Incorporating Student Design in an HPLC Lab Activity Promotes

Activity pubs.acs.org/jchemeduc

Incorporating Student Design in an HPLC Lab Activity Promotes Student Metacognition and Argumentation Ryan S. Bowen,*,†,∥ Danielle R. Picard,‡,∥ Susan Verberne-Sutton,† and Cynthia J. Brame§,∥ †

Department of Chemistry, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tennessee 37235, United States Department of History, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tennessee 37235, United States § Department of Biological Sciences, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tennessee 37235, United States ∥ Center for Teaching, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tennessee 37235, United States ‡

S Supporting Information *

ABSTRACT: The techniques learned in a laboratory translate into strong critical thinking aptitudes as well as adeptness in complex problem-solving within research. Typically, these laboratory skills are not acquired until a budding scientist enters graduate school since many undergraduate laboratories are more procedural than investigative. Therefore, the module in discussion was designed to aid students in developing competence toward thinking like a scientist. Through utilization of an inquiry-based approach, a laboratory involving high performance liquid chromatography was transformed into a blended online learning experiment. While students were provided in-class time to interact with their peers and the instructor and TA, the majority of the work and development was done outside of class. All background information and protocols were provided outside of the lab via an online course management system including the PowerPoint videos that students used to prepare for the experiment. The students used those materials to ultimately determine the identity and number of different steroids in an unknown sample. The objective was to determine if this approach promoted the metacognitive skills of students and encourage the use of argumentative skills when presenting and justifying claims and data. KEYWORDS: Upper-Division Undergraduate, Laboratory Instruction, Analytical Chemistry, Inquiry-Based/Discovery Learning, Internet/Web-Based Learning, Problem Solving/Decision Making, Drugs/Pharmaceuticals, Forensic Chemistry, HPLC

L

what they want to know, and whether the approach they design allows them to achieve that goal, all metacognitive activities. Metacognition has two components: metacognitive knowledge (knowledge of cognition) and metacognitive skillfulness (regulation of cognition). Metacognitive knowledge is further subdivided into declarative, conditional, and procedural knowledge. Metacognitive skillfulness can be divided into planning, monitoring, and evaluating, which correspond to discrete activities in inquiry.17 Specific materials that are designed to promote particular metacognitive activities can be powerful tools for learning.18 Argumentation within science is important when considering the claims derived from data analysis and how the data supports such claims. Research has shown that promotion of argumentation is beneficial to conceptual understanding and productive dialogue around concepts.19,20 We identified the ability to construct well-supported arguments as a skill that a scientist should have. While the activity did not seek to develop or promote argumentative skills in students, data on student argumentation was included to demonstrate the differences in student discourse between inquiry-based instruction that promotes metacognitive skillfulness and traditional laboratory instruction.

aboratories are an important facet of undergraduate chemistry education, but traditional instructional approaches have been criticized.1−7 Traditional approaches to laboratory instruction involve experimental recipes where students follow the steps and generate the expected result. This teaching method often does not fully engage students or demonstrate true scientific investigation. Therefore, the use of inquiry-based approaches has been employed in many laboratories to make the laboratory a more learning-centered environment that better enables students to understand experimental design, methods, and data analysis.5,8−11 Inquiry-based learning involves instructors asking guiding questions rather than stating facts and delivering information. Ultimately, this approach focuses on problem-solving,12 encouraging students to ask and actively engage in answering questions. There are varying levels of inquiry ranging from confirmation (which has no inquiry) to authentic inquiry (where students are given total control over the questions being asking and the problem being studied). Inquiry-based learning, if structured properly, also prompts students to engage in metacognitive activities. There are multiple definitions for metacognition: knowledge concerning one’s own cognitive processes and products or anything related to them,13 knowledge and regulation of one’s own cognitive system,14 the capacity to reflect upon one’s actions and thoughts,15 or thoughts about one’s own thinking.16 In inquiry-based activities, students are asked to consider what they do know, what they do not know, © XXXX American Chemical Society and Division of Chemical Education, Inc.

Received: April 7, 2017 Revised: October 20, 2017

A

DOI: 10.1021/acs.jchemed.7b00258 J. Chem. Educ. XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX

Journal of Chemical Education

Activity

Figure 1. Metacognitive processes can be promoted via inquiry, argumentation, data analysis and discussion, and all are skills that can help students think more like scientists.

Figure 2. Sequence of the activity that ended with a lab report analysis that generated the argumentation data. Each dot represents 1 week during the semester.

once metacognition is promoted, a feedback cycle occurs where metacognition then regulates the inquiry, argumentation, and data analysis processes.

It has been previously observed that students practice metacognition when engaging in inquiry-based activities.21 We wanted to extend the knowledge of the effectiveness of inquiry-based instruction and metacognitive practice in chemical education by incorporating both into an HPLC laboratory experiment in an upper-level forensic chemistry course. Within the context of upper-level courses, inquiry-based laboratory courses have been helpful in getting students to develop hypotheses, design projects, and promote critical thinking.22 Practicing scientists employ metacognitive thinking skills often when interfacing with problems in research. We therefore developed an activity for a junior-level chemistry course at a research-intensive university with the goal of promoting students’ metacognitive skillfulness through an inquirybased experimental process and ultimately encouraging students to think more like scientists by using metacognitive skills which can be promoted by inquiry, argumentation, and data analysis and discussion of results (Figure 1). Furthermore,

■

THE ACTIVITY On the inquiry rubric scale developed by Bruck et al.,23 the activity sits between level 1 (guided inquiry) and level 2 (open inquiry). Students were provided with details on how to complete some procedures, such as turning on and shutting down the instrument, but they were required to design their own protocol to gather data to analyze. In this activity, students learned about high performance liquid chromatography and developed a method to analyze anabolic steroids using this tool. Figure 2 details the timeline of the activity. A set of videos made using PowerPoint provided background information and theory behind the instrument, the experiment, sample preparation, the instrument software interface, and data analysis. B



■

Activity

IMPLEMENTATION Six students were enrolled in Forensic Analytical Chemistry, the course with the corresponding lab that utilized the HPLC activity described in this paper. All students participated in the newly designed HPLC experiment; however, only five students consented to be interviewed and have their lab reports analyzed. All students were chemistry majors or minors. One lab session was dedicated to watching the videos and brainstorming prior to the experiment, and a second lab period was used for the hands-on portion of the HPLC experiment. During the brainstorming session students were supplied with standard materials for HPLC, including background information in the form of videos, a Roadmap Worksheet to scaffold their thinking process, and a list of available materials (e.g., solvents). As the students worked during the brainstorming session, they were encouraged to talk to one another about the approaches they were taking. This type of collaborative learning was also encouraged on the day of the experiment. There was not enough time to completely prepare during the brainstorming session. Therefore, students were required to finish solidifying their experimental approach outside of class. A complete list of materials made available to the students is provided in Supporting Information. Overall, students only spent 1 day brainstorming with the TA and instructor, 1 day doing the inquiry lab, and 1 day doing the traditional experiment.

(Please e-mail corresponding author for full PowerPoints; samples are provided in Supporting Information.) Using videos in laboratory instruction has been shown to be an effective resource for students attempting to complete experiments.24 Small formative assessments such as embedded questions within the video allowed students to check their understanding before proceeding. For example, one question asked “What is the advantage of using gradient elution over isocratic elution for complex mixtures?” Students were provided with four different answer choices. If they selected the wrong answer, they were given a hint and information to reference in order to answer the question correctly. In some cases, students were directed to the primary literature for further learning. Some examples of useful papers were given, but ultimately the students were encouraged to go beyond the example papers to seek additional information. While watching the videos, the students used a “roadmap worksheet” that provided guiding questions to frame the experiment for the students (Supporting Information). The “roadmap worksheet” corresponded to sections of the videos, providing an opportunity for students to actively apply their understanding of a topic before moving on to the next topic. For example, a guiding question for Standard Preparation asked students “How should standards be prepared for HPLC? What are some steps you need to take to prepare them?” The students could then use this roadmap worksheet to guide their actions during their experiment since this was the first time in the current laboratory course they were tasked with developing their own protocol. Using the videos, the “roadmap worksheet”, and the primary literature as resources, students were tasked with developing their own experimental protocol to separate a mixture of anabolic steroids which required significant method development and cooperation between peer groups which began during the brainstorming session with the TA and instructor present; however, the instructor and TA were almost entirely hands-off and there to answer questions pertaining to materials available and other logistical concerns. Students were then given a week to continue working on their protocols. A week after the brainstorming session, students completed the inquiry experiment, and lab reports for the inquiry lab were due the following week when the same set of students started the traditional experiment laboratory. The traditional experiment was a GC−MS extraction of cocaine experiment where the students follow a set procedure and confirm the results established in the laboratory manual. The HPLC experiment was similar to the GC−MS experiment prior to being transformed into an inquiry experiment. The GC−MS experiment was chosen as a basis of comparison to the HPLC inquiry lab due to time constraints with the program for which the activity was being developed, the similarity of the procedure to the HPLC experiment before being made into an inquiry lab, and the fact that it enabled us to use the same set of students for both experiments. Students submitted their lab reports for the traditional experiment a week later, and at that point, the lab report analysis was conducted. It is important to note that the intervention with the experiments in this order (inquiry lab first, followed by the traditional lab) was due to the time frame allotted to complete the work presented in this paper, and the inflexibility of the lab curriculum at the time of this project.

■

ASSESSMENT METHODS The activity implementation was approved by the Vanderbilt University IRB (protocol number 151939). Observations

A trained observer used a previously described observation protocol (slightly modified for own purposes) during the inquiry session in which students engaged in the activity described in this article and the control (traditional, GC−MS) experiment. The modified observation protocol was a condensed version that removed some sections of the original protocol, such as student grouping comments. These sections were identified as not being useful for our purposes. The observation protocol is described here25 and is provided in the Supporting Information. Interviews

A week after the activity described here was completed, the five students who consented completed semistructured interviews consisting of questions adapted from the literature to probe metacognitive skillfulness and questions relevant to the chemistry content.26 • How did you prepare for the HPLC experiment? • During the experiment, what were some issues you encountered? How did you think and work through them? • What facets of HPLC were clarified in the experiment? What facets are still confusing? • If you had the choice between a traditional, “cookbook”style lab activity, and an inquiry-based lab activity, which would you choose? The full interview protocol is provided in the Supporting Information. The interviews were transcribed and analyzed via a content analysis approach to determine if metacognition was promoted by the described activity. Specifically, codes derived from Mayring’s analysis of self-confidence were adapted for the analysis of metacognitive skillfulness and the transcribed C



Activity

Table 1. Comparative Observations Categories Analyzed Lab notebook Students on task Revision of hypothesis Confidence Student interactions around content Student enthusiasm Clarifications

Inquiry Experiment Observations

Traditional Experiment Observations

Students had their lab notebooks and laptops with them to refer to notes, find articles, and research solutions. Students were on task most of the time, engaging with notes and articles. Students were given the opportunity to accept or reject their hypotheses based on experimental evidence. Overall, students seemed more confident about what they were doing and when to do it.

Students were reluctant to get their lab manual notebooks and take notes, even after the instructors suggested they use them. Students were on task less of the time, checking their phones and social media. Students never developed a hypothesis (this is how many cookbook-style laboratories are). Students were not as confident in using the instrument or remembering correct sample preparation procedures. They often sought clarifications from the instructors. Overall, students mostly discussed and engaged in discussions around content. There was less discussion among peers in the traditional lab.

Overall, students mostly discussed and engaged in discussions about content. There was more discussion among peers. Students were of normal enthusiasm.

Students were of normal enthusiasm.

Many questions were directed at ways to incorporate the data into the final lab report.

Most questions were directed at foundational, conceptual understanding.

interviews probed for the presence of these codes.27 The interviews and coding were conducted by the TA (RSB), and the coding scheme is provided in the Supporting Information.

The students explicitly stated that the PowerPoint videos were useful with the experiment with one student saying, “It was great to read the slides, but also hear you speak and explain things [over the slides]. It was great.” Example quotes from the interviews are in Table 2. Lab setup questions were meant to gather information on student opinions about the use of inquiry laboratories in the curriculum and their thoughts on improvement.

Lab Reports

As a final piece of analysis, the lab reports for the inquiry lab and a control experiment (traditional lab activity) were analyzed using Toulmin’s method of argumentation similar to Becker et al.29 This involved interpreting the sophistication of the lab reports of both the control and inquiry experiments, then deconstructing the students’ text to the building blocks of argumentation as laid out in Toulmin’s model. This method allowed us to classify scientific arguments as more superficial or well-supported. The lab reports were written according to a format established by the TA and instructor using the ACS Style Guide and J. Am. Chem. Soc. format (see Supporting Information).

■

Lab Report Argumentation

Lab reports from a control (traditional) experiment and the activity described here were analyzed using Toulmin’s model of argumentation27 (see Figure 3) to evaluate student construction of scientific arguments.28 In summary, the model asserts that an argument consists of a claim that is synonymous with some conclusion. Data is cited to provide evidence for that claim, and the data and claim are linked by a warrant that explains how the data is evidence of the claim. Other facets of the model include rebuttals and backing. Backing is additional information that supports the warrant, and rebuttals are often refutations observed in dialogue that counter the claim. In the case of the lab reports, however, there were cases where students countered their own claims, ultimately contradicting themselves. These were included in the rebuttal category, but they can be viewed as contradictory claims. Analysis using this model revealed that most conclusions in the lab reports from the traditional experiment were supported superficially without explanation. Specifically, the control experiment used GC−MS to determine if cocaine was on random dollar bills. Within the GC−MS lab reports, all students arrived at the same claim as expected on the basis of the format of the experiment (a set procedure with a set outcome), backing it with data stating that there was a peak in the mass spectrum at 303 m/z. The students warranted this by correctly stating that the peak at 303 m/z corresponds to the parent peak of cocaine free-base. However, the students never discussed alternate interpretations of the mass spectrum, including other peaks in the spectrum or alternate sources for the 303 m/z signal (Table 3). A couple of students mentioned the existence of other peaks, but they never explained what those peaks represented. Furthermore, it was noted that many student explanations reiterated what the lab manual stated rather than expanding or supporting the data with their understanding.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Observations

The observations from the inquiry and control (traditional) experiment show that the inquiry experiment engaged students more while giving them the opportunity to develop and revise hypotheses. More detailed notes on the observations are presented in Table 1. An interesting observation was made in regards to the clarifications that students were seeking during both laboratory experiments. In the inquiry experiment, many questions that students were asking were directed at more technical concerns of the experiment or how to incorporate data into lab reports. In the traditional experiment, most of the questions were directed at conceptual understanding. This observation in conjunction with the lab report data provide some evidence that the inquiry experiment improved conceptual understanding when compared to the traditional experiment. Interviews

In the interviews, we observed that the inquiry activity prompted student metacognition and student perception that the inquiry-based experiment promoted understanding. Students reported appreciation for the experience that the inquiry experiment activity offered. All students interviewed described behaviors that indicated intermediate or high levels of the planning, monitoring, and evaluating elements of metacognitive skillfulness (see coding scheme in Supporting Information). D


What are some aspects of HPLC you are still confused about? What would you do differently next time?

During the experiment, what were some issues you encountered? How did you work around them? What made you choose the approach you used? How did it work?

How did you prepare for the [inquiry-based lab]? Did you allot enough time?

If I gave you the choice of doing lab this way [inquiry-based], or the old way, where we give you a procedure, which would you choose? Why?

Questions

Evaluating “...the hydrocortisone/cortisone thing that we talked about, I was able to kind of decipher my way through that, but I was still kind of, like, unsure of what it was actually doing, but we were able to come up with kind of a solution that made sense to me...”

Planning “I, um, looked up some papers about different methods people had used to elute steroids via HPLC. I looked up the chemical structures of cortisone, hydrocortisone, and testosterone. Um, I looked up when they eluted together, like what comes out where. I looked at some different methods...” Monitoring “Um, well, I think just the very, when you said, ‘okay, now go for it.’ [My partner] and I looked at each other being like, ‘uh, what’s the first step?’ So, then we just had to say, like, ‘okay, what is the first thing we need to do?’... the other one was that we only had two peaks come out in our first graph [should be three], but then we went back, and we actually looked at the thing I found outside of our [materials]. So, we looked at that other research to see what they did. Um, then compared with the other peer groups.”

Lab Setup “...so, giving the procedure, you go in, and you know what you’re doing, but um, writing your own procedure, it really forces you to understand each aspect of it, like why...”

Student Responses Representative of High Metacognitive Skillfulness

Table 2. Examples of Student Interview Responses

“...Yeah. I would try a different method... I can’t remember exactly, but I think you said [in the slides] to do a shorter elution because it took like too long... like a shorter gradient meaning like do a... I mean, change the concentration of it to a stronger one in a shorter period of time.”

“...what I thought was the acetonitrile was more nonpolar, and because buffer is the polar component, I thought if I increase the concentration of the acetonitrile... then the polar things would come first... but apparently, the mobile phase has to be polar, I think, because the other method they used methanol instead of acetonitrile... and at the conclusion we had cortisone come out first then hydrocortisone.”

“...I did a little bit of background research, but most articles they don’t tell you, like, stepby-step how to use an HPLC... so, I kind of used the articles just as a reference as far as what, um, you know, solutions to use...”

“...comparing the procedure [only] labs, I definitely do not understand those as well. I’m just thinking of all the past ones I’ve had that the whole time we were just blindly following the steps, and not understanding at all what to do. Um, so I understand this one a lot more...”

Student Responses Representative Intermediate Metacognitive Skillfulness

Journal of Chemical Education Activity

Figure 3. Toulmin’s model of argumentation. A general model of how arguments are structured.

For example, one student pair made the claim that the unknown contained cortisone and hydrocortisone and warranted the data by explaining that the two anabolic steroids had similar chemical structures which was confirmed by standards. They also backed this warrant with chemical concepts stating that hydrocortisone is most likely more polar but stays on the column longer than cortisone due to hydrogen bonding. Students developed different methods for separating the compounds and sought to defend their method or explain how to improve it. For example, one student pair claimed that their method did not elute three steroids successfully, and that it needed to be improved (see Table 4). They provided multiple explanations, one of which being that the cortisone and hydrocortisone were coeluting together and not separating on the column due to their similar structures. Furthermore, four out of the five students interviewed provided insight on potential improvements in their interviews and lab reports. One student said: The failure of the first method might be due to not enough elution time. If the elution time was increased to 15 min or 20 min, a testosterone peak could had showed up. If the second peak was actually testosterone and the first peak was a mixture of two steroids, then the elution should have gone slower with gradual change of ratio... As a final basis of comparison, we looked at how well the students described the data in the inquiry and control lab reports. A representative example is shown in Figure 4. In the inquiry experiment, their explanation was more complete and of higher quality than the traditional experiment explanation. Regarding the inquiry-based experiment

Traditional Experiment

The lab manual for the traditional experiment has the exact same information the student just stated. The most successful students were more engaged overall as seen by the observations. They effectively planned for the experiment as evidence of the interview responses probing at the planning component of metacognitive skillfulness (literature resources these students leveraged are included in the Supporting Information). Students who demonstrated higher metacognitive monitoring consistently asked questions throughout the experiment to themselves and their partner. Finally, most students spent more time in their lab reports analyzing the data connecting well-supported arguments to their claims. These students understood the instrument as well as the underlying chemical principles relevant to the instrumentation and the experiment, and therefore were able to develop an effective HPLC method and troubleshoot issues that they encountered.

E



Activity

Table 3. Comparative Argumentation Setup for Traditional (Control) Laba Claim Data Warrant Backing Rebuttal or contradictory claim

Student 1 GC Report

Student 2 GC Report

“...both dollars showed some amounts of cocaine. The dollar extracted with methanol showed a higher concentration of cocaine...” “...the concentrated solution also had two peaks with retention times of 8.134 and 8.150. The concentrated solution has a m/z peak at 303.2 with an ion count of 912...” “...cocaine had a retention time of approximately 8.1 minutes. The MS of cocaine has a peak at m/z 303...” None provided None provided

“...based on the GC−MS data, both methods were successful in extracting cocaine from currency. Furthermore, both dollar bills tested positive for cocaine...” “...the concentrated methanol extraction GC plot reveals a peak at approximately 8.14 minutes... the concentrated methanol extraction MS plot reveals a peak at m/z 303.1...” “...cocaine has a m/z of approximately 303.1 with a dilution time of about 8.14 minutes...” None provided None provided

a

Lab reports from the activity described here demonstrated more well-supported arguments (see Table 4). Students used argumentation to explain and defend their conclusions and the methods they developed for the HPLC experiment (see Supporting Information).

Table 4. Comparative Argumentation Setup for Inquiry Lab Student 1 HPLC Report

Student 2 HPLC Report

Claim

“Testosterone was one of the two steroids in unknown 2... unable to identify the other steroid...”

Data

“...the obtained graph contained three peaks. Two peaks areas were somewhat combined at retention time 8−9 minute... the other peak sharply appeared at around 13 minutes...” “...the first two peaks corresponding to hydrocortisone and cortisone are somewhat co-eluted... Testosterone was the most nonpolar compound of all three, it was eluted the last...”

Warrant

Backing Rebuttal or contradictory claim

“The peak at 9.04 minute could not be identified with 100% certainty... because hydrocrotisone and cortisone had similar retention time in the standard run...” None provided

■

“...the peaks in unknown 1 were separated using a 30−70% methanol in water gradual gradient method and revealed that the sample contains hydrocortisone and testosterone...” “...an unknown sample containing steroids was absorbed by the HPLC at 8.936 and 13.111 minutes, using 30−70% methanol in water gradual gradient...” “...in both chromatograms, the peaks correspond to compounds of decreasing polarity... based on their [elution] times, these unknown peaks correspond to the hydrocortisone and testosterone peaks in the standard sample...” “...for the standard sample... peaks correspond to cortisone at 8.091 minutes, hydrocortisone at 8.724 minutes, and testosterone at 12.874 minutes...” None provided

Figure 4. Representative student description of data from inquiry lab and traditional (control) lab. The descriptions are from the same student.

CONCLUSION The lab activity presented here details a guided-inquiry lab activity on HPLC that was implemented in a junior-level chemistry laboratory. The effect on student metacognition and argument construction was explored. Interviews, observa-

tions, and comparative argumentation analysis revealed that the inquiry approach was more stimulating and engaging, enabled students to understand the concepts and instrumentation on a deeper level, and prompted the use of metacognitive skills in this one, particular case. Experimental design, trial-and-error, F



Activity

(2) Sandi-Urena, S.; Cooper, M.; Stevens, R. Effect of Cooperative Problem-Based Lab Instruction on Metacognition and ProblemSolving Skills. J. Chem. Educ. 2012, 89 (6), 700−706. (3) 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 (7), 655−675. (4) Gabel, D. Improving teaching and learning through chemistry education research: a look to the future. J. Chem. Educ. 1999, 76 (4), 548−554. (5) Hall, M. L.; Vardar-Ulu, D. 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 (1), 58−67. (6) Roth, W.-M. Experimenting in a constructivist high school physics laboratory. J. Res. Sci. Teach. 1994, 31 (2), 197−223. (7) Millar, R. The Student Laboratory and the Science Curriculum. J. Educ. Teach. 1990, 16 (2), 208−209. (8) Landis, C. R.; Peace, G. E., Jr.; Scharberg, M. A.; Branz, S.; Spencer, J. N.; Ricci, R. W.; Zumdahl, S. A.; Shaw, D. The New Traditions Consortium: shifting from a faculty-centered paradigm to a student-centered paradigm. J. Chem. Educ. 1998, 75 (6), 741−744. (9) Jalil, P. A. A procedural problem in laboratory teaching: Experiment and explain, or vice-versa? J. Chem. Educ. 2006, 83 (1), 159−163. (10) Farrell, J. J.; Moog, R. S.; Spencer, J. N. A guided inquiry general chemistry course. J. Chem. Educ. 1999, 76 (4), 570−574. (11) Backus, L.; Year, A. Without Procedures. Science Teacher 2005, 72 (7), 54−58. (12) Bodner, G. M. Constructivism: A Theory of Knowledge. J. Chem. Educ. 1986, 63 (10), 873. (13) Flavell, J. H. The Nature of Intelligence; Erlbaum: Hillsdale, NJ, 1976. (14) Brown, A. L. Metacognition, Motivation, and Understanding; Erlbaum: Hillsdale, NJ, 1987. (15) Schraw, G. Promoting General Metacognitive Awareness. In Metacognition in Learning and Instruction: Theory, Research, and Practice; Hartman, H. J., Ed.; Springer Science and Business Media: New York, NY, 2001. (16) Rickey, D.; Stacy, A. M. The role of metacognition in learning chemistry. J. Chem. Educ. 2000, 77 (7), 915−920. (17) Cooper, M. M.; Sandi-Urena, S. Design and validation of an instrument to assess metacognitive skillfulness in chemistry problem solving. J. Chem. Educ. 2009, 86 (2), 240−245. (18) Zohar, A.; Ben David, A. Paving a clear path in a thick forest: a conceptual analysis of a metacognitive component. Metacognition Learning 2009, 4, 177−195. (19) Bathgate, M.; Crowell, A.; Schunn, C.; Cannady, M.; Dorph, R. The Learning Benefits of Being Willing and Abile to Engage in Scientific Argumentation. Int. J. Sci. Educ. 2015, 37 (10), 1590−1612. (20) Moon, A.; Stanford, C.; Cole, R.; Towns, M. Decentering: A Characteristic of Effective Student-Student Discourse in InquiryOriented Physical Chemistry Classrooms. J. Chem. Educ. 2017, 94 (7), 829−836. (21) Kipnis, M.; Hofstein, A. The Inquiry Laboratory as a Source for Development of Metacognitive Skills. Inter. J. Sci. Math. Educ. 2008, 6, 601−627. (22) 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. (23) Bruck, L. B.; Bretz, S. L.; Towns, M. H. Characterizing the Level of Inquiry in the Undergraduate Laboratory. J. Coll. Sci. Teach. 2008, 38 (1), 52−58. (24) Schmidt-McCormack, J. A.; Muniz, M. N.; Keuter, E. C.; Shaw, S. K.; Cole, R. S. Design and Implementation of Instructional Videos for Upper-Division Undergraduate Laboratory Courses. Chem. Educ. Res. Pract. 2017, 18, 749.

and leveraging metacognition to think through problems encountered in the lab are all used by scientists on a daily basis. Most would agree that the opportunity to promote the mindset of more expert-like thinking at the junior-level, or any level for that matter, is important for the education of young scientists. In this particular experience, students were immersed in a research-like environment where they were encouraged to think like a scientist, develop their own approach, analyze their data, and generate their own conclusions. In this experiment, the traditional experiment was conducted by the students after the inquiry experiment. Due to the inflexibility of the curriculum and the time frame allotted to complete the intervention, it was difficult to plan the work presented in this paper any other way. We are aware that experiment order may affect students’ thoughts and thinking about the traditional experiment, especially after doing the inquiry experiment first. In the future, it would be interesting to investigate the effect of experiment order on student thinking.

■

ASSOCIATED CONTENT

* Supporting Information S

The Supporting Information is available on the ACS Publications website at DOI: 10.1021/acs.jchemed.7b00258. Roadmap worksheet (PDF, DOCX) Student interview protocol (PDF, DOCX) J. Am. Chem. Soc. criteria (PDF, DOCX) Cocaine GC−MS lab protocol handout (PDF, DOCX) Steroid HPLC lab protocol handout (PDF, DOCX) Classroom observation protocol (PDF, DOCX) References (PDF, DOCX) Student argumentation (PDF, DOCX) Materials provided (PDF, DOCX) Interview coding scheme (PDF, DOCX) Steroid lab lecture slides on question to consider before doing HPLC (PDF) Steroid lab lecture slides on standard and sample prep for HPLC (PDF) Steroid lab lecture slides on background information on HPLC (PDF) Steroid lab lecture slides on setting up and using the HPLC (PDF) Steroid lab lecture slides on data analysis (PDF) Steroid lab lecture slides on shutting down the HPLC (PDF)

■

AUTHOR INFORMATION

Corresponding Author

*E-mail: [email protected]. ORCID

Ryan S. Bowen: 0000-0002-3749-6180 Notes

The authors declare no competing financial interest.

■ ■

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The authors thank Rhett McDaniel for his assistance on image creation for this manuscript. REFERENCES

(1) Hofstein, A.; Mamlok-Naaman, R. The laboratory in science education: the state of the art. Chem. Educ. Res. Pract. 2007, 8, 105− 107. G



Activity

(25) Fermilab. Classroom Observation Protocol. Retrieved at http://ed. fnal.gov/trc_new/program_docs/instru/classroom_obs.pdf (accessed Aug 2017). (26) Tanner, K. D. Promoting Student Metacognition. CBE Life Sci. Educ. 2012, 11 (2), 113−120. (27) Toulmin, S. The Uses of Argument; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, 1958. (28) Mayring, P. Quantitative Content Analysis. Forum: Qualitative Social Research 2000, 1 (2). DOI: http://www.qualitative-research. net/index.php/fqs/article/view/1089. (29) Becker, N.; Rasmussen, C.; Sweeney, G.; Wawro, M.; Towns, M.; Cole, R. Explanations grounded in the particulate nature of matter: A sociochemical norm in a physical chemistry class. Chem. Educ. Res. Pract. 2013, 14, 81−94.

H


Incorporating Student Design in an HPLC Lab Activity Promotes

Recommend Documents