... - ACS Publications

Article Cite This: J. Chem. Educ. XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX

pubs.acs.org/jchemeduc

Implementation and Student Perceptions on Google Docs as an Electronic Laboratory Notebook in Organic Chemistry Deborah Bromfield Lee* Department of Chemistry, Biochemistry and Physics, Florida Southern College, 111 Lake Hollingsworth Drive, Lakeland, Florida 33801, United States S Supporting Information *

ABSTRACT: Electronic laboratory notebooks are gaining in popularity in industry and academia. Various types of electronic laboratory notebooks exist, and a variety of tools can be used for these forms of notebooks. Some tools are commercial products dedicated to being electronic notebooks, while individual organizations can develop ones for their own needs with tools such a OneNote and Google Docs. Google Docs was used as an electronic notebook in organic chemistry, and student perceptions were evaluated using surveys. These tools are used to reduce students’ time preparing for lab and writing reports. The implementation of the notebooks and the findings of students’ perceptions on the implementation are discussed. KEYWORDS: General Public, Second-Year Undergraduate, Laboratory Instruction, Organic Chemistry, Laboratory Computing/Interfacing, Computer-Based Learning

■

INTRODUCTION

Van Dyke and Smith-Carpenter used Evernote in a biochemistry course.14 They found that most students preferred the digital laboratory notebook (DLN, which is their term for ELN). Evernote allows for recordings and freehand drawings. One reason they used Evernote is the ability to pair data in the ELN. Students found it neater and easier to organize then PLNs. Milsted et al. used a web-based blog format, LabTrove, in which templates were developed for repeated methods.18 These types of formats often require your own server or resources students do not already use. Weibel used Google Drive as an ELN in Physical Chemistry, providing students with feedback prior to and during the lab as well as monitoring experiments at the same time.21 Oleksik et al. studied the use of an ELN created using OneNote as a flexible platform rather than using more specific commercially available products for conducting experiments, collaborating, and processing data.22 They found that is necessary to have flexibility in the format of the ELN. Guerrero et al. evaluated several platforms including Evernote, OneNote, and PerkinElmer E-Notebook.15 They tested the ELNs with 28 scientists and 80 students. They surveyed the use of PerkinElmer and Microsoft OneDrive as well as their use with tablets. They found OneNote to be the better tool due to flexibility, ease of collaboration, searching, and image editing in its use. Lawrie et al. used Wikis as a collaboration lab notebook tool. Their work suggested that there is evidence that students are justifying their decisions more about the data and the collaborations that extend outside of the lab.17 Bennett used Google Docs as a tool to collect data on 38 imines synthesized across several lab sections.23 The instructor used spreadsheets to make it easier to review student data and easily observe which data sets require the instructor’s attention.

Overview of Electronic Laboratory Notebooks in the Literature

Electronic laboratory notebooks (ELNs) have gained popularity in industry1−3 and are making their way into academia. Electronic reporting in pharmaceutical companies is reported to have begun appearing in the 1980s.1 The healthcare industry has been converting to digital record keeping.4 Some of the disadvantages of paper-based laboratory notebooks (PLNs) are that they are easily damaged, can be hard to read if the author has poor handwriting, or can consume a lot of physical space over time in large research groups. It was reported by Vines et al. that the availability of lab data decreases over time.5 They found that when requesting information about data published, over time researchers could not locate the data. ELNs have the advantages of a consistent format, typed text (handwritten notebooks can be hard to read), flexibility, ease of storage, searchability, and assistance with collaborations.1 ELNs can provide a template for recording data, by specifying the required information.6,7 Some of the disadvantages of ELNs have been decreasing, but there is still a need for infrastructure (reliable Internet access and adequate hardware) and data management (security and storage), all of which can be expensive depending on the needs.8,9 Several commercially available products exist on the market such as PerkinElmer’s ENotebook,10 BIOVIA Notebook,11 LabArchives,12 and LabGuru.13 Though these software or online tools are often customizable and have self-containing drawing tools, Microsoft Office integrations, and security features, most have a financial cost that can vary from a few dollars per person to thousands. Some researchers have used EverNote,1,14,15 WordPress,16 Wikis,17 Blogs,18 or Microsoft OneDrive16 as ELNs. In addition to these formats, applications on tablets have been used to make laboratories paperless.19,20 © XXXX American Chemical Society and Division of Chemical Education, Inc.

Received: July 14, 2017 Revised: April 14, 2018

A

DOI: 10.1021/acs.jchemed.7b00518 J. Chem. Educ. XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX

Journal of Chemical Education

Article

Figure 1. First page of the Google Doc ELN incorporates a table of contents page and information about using the notebook. Images of Google Doc interfaces published with permission from Google.

Only 19% of our organic chemistry students reported they felt more familiar with OneNote than Google Drive. As stated by Van Dyke, Evernote allows for a place data can link with the applicable portion of the notebook;14 however, we stored all student data and handouts in sorted folders in box.com (online file-sharing system),25 and students can add their own links as needed. For these reasons, an initial implementation of a form of ELN Google Docs was chosen. The use of our ELN is like that of our PLN. A template is provided in the notebook for each experiment unit of lab (all experiments may span multiple lab periods). Students complete a purpose, prelab, and experimental section prior to lab. During lab, students add data and observations. After lab, students add their analysis, conclusions, and reflection on the lab. Faculty provide feedback to students on any portion of the ELN (directly in the ELN) at least weekly. In comparison, feedback was given twice per semester with PLNs (composition notebook). Carbon-copy PLNs could be used; however, this still required instructors to collect sheets that were often hard to read, not easy for instructors to use for giving feedback when students may need it, or not easy for students to use to reorganize information as they are working. The ELN allowed for easy sharing of large data sets in and between each lab section similar to that described in Bennett’s report.23 The ELN allowed instructors to review the notebooks more often than if they collected the PLNs or carbon copies, as the notebooks could be reviewed anywhere with Internet access. Since students wrote their reports electronically, the ELN also saved students time transcribing. Students therefore have time to review and make corrections prior to the notebook being graded or writing their lab reports. The Google Doc ELN allowed students to work offline, import images, paste hyperlinks, add references, add applications as needed to enhance the use of the notebook, and add links to other portions of the notebook. Students easily collaborated with their lab partner(s) and other students. This format allowed students to copy and paste the content into their lab reports or download the notebook as a “template” to begin writing the lab

The collaborative nature of the notebooks can allow for the ability for students to collect large data sets. This collaboration aspect of Google Drive files can make it easier for instructors to address problems early. Due to the familiarity with PLNS, it may take time to convince instructors of the benefits of ELNS. Other tools incorporated in portable technology can be used to provide some of the benefits of ELNs. In organic laboratories, tablets can provide potential similar to that of ELNs. iPads were used by Amick and Cross for students to make notes in lab and lecture in organic chemistry. The iPads allowed their course to be potentially paperless, which 9/12 students preferred. Amick and Cross found that students outperformed their peers who were not provided with an iPad.20 The disadvantage with the iPads are that they are not accessible to all students unless they are either required to purchase one or provided one. Additionally, this tool does not eliminate handwritten documents or may not specifically address collaboration. Moving from Paper-Based Laboratory Notebooks to Electronic Laboratory Notebooks

In the organic chemistry course sequence at Florida Southern College, we transitioned from PLNs to Google Docs24 as an ELN format (initially in a few laboratories). Various web-based tools or software were evaluated. A preference for software the students already used or interfaced with word processing programs was important for the pilot. On the basis of the literature, OneDrive and Google Drive seemed to be the best choice for an ELN. In the establishment of the ELNs for the organic courses, it was important to include web-based tools or software with low to no cost and multiplatform abilities. Some of our students do not own the full version of Microsoft products, which would give them all the capabilities that provide full functionality of OneNote (52% of our students reported having OneNote). Google Drive is available online and for download as an application on Apple, Android, and Microsoft platforms.23 Pairing data as links to files in Google Drive gives a feel similar to that reported by Van Dyke.14 Google Drive tools interface with Microsoft Office applications as well as other word processing platforms like Open Office. B



Article

Figure 2. Example of student completion of the second lab of Organic II. In the last semester of this course, students answered their prelab questions in Perusall.com.26 In the template, all headings are annotated with what is expected.

Figure 3. Example of a student completed reagent and data table in which students complete the information on the reagents, such as measurements, molecular weights and safety, and the lab data.

■

IMPLEMENTING THE ELECTRONIC LABORATORY NOTEBOOK FORMAT IN ORGANIC CHEMISTRY I AND II The first implementation of the Google Doc ELN was in fall 2014. Previously, students submitted PLNs (composition notebooks) at midterm and before finals to be graded due to the time demands on the instructor to collect and grade the PLNs. The only opportunity for detailed, unsolicited feedback came after midterm. This grading schedule required the faculty to have a lab after midterm (before the fall or spring breaks) in which students did not need to have their notebooks. Prior to fall 2016, faculty teaching organic laboratories could use any

reports. Some advantages and disadvantages are also in the Supporting Information (SI Table 1). In this paper, the ELN format used for Organic Chemistry I and II as well as students’ opinions are presented. The surveys given to the students ascertained students’ thoughts of its use and feedback. Questions in the survey, ELN objectives (including time saving, typed work, and providing feedback sooner), and more examples of the notebook template are in the Supporting Information. The format of the ELN embodied each of the objectives. The organic laboratories were taught by full-time faculty. C



Article

Figure 4. Students receive feedback from instructors prior to submitting lab reports on mechanisms, data analysis, observations, and experimental procedures using comments.

Figure 5. Students receive feedback from instructors prior to submitting lab reports on mechanisms, data analysis, observations, and experimental procedures using different colors or track changes. Green is the student’s work and red/purple the instructor’s, with the student making their corrections last. When using the suggestion tool, the text is underlined and not done by the instructor or student to highlight anything.

ELN, with “how to” documents that included how to add links and paste images and headings. There was a template in the ELN for each lab unit (all laboratories are multiweek laboratories). Figures 2 and 3 display completed reagents and data tables. In these tables, students add solvents or compounds that vary between groups, molecular weights, measurements, safety information, calculated data, and observations. The templates were generally the same and included template headings for schemes, tables, and figures; sections for expected data; links to SDS; and probing questions (an example is provided in the Supporting Information). The ELN template provided a way to enforce good notebook practices. It forces students to include criteria they may not have thought about on their own such as tables and the formatting (Figure 2). The method section had a basic procedure in which students added details from the manual (given as a Google Doc). The data section changed depending on the data required and included questions. The format of how the data (observations, spectroscopic data, and masses, etc.) should be handled, with table and figure title templates, is given (Figure 3). Students have a notes section where they can link their notebook back to the instructions on using

notebook type (ELN or PLN), but the required format and assessment were the same. For consistency between sections, all instructors used the Google Doc ELN as of fall 2016. All students got feedback more often and earlier than with the PLN. ELNs were scanned weekly (or more) to address issues early. ELN templates were revised as needed, particularly when laboratories were rotated. Electronic Laboratory Notebook Template

The format of the notebook begins with a Table of Contents and instructions (Figure 1). As the students add titles (to replace place holders) or sections to their notebook, they can refresh the table of contents. Students can click on each link (before and after they change the headings) to go directly to the section of the ELN they like without having to scroll. In the first year of implementation, students were not aware that they were able to click on links rather than scroll or add additional links, particularly to reduce scrolling. Some students complained that flipping pages was easier than scrolling. In the second implementation, the instructors gave a short introduction to its use including tools that improve efficiency such as how to use and add links. In the third year of implementation, an overview was given about the Google Doc D



Article

Table 1. Comparative Survey Response Rates of Students by Course Number of Students Responding Organic Chemistry Course

Semester and Year (Month Survey Administered)

Total Number of Students

I I II II I I

Fall 2014 Fall 2015 Spring 2016 (February) Spring 2016 (April) Fall 2016 (August) Fall 2016 (November)

44 57 55 48 74 67

Respondents (% of Course) 39 43 39 35 52 55

(88.6) (75.4) (70.9) (72.9) (70.3) (82.1)

ELN Respondents (% of Respondents) 26 43 24 24 52 55

(66.0) (100) (61.5) (68.6) (100) (100)

Figure 6. Percentage of students reporting time spent on figuring out the preparation of the ELN vs PLN (F14 is fall 2014 and S16 is spring 2016).

the date the notebook was last edited. Students who updated notebooks in advance were more likely to have questions in their notebook. This feedback before lab rewards a student who prepared their notebooks early rather than minutes before lab. On average per lab unit, 8 questions in 2016 and 13 questions in 2017 were posted (typically 10−20% of students). More questions are being answered before lab (examples of questions in Supporting Information). Faculty gave feedback on the notebook weekly (when possible more often). This is done as a superficial review of the notebooks, but is done in more detail at the end of a lab unit. Students received feedback prior to writing their reports. Additionally, faculty provided feedback as often as they deem necessary on the basis of comments or questions in the ELN. This was an opportunity to tackle misconceptions early (additional implementation information in SI Table 6).

instruments or setting up samples. The template was used to scaffold learning to write notebooks and aided in writing reports (in conjunction with structured lab report assignments). The ELNs were initially very detailed, but students were presented with a reduction in some details between Organic Chemistry I and II. In the final lab unit, Organic I students were required to add their method, add reagents in the reagent table, and organize the presentation of their spectral data. This continued through Organic II, and they must prepare their ELN completely on their own for the final lab unit. Students copied the basic template of the previous laboratories as a guide (though were not told explicitly to do so). Providing Feedback to Students

Students were given feedback in three ways: as comments (Figure 4), in line text in other colors (Figure 5), and/or through track changes (Figure 5). Students who accept feedback were easy to track as students usually make changes by accepting or rejecting. Faculty often viewed the history of the document to see changes made. For example, instructors saw the resolved changes in the notifications or received notifications that suggestions were accepted. Some instructors would reopen a comment if the issue was not resolved, while others would address it with students during lab (Figure 4, see Supporting Information for additional images). Students will often ask questions in their notebooks ahead of time. In this way, students who prepare their notebooks ahead of time can get assistance earlier without sending emails or coming to office hours while directing an instructor specifically to the aspect of their notebook for which they need help. Faculty observed these questions via notifications sent by Google or looking at

■

STUDENT RESPONSES TO USING ELECTRONIC LABORATORY NOTEBOOKS Students were surveyed in Organic I and II about the use of the ELNs and compared to PLNs. Each year, Human Subject Research IRB approval was obtained before students were given the surveys. The release of student work and surveys follows the institutional IRB requirements, and all identifying information was removed before analysis. The surveys were given from 2014 to 2016 using a Google Form. The surveys were given at the end of the semester before the final report in fall 2014 and fall 2015. In spring 2016, the students were surveyed twice (early February and late April) to evaluate their thoughts on whether they collaborated with a partner and whether there were changes in perceptions over the semester. E



Article

Figure 7. Percentage of students reporting time spent on copying data from the ELN vs PLN into lab reports across all semesters.

Figure 8. Students’ perception on the helpfulness of the lab ELN/PLN for fall 2014 and spring 2016 (fall 2015 was not included as there was no data for PLN from spring 2014 to fall 2015).

Last, the survey was given fall 2016 when all sections were required to use the ELN. Two surveys (late August and November) were given to acquire baseline information about the students in the first week of using the ELN and again at the end of the semester before the last report was due. The aim of the surveys was to primarily gauge student experience using the ELNs, time spent preparing the report, and ease of use. The survey was not mandatory, and instructors could choose to use the survey. Details on the students who responded to the surveys are in Table 1. The PLN students in spring 2016 had all used the ELN in fall 2015.

both ELN and PLN students said 3−5 h except the ELN students in spring 2016 who said 1−2 h. The fall semester may not be as different because students are first learning how to use the ELN in Organic I and are less familiar with the software than in the spring semester in Organic II. Sampling the version history of the 2016 students’ ELNs showed students typically spent from a couple minutes to about 95 min outside of lab 1− 3 times per week (this pattern is repeated in 2017). The amount of time spent was quite variable, but the most frequent amount of time was 30 min per week, with some increases around the due date of reports. This unfortunately cannot account for students leaving their notebook open while not at their computer or small breaks in their work. In fall 2015, students were asked about their use of hyperlinks: 26.8% of students were not aware they could make hyperlinks, 28% said they have never used this feature, and 15.2% use them regularly. About a fourth of the Organic I students were not familiar with some of the important features of the Google Doc ELN (e.g., links, headers, and table of contents). On the basis of complaints by some students that they did not know how to use the ELN, the instructors gave an overview of using links in subsequent semesters. This changed the focus of our survey slightly to look at their perceptions of what they were aware of, rather than focus on how much they use certain tools. In fall 2016, students were all instructed in the

Student Perceptions of the Time Required and Whether the ELNs Are Helpful

Students were asked both about the time they spent on the ELN/PLN and the time they spent preparing reports. It was hypothesized that students would (1) report less time to prepare their reports, as they can copy and paste many portions of the ELN rather than transcribing with the PLN; (2) perceive the ELN as helpful in preparing reports; and (3) report that the experience improves with more experience. In general, each of these hypotheses was supported. Students perceived the time spent on figuring out how to prepare the ELNs required less than that for PLNs in the same semester, specifically in spring 2016 (Figure 6). When asked about the time spent to complete the notebook in fall 2014, F



Article

Most students seem to share their notebooks with a partner or another student at some point. In fall 2014, 15.4% of students never collaborated with their partner, and 61.5% collaborated sometimes. After fall 2014, students were specifically told they could collaborate with partners. In 2015, 7% said they never collaborated while in 2016 they reported that they collaborated all the time (43.5%) or sometimes (56.5%). The ELN made it easier to spot plagiarism and other code of conduct violations. However, this is an opportunity to have discussions on ethical behavior, especially related to sharing of data and electronic data management. Students can work together to gather data, but not to copy prelabs, data analysis, or postlab discussions. Students do work together on some reports, while other reports are turned in individually (Supporting Information). The ability to collaborate with partners or other students was likely easier than getting together in person. An advantage some students specifically listed was collaboration (SI Table 2): “Being able to share notebooks, so that when working on information with my lab partner we did not always have to be together”.

use of most of the Google Doc features, but 28% reported that they still did not know how to make links. Students were briefly shown certain features such as drawing in Google Docs. This inability may be reflected in their unfamiliarity with these features (71%). Students were given handouts in addition to the instruction in subsequent semesters to help them use the ELNs (in the Supporting Information). One student comment on the open-ended questions that reflects perceived problems with the ELN was “It took longer to use a notebook and have everything neatly set and organized than it would if I did it by hand. Drawing mechanisms and putting subscripts and superscripts and other things of that nature were more tedious.” This echoes the findings of Van Dyke.14 Some formatting and drawings do take more time to organize in the Google Doc vs commercial ELNs or even the PLNs. Hand-drawn mechanisms or reactions would likely be faster for students with little experience with chemical drawing software, but overall drawing for the ELN saves time as they draw the reactions once and can copy it to the reports (which is required). Though it is true that subscripts and superscripts in the ELN take more time, students will still need to write the subscripts and superscripts into reports later, and hence, there is an indirect time savings. In Figure 7, it is evident that students reported less time copying data from the ELN than the PLN, where a majority of the students using ELNs reported taking 15−30 min to copy from their ELN into their reports. Though almost 30% reported that the process of copying took 45 min or more, this seems unlikely as the ELN and reports are formatted in the same way. However, it may be speculated that some students did not complete the notebook thoroughly or altered the format of the reports. Additionally, a few struggled with how to copy and paste content into or out of the ELN. As an observation, not all students completed the notebooks during or even after the lab, so it would be expected just as with PLNs that it would take more time put together data. Figure 8 mirrors Figure 7 as most students using ELNs seemed to find it more helpful to prepare reports. Figure 8 shows a portion of the data showing that the ELNs were rated as more helpful, but there was an increase over the years. Recall that the PLN students in spring 2016 had all used the ELN in fall 2015. This gives these students a unique perspective for comparison. The differences were statistically significant. A summary of the 171 comments on advantages received from the students (fall 2014 and fall 2015) is given in the Supporting Information with specific examples (SI Tables 2− 4). Some of the comments specifically mentioned more than one feature such as “physical, hand written notebooks are too messy! ... I also liked that I could access it from anywhere.” A related disadvantage was that some students felt they had to learn how to use Google Docs and it took them most of Organic I to become comfortable with it. This was alleviated with specific instructions on the first day of lab and “how-to’s” documents in the ELN (Supporting Information).

Advantages and Disadvantages of Online Access

ELNs provide flexibility and the ability to work on it at any time on a mobile device or computer. Students did not have to print spectra, insert handouts, or add additional information pages later in the ELN outside of where the material belongs. A majority of the comments stated accessibility, ability to have all documents in one place, editability, and ease of transfer as advantages (SI Table 2). As disadvantages, some students stated that they needed to have a computer. Two computers were available in the organic lab to allow any student to use them (though were not at the lab stations due to infrastructure). Some students were not aware that they could use the Google Drive app on phones or tablets. Connectivity issues were the most common disadvantage. The college was in the process of upgrading and adding more WiFi hotspots on campus in 2014 and 2015, and WiFi is much more stable now. Google Docs can now be edited offline and synced once Internet access is re-established. Organizing Lab Notebooks Using Templates

Templates were used to allow students to keep the notebook organized as well as allow for faster review by instructors. The ELN is like the PLN except students had to set up their own notebooks in the PLN. Though students were asked not to change the order of the content in the template, they could edit the document if they wanted to. Students could add pages that they hyperlinked to add notes, or instructions they used repeatedly, or they could add images without drawing or printing and pasting as in a PLN. The table of contents is hyperlinked to the specific laboratories, and the bottom of each page has a hyperlink to specific pages or content commonly used. Links to relevant sites, handouts, and images can easily be placed in the document, making the document “cleaner” than that in a PLN. Though there were comments such as “The rigidity of the template. I often spent too much time making sure the notebook was adequately prepared... overall, the electronic notebook was superior...”, the PLN and ELN required the same format and sections, but the PLN did not have premade tables or sections nor could they simply supplement skeleton methods or reagents (SI Table 2).

ELNs as a Collaboration Tool

In the first implementation of the ELNs, it was not apparent to some students that they could collaborate with their lab partners (allow them to be editors or viewers of their ELN). This likely became more evident to students when they were later required to set up their ELN by copying the template and sharing their copy with their instructor as an editor rather than the instructor creating a document for each student (fall 2015).

Feedback to Students from Instructors within the ELNs

Faculty have access to any notebook at any time. This allowed faculty to give comments and feedback before notebooks were G



Article

requirements of the Organic I lab. This appeared to be the case for these students; however, this does not tease out specifically the learning associated with the ELN or just the coursework. A majority reported that it took them 1−2 h to prepare the general chemistry PLN (48%, n = 53) and 3−5 h for the Organic I ELN (56.4%, n = 55). However, as seen before in Organic II, most of the students report 1−2 h. Though the amount of content necessary to prepare the general chemistry reports is generally less than that needed in Organic I, 94.5% of students’ report copying the data took less than an hour in organic chemistry. 28.8% of students reported that it took them less than an hour in general chemistry, but a majority (53.8%) said 1−2 h.

graded. Students posed questions as comments in the notebooks. Track changes or comments allowed students to see all suggestions or grading quickly. There was no need to have carbon copies or notebooks collected once or twice a semester. Ultimately, early and frequent feedback is more helpful to students.27 The timely feedback can lead to the student−instructor communication viewed more positively.28 Though students did not comment much on feedback, most students used the feedback to revise the ELN or as a prompt to complete work (they received emails when comments are placed in the ELN). This communication may contribute to the increase in questions between 2016 and 2017.

■

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Faculty Perspectives on Student Lab Performance

General Comparisons of Student Perceptions of ELNs

From the perspective of the faculty, less data was missing both in the notebook and the lab reports. The ELN created a time savings in reading notebooks (they all fit one model), answering questions about what to do about missing data, or deciphering handwriting. Though not all students performed better on the ELN than they likely would on a PLN, there were more opportunities to address issues. Reports are more complete, more organized, and more consistent. Students copied the completed data from the notebook (evidenced by the format of data tables and method) and hence likely had more time to consider their data with the feedback given. There was a 4% lab Organic II grade increase on average since using the ELNs. Though it is hard to compare grades between semesters as the expectations on reports have increased since using the ELNs, comparison in the same semester of how both ELNs and PLNs were assessed may give insight. Using the null hypothesis was that the laboratory grades for students using the PLN equal those using the ELN (average 81.3% and 88.2% respectively), we can say there is a statistically significant difference between the means of the lab grades as the p values were 0.00089 at a 95% confidence.

In spring and fall 2016 students were given two surveys. In spring 2016, students were asked similar questions early in the semester and then at the end of the semester. It was hypothesized that, with more exposure to the ELN, particularly as the lab reports became more challenging, student perceptions would improve and the time to prepare reports would decrease. In Table 2, a majority of the students in OCII Table 2. Comparative Responses Addressing the Helpfulness of ELN or PLN over a Semester in OCII Responses, % (N), for 2016-1 How Helpful Was ELN or PLN toward Writing Your Reports? Very helpful Mostly helpful Neither helpful or not helpful Mostly not helpful Not helpful at all

Responses, % (N), for 2016-2

ELN, Spring (23)

PLN, Spring (12)

ELN, Spring (23)

PLN, Spring (15)

56.5 30.4 13.0

6.7 6.7 20.0

69.6 13.0 8.7

8.3 0.0 25.0

0.0 0.0

26.7 40.0

0.0 8.7

33.3 33.3

Benefits and Disadvantages for Students

As this was the students’ first exposure to any form of ELN, it was useful to know their experiences to select a permanent ELN. The use of Google Docs allowed for a free source that also allows students to learn how to use word processing tools. In the surveys, other information though not as significant seems to be worth noting. Some students noted that they liked that the ELN was free to them or environmentally conscious. As the notebook is stored in the cloud, students do not have a document that eventually becomes waste. Though students can print and paste spectra in a PLN, this was an added task. Students using the ELN shared images and links, and discussed with each other how to do certain tasks in the software. There was an initial investment of time to set up the ELNs (initial training of students and making templates), but this just represented a shift in the time taken to grade PLNs. Other than tweaking the ELN periodically, the time devoted is just in reviewing. Since faculty members skim the notebooks weekly (or more), they spot issues earlier so that the official grading of the notebooks is easier. This may take more time each week by the faculty but is overall the same time or less than collecting the PLNs at midterm and finals to review several weeks of work. ELNs are easier to review once students make suggested changes and continue to use the feedback for subsequent laboratories. This is particularly true as faculty can focus on new addition of information on the final reading of each unit’s work.

using ELN found them helpful, where the students in the second half of the semester appeared to find it more helpful. In contrast, there is not as much of a change with respect to the PLN, and there is a more negative shift. Between fall 2015 and spring 2016, students reported that they took less time to figure out how to complete the ELN in the second semester. 82.6% reported it taking 2 h or less in spring 2016 (OCII) vs 55.8% in fall 2015 (OCI). It is expected that students are more familiar with the template in the ELN. As stated before, students in the spring semester (OCII) reported the notebook taking 1−2 h to complete, while the Organic Chemistry I (OCI) students fall semesters reported 3− 5 h. In fall 2016, students were asked about the time they took to prepare general chemistry notebooks and reports (survey 1) and those for Organic I (survey 2). The rationale for these questions was to get a sense of students’ prior experience in general chemistry (carbon-copy PLN), as this could be a source of comparison for students. This question was posed on the basis of comments such as “The concept being so new and unfamiliar made it hard to get used to...”, to get a sense of students’ perceptions of the prerequisite course as a benchmark. It is expected from general chemistry to Organic I that there is a learning curve for students to adjust to the ELN and/or the H



Article

verbalized their comments to me (positive or negative) and for those who responded to the surveys voluntarily.

Some of the negative feelings toward of ELNs could reflect students who do not care to use technology in the classroom or comfort level learning new technology. Kvavik reported that almost 25% of students preferred little to no use of technology in the classroom.29 Kennedy et al. have found that there is a “digital divide” using various technology, in incoming first-year students with regards to technology.30 Even though some students have embraced various technology tools, when instructors move beyond certain tools students use, preference varies significantly. However, forcing students to use the ELN hopefully improved the attitudes of these students such that they are at least more comfortable using technology in preparation for the workforce. 92% of our students said they felt the experience helped to prepare them for the use of electronic formats used in future jobs.

■

(1) Walsh, E.; Cho, I. Using Evernote as an Electronic Lab Notebook in a Translational Science Laboratory. J. Lab. Autom. 2013, 18 (3), 229−234. (2) Mullin, R. Cloud computing or: how the pharmaceutical research sector learned to stop worrying and love the cloud. Chem. Eng. News 2016, 94 (42), 26−30. (3) Giles, J. Going paperless: The digital lab. Nature 2012, 481 (7382), 430. (4) HealthIT.gov. https://www.healthit.gov/ (accessed April 2018). (5) Vines, T.; Albert, A.; Andrew, R.; Debarré, F.; Bock, D.; Franklin, M.; Gilbert, K.; Moore, J.-S.; Renaut, S.; Rennison, D. J. The Availability of Research Data Declines Rapidly with Article Age. Curr. Biol. 2014, 24 (1), 94−97. (6) Willoughby, C.; Logothetis, T. A.; Frey, J. G. Effects of using structured templates for recalling chemistry experiments. J. Cheminf. 2016, 8 (1), 9. (7) Willoughby, C.; Bird, C. L.; Frey, J. G. User-Defined Metadata: Using Cues and Changing Perspectives. International Journal of Digital Curation 2015, 10 (1), 18−47. (8) Badiola, K. A.; Bird, C.; Brocklesby, W. S.; Casson, J.; Chapman, R. T.; Coles, S. J.; Cronshaw, J. R.; Fisher, A.; Frey, J. G.; Gloria, D.; Grossel, M. C.; Hibbert, D. B.; Knight, N.; Mapp, L. C.; Marazzi, L.; Matthews, B.; Milsted, A.; Minns, R. S.; Mueller, K. T.; Murphy, K.; Parkinson, T.; Quinnell, R.; Robinson, J. S.; Robertson, M. N.; Robins, M.; Springate, E.; Tizzard, G.; Todd, M. H.; Williamson, A. E.; Willoughby, C.; Yang, E.; Ylioja, P. M. Experiences with a ResearcherCentric ELN. Chem. Sci. 2015, 6 (3), 1614−1629. (9) Kanza, S.; Willoughby, C.; Gibbins, N.; Whitby, R.; Frey, J. G.; Erjavec, J.; Zupančič, K.; Hren, M.; Kovač, K. Electronic lab notebooks: can they replace paper? J. Cheminf. 2017, 9 (1), 31. (10) PerkinElmer. E-Notebook for Chemistry. http://www. cambridgesoft.com/Ensemble_for_Chemistry/ ENotebookforChemistry/Default.aspx (accessed April 2018). (11) BIOVIA Electronic Notebooks. http://accelrys.com/products/ unified-lab-management/biovia-electronic-lab-notebooks/ (accessed April 2018). (12) Labarchives. http://www.esciencenotebook.com/ (accessed April 2018). (13) LabGuru. https://www.labguru.com/ (accessed April 2018). (14) Van Dyke, A. R.; Smith-Carpenter, J. Bring Your Own Device: A Digital Notebook for Undergraduate Biochemistry Laboratory Using a Free, Cross-Platform Application. J. Chem. Educ. 2017, 94 (5), 656− 661. (15) Guerrero, S.; Dujardin, G.; Cabrera-Andrade, A.; Paz-y-Miño, C.; Indacochea, A.; Inglés-Ferrándiz, M.; Nadimpalli, H. P.; Collu, N.; Dublanche, Y.; De Mingo, I.; Camargo, D. Analysis and Implementation of an Electronic Laboratory Notebook in a Biomedical Research Institute. PLoS One 2016, 11 (8), e0160428. (16) Voegele, C.; Bouchereau, B.; Robinot, N.; McKay, J.; Damiecki, P.; Alteyrac, L. A universal open-source Electronic Laboratory Notebook. Bioinformatics 2013, 29 (13), 1710−1712. (17) Lawrie, G. A.; Grondahl, L.; Boman, S.; Andrews, T. Wiki Laboratory Notebooks: Supporting Student Learning in Collaborative Inquiry-Based Laboratory Experiments. J. Sci. Educ. Technol. 2016, 25 (3), 394−409. (18) Milsted, A.; Hale, J.; Frey, J.; Neylon, C. LabTrove: A Lightweight, Web Based, Laboratory “Blog” as a Route towards a Marked Up Record of Work in a Bioscience Research Laboratory. PLoS One 2013, 8, e67460. (19) Hesser, T. L.; Schwartz, P. M. iPads in the Science Laboratory: Experience in Designing and Implementing a Paperless Chemistry Laboratory Course. Journal of STEM Education: Innovations and Research 2013, 14 (2), 5−9.

■

CONCLUSION Though there are some additional questions that can be explored, this paper set out to display students’ perceptions on the use of ELNs as a Google Doc. The student surveys are a preliminary investigation on how much time is taken on notebooks and reports, the helpfulness of the ELN developed and students’ perceptions on the ELN. It may be a slight learning curve for students to use an ELN, which may be alleviated by an earlier introduction. Confirmation of how long students took to prepare the notebook was estimated by comparing the history in the notebook or other programs that timestamp additions to the ELN. The surveys and instructors’ observations give some insight into student perceptions that could further be studied. In general, the ELNs were viewed more positively in many respects than the PLNs in terms of preparing reports and organizing the notebook. Overall, negative opinions or feelings toward the ELN appear to be in the range of what is reported as students’ distaste of technology in the classroom. The ELNs were not the central focus of the course but complemented some of the skills we expected of our students, providing faster feedback and ease of collaboration. The ELN provided a mechanism for feedback and organization and allowed for more time to address content rather than issues with PLNs.

■

ASSOCIATED CONTENT

S Supporting Information *

The Supporting Information is available on the ACS Publications website at DOI: 10.1021/acs.jchemed.7b00518. Some of the surveys and additional information (PDF)

■

REFERENCES

AUTHOR INFORMATION

Corresponding Author

*E-mail: dbromfieldlee@flsouthern.edu. ORCID

Deborah Bromfield Lee: 0000-0002-5270-7206 Notes

The author declares no competing financial interest.

■

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Thank you to Shameka Shelby who supported implementing ELNs in her laboratories before it became required. I am grateful for the Organic I and II students who willingly I



Article

(20) Amick, A. W.; Cross, N. An Almost Paperless Organic Chemistry Course with the Use of iPads. J. Chem. Educ. 2014, 91 (5), 753−756. (21) Weibel, J. D. Working toward a Paperless Undergraduate Physical Chemistry Teaching Laboratory. J. Chem. Educ. 2016, 93 (4), 781−784. (22) Oleksik, G.; Milic-Frayling, N.; Jones, R. Study of an Electronic Lab Notebook Design and Practices That Emerged in a Collaborative Scientific Environment. In CSCW 2014: Proceedings of the 17th ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work and Social Computing; Baltimore, Maryland, February 15−19, 2014; Association for Computing Machinery: New York, 2014; pp 120−133. DOI: DOI: 10.1145/2531602.2531709. https://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id= 2531709 (accessed April 2018). (23) Bennett, J.; Pence, H. E. Managing Laboratory Data Using Cloud Computing as an Organizational Tool. J. Chem. Educ. 2011, 88 (6), 761−763. (24) Google Drive. https://www.google.com/drive/ (accessed April 2018). (25) Box. https://app.box.com/login (accessed April 2018). (26) PerusallEvery Student Prepared for Class. https://perusall.com/ (accessed April 2018). (27) Classroom Assessment Techniques: A Handbook for College Teachers; Angelo, T. A., Cross, K. P., Eds.; Jossey-Bass Publishers: San Francisco, 1993. (28) Gallien, T.; Oomen-Early, J. Personalized Versus Collective Instructor Feedback in the Online Courseroom: Does Type of Feedback Affect Student Satisfaction, Academic Performance and Perceived Connectedness With the Instructor? International Journal ELearning 2017, 7 (3), 463−476. (29) Kvavik, R. B. Convenience, Communications, and Control: How Students Use Technology. Educating the Net Generation [Online]; 2005. https://www.educause.edu/research-and-publications/books/ educating-net-generation/convenience-communications-and-controlhow-students-use-technology (accessed April 2018). (30) Kennedy, G. E.; Judd, T. S.; Churchward, A.; Gray, K.; Krause, K.-L. First year students’ experiences with technology: Are they really digital natives? AJET 2008, 24 (1), 108−122.

J


Implementation and Student Perceptions on ... - ACS Publications

Recommend Documents