Article Cite This: J. Chem. Educ. XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX
pubs.acs.org/jchemeduc
One Discovery Leads to Another: An Interactive Summer Workshop on Sensors for Ninth Grade Students Amie E. Norton,*,†,§ Jessica M. Ringo,*,† Spencer Hendrickson, Jennifer M. McElveen, Francis J. May, and William B. Connick‡ Department of Chemistry, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, Ohio 45221, United States
Downloaded via VOLUNTEER STATE COMMUNITY COLG on May 2, 2019 at 13:14:44 (UTC). See https://pubs.acs.org/sharingguidelines for options on how to legitimately share published articles.
S Supporting Information *
ABSTRACT: A five-day discovery-based summer workshop for incoming ninth graders was designed and conducted at the University of Cincinnati (UC). The idea was to have an inquiry-based, research-driven laboratory experience where students were provided with a mentor who encouraged creativity and inquisitiveness. Over a period of three years, 33 students participated in this UC workshop. The students performed a series of experiments and toured and utilized the analytical instrumentation facilities at UC. During the first year, the goal of the workshop was to have the students design their own chemical sensor for anions in water. In subsequent years, the students were given the opportunity to investigate a research question arising from any of the experiments they performed throughout the week. Students were not given explicit instructions for activities. For example, a typical question could have been “Which anion shows luminescence?”, but they were not told how to discover this. On the last two days the students were tasked with proposing a question they wished to have answered and developed an experiment to test the hypothesis. At the conclusion of the workshop, each group or individual student presented their results and showed confidence in their work. KEYWORDS: High School/Introductory Chemistry, Demonstrations, Inorganic Chemistry, Hands-On Learning/Manipulatives, Inquiry-Based/Discovery Learning, Problem Solving/Decision Making, Materials Science
■
INTRODUCTION The desire to increase positive student attitudes toward science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) has been increasingly popular in recent years due to the projected increase in STEM related jobs.1 However, despite this projection, interest in pursuing scientific majors and careers continues to decrease.2,3 Each year, student interest in science continues to decline.4,5 One of the reasons for this is that students report not finding school science very practical.6 It is critical to our economy to help students understand the value of scientific information and to encourage them to pursue and continue in these fields of study.7,8 In order to recruit students to these disciplines, to combat negative attitudes toward science, and to demonstrate that science can be practical and fun, we designed a workshop for students who had just finished eighth grade (rising ninth graders). There are many published workshops for students of all ages that are designed to gain more interest in STEM.9−18 These workshops are interactive and hands-on, providing students with positive experiences. There are also many workshops designed to educate teachers on specific topics and how to disseminate those topics to their students.19−22 Boyle et al. use an interesting approach, combining the mystery-solving aspect of many effective workshops within a real scientific setting at Sandia National Lab.9 Their goal is to show students that a scientific laboratory is not as intimidating as they might have imagined, and to promote scientific self-confidence by working with professionals instead of being judged by them in a science fair setting. This idea of having students work in a real lab setting was desirable for the design of our workshop. However, we wanted to give the students an experience that is even © XXXX American Chemical Society and Division of Chemical Education, Inc.
closer to conducting research in a lab by having them discover their own procedures and experiments. Research has shown that discovery-based science activities increase positive attitudes toward science as well as increase scientific knowledge and skills, including critical thinking, in comparison to a traditional approach.23,24 Over the past 20 years, undergraduate teaching laboratories have begun to introduce inquiry-based or discovery-based laboratory experiments in which students are given guidelines instead of traditional “cookbook” type directions.25−31 We wanted to simulate a similar type of environment where the student becomes the scientist. In this way, the One Discovery Leads to Another workshop was designed to mimic a real research experience. The students were exposed to the scientific method in a research laboratory while they were given the freedom to discover the chemistry of previously published anion sensing materials.32 Presented in this paper are the details of three iterations of the workshop, and the outcomes and changes that were made from each year. We found that, given the opportunity to think and act like scientists, these ninth grade students could pose their own research questions and design experiments to answer these questions. At the end of each iteration we had an open discussion with the group. We asked each student to share their opinions. By listening to their comments, we found that we were able to create a positive research experience for these new scientists in a setting where they were enthusiastic and unafraid to fail. Received: October 20, 2018 Revised: April 10, 2019
A
DOI: 10.1021/acs.jchemed.8b00528 J. Chem. Educ. XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX
Journal of Chemical Education
■
Article
WORKSHOP DETAILS A five-day workshop was designed to demonstrate how chemistry concepts and discovery build upon each other during the research process. In this workshop, students were given mentorship throughout the week, leading up to the eventual goal of designing their own sensor or answering their own research question. The learning environment we implemented was discovery-based. The underlying chemistry can be found in the Supporting Information (Figure SI1), along with the projects for each year, the recruitment process, and student demographics. This workshop was funded by the Henry and Camille Dreyfus Foundation. The workshop was provided to the participants at no cost. Each year we had 4−5 adults (the authors of this paper) responsible for the 8−13 participants. Our targeted enrollment was a maximum of 15 students due to the number of adult volunteers. We believe this to be an adequate number for the small scale of our workshop. We would suggest more supervisors if the workshop were being run on a larger scale. Our role was to provide safety and guidance for the students. At least two graduate students and the primary investigator were always present in the lab. If the students had questions, we always addressed them, oftentimes with another question to promote discussion. We were also available to take them to the instrument laboratories during their time to work on the final project. While they had used the instruments earlier in the week, we always provided guidance when they were working with instruments to ensure safety and proper use. For example, students could place their sample in the carousel for 1H NMR spectroscopy but needed help shimming the instrument and interpreting their data. Every experimental question that was posed to the students throughout the week was a real concept or question that we asked ourselves when we were initially researching these vapochromic materials. In order to convey these concepts, we designed specific experiments for the workshop that were based upon the progress of discoveries made in our own laboratory. However, instead of giving step-by-step instructions as is typical in a teaching lab, we posed questions and asked students to design their own experiments. At the close of each day the groups reflected upon the day’s activities, and at the end of the week the students presented their research. Since the students had never been in a research laboratory before, we broke down the workshop into 3 phases with the following goals. • Phase I Discovery-Based Learning: to allow the students to become comfortable in the lab • Phase II Analytical Research Facilities and Instrumentation: to expose students to instrumentation and allow them to take their own measurements • Phase III Final Project: to allow students to use any instrumentation, materials, and equipment available to create their own sensor or answer their own questions The curriculum of a typical day of the workshop is presented in Table 1. Each morning started with a welcome by playing a video set to music using pictures we took from the previous day. The students loved seeing themselves working in the lab. This was a positive way to break the ice each morning. After the slideshow, a series of minilectures introduced new concepts and topics that would be useful for that day. For example, concepts covered would be luminescence, scanning electron microscopy (SEM), and vapochromism to give context to the experiments. There was always time for questions and a
Table 1. Example Schedule of a Workshop Day Time 9 AM−10 AM 10 AM−12 PM 12 PM−1 PM 1 PM−3:30 PM 3:30 PM−4 PM
Activity Welcome, discussion of the day before, introduction of new topics. Students work in the lab. Lunch with scientists from academia, industry, and government. Students work in the lab. Share what was accomplished that day.
discussion of what they had planned for the day. The students would then enter the laboratory and start their experiments. We asked them questions in the form of worksheets without including step-by-step instructions. These worksheets can be found in the Supporting Information. At lunch we would have a guest speaker from industry or government who would share with them the personal experiences that eventually led them to their current career. These guest speakers were both men and women and were approached on the basis of connections with the authors. We invited speakers of all degree levels. Two speakers held bachelor’s degrees in chemistry. Others had received their Ph.D. in chemistry from UC, and one was a collaborator of author W.B.C. We thought it would be beneficial to expose the students to the different types of careers one could have depending on level of schooling. It was an informal time for students to ask questions and interact with professionals in the field. No formal presentations were given. The laboratory experiments would resume after lunch. At the end of the day, we would discuss as a group what had been accomplished that day. Safety
Because the workshop was largely based on students working independently, safety in the laboratory was an important aspect that was stressed from the first day. How safety was handled is detailed in the SI. Phase I: Discovery-Based Learning
Phase I was designed to emphasize the use of discovery-based learning. Students became comfortable working in a laboratory setting by getting out of instruction mode and into inquiry mode. This phase of the workshop was designed for students to problem-solve and investigate their own curiosities. Step-bystep instructions were not provided; however, students could request guidance and suggestions from the mentors. The experiments that were chosen for this phase were experiments that exposed the students to the chemistry of our platinum sensor. Students self-assembled into groups of 2−3 and were tasked with answering three questions. They had to develop their own experiments to answer these questions. In the first year, the three experiments completed during this phase were the following: solubility, polymer uptake of water, and luminescence (Table 2). More details of the first two experiments can be found in the Supporting Information. The goal of the solubility experiment was to set the tone for the whole week: that students would be treated like researchers in a lab. Students were asked to solve a problem but not told how to solve it. Problems arose when they went to weigh out their solid. Some groups were very careful in their measurements, while other groups were less diligent. An important lesson that was learned because of their own miscalculations was the importance of accuracy in measurements. The second research question that was asked was to rank 3 different polymers according to their ability to uptake water. B
DOI: 10.1021/acs.jchemed.8b00528 J. Chem. Educ. XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX
Journal of Chemical Education
Article
Table 2. Activities From Each Year Day Before experiments Monday AM Monday PM
Tuesday AM Tuesday PM
Year One
Solubility Lab Swelling Lab
Luminescence Lab Loading Supports, Polymer Uptake of Perchlorate
Year Two
Crystallization Lab Group 1: Selectivity Lab, Emission Lab Group 2: vapochromic lab, characterization lab Luminescence, sensitivity Group 1: TGA/DSC
Wednesday AM Wednesday PM
Group 2: XRPD SEM, XRPD SEM, Spectroscopy FTIR, Emission, Optical Microscope X-ray Crystallography
Thursday AM
Design a Sensor
Thursday PM Friday AM Friday PM
Design a Sensor Design a Sensor Clean-Up, Presentations, Graduation
“What do scientists do?” and Scientific Method, Brainstorm a Research Question Final Project/Own Interest Final Project/Own Interest Clean-Up, Presentations, Graduation
Year Three
Phase
“What do scientists do?” and Scientific method Vapochromic Lab Crystallization Lab, Characterization Lab
1
Luminescence lab Sensitivity lab
1 1
SEM, XRPD Optical microscope, X-ray crystallography Brainstorm Research Question
2 2
Final Project/Own Interest Final Project/Own Interest Clean-Up, Presentations, Graduation
3 3
1 1
3
platinum as soon as they ran into problems rather than attempting to figure out a solution. We also noticed that they preferred to use the easily operated laser pointers (Figure 1) and paid little attention to the LEDs. In the second year, we slightly modified a few of the activities in order to make the workshop more researchoriented and eliminated the solubility activity. We believe this activity was important in the previous year due to the
Polymer materials are a major component of our sensor. We use platinum loaded hydrogel films to aid in the preconcentration of perchlorate. Therefore, understanding the characteristics of the polymer support is important. The goal of this experiment was to challenge the students to think about experimental design. Each group had a different approach to determine the amount of water the polymers absorbed, which led to each group having different results. The students were taken by surprise by the variation in each group’s results. They also realized that, by not writing down the details of their ideas, procedures, and observations in a laboratory notebook, they were not able to reproduce their results. This provided us with another lesson: the importance of reproducible results. The third experiment in Phase I of the workshop dealt with the concept of luminescence. Taking advantage of certain luminescent properties of the platinum salt is another major component of our sensor. Because the yellow platinum salt does not absorb green light, it is possible to selectively excite the red platinum salt with a green laser pointer (532 nm), which results in a spectacular switching-on of emission upon exposure to ClO4−. This is a major factor in the observed selectivity because other anions do not show this response. If one pairs a 532 nm laser with a 570 nm cutoff filter to block out the green light, the red perchlorate salt shows a red response, and the yellow salt gives no response. To learn how these components might be used in a sensor, the students prepared a series of vials containing a platinum salt in aqueous solutions of different anions. Each vial contained a solution of a different sodium salt (PO43−, SO42−, Br−, I−, IO4−, ClO4−, Cl−, and BrO3−). Students were then provided with a selection of laser pointers, LEDs, UV lamps, and various light filters and were encouraged to explore the properties of the platinum complexes. The goal of this experiment was to demonstrate the influence of the anion on the luminescence. The students had to learn how to pair cutoff filters with different lasers to block out the laser light and to see the response from the platinum salts. Students also had to figure out which salts were responding, and which were not. They noticed that the various salts responded to the platinum complex differently, and that the bromate and perchlorate were the most responsive. Material conservation posed a problem in the third experiment. Students were too quick to grab more
Figure 1. Students exploring use of laser pointers during the luminescence lab. C
DOI: 10.1021/acs.jchemed.8b00528 J. Chem. Educ. XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX
Journal of Chemical Education
Article
discussion it prompted regarding accuracy in measurements. However, it was possible for the students to learn this concept while doing other activities. We replaced this activity with a vapochromic lab, where students were asked to design a reproducible way to see the color change of their complex when exposed to different vapors. In addition, a leadership program was started; two students from the previous year reached out to us asking if they could participate in the workshop for a second year. We were thrilled with their enthusiasm and agreed they could participate as group leaders. A week before the workshop we met with them to discuss the changes we had made, along with our expectations of them. In terms of research activities, we split the participants into two groups, the Vapochromic Group and the VOCs Group. Each group was tasked with different projects (see Supporting Information). Instead of suggesting that the students design a sensor at the culmination of the week, we asked them to answer any research question pertaining to their week-long project. We wanted to give them the opportunity to have a more realistic experience in the daily routine of a research lab. The students also gave a mock group meeting every morning discussing their research from the previous day. We found that asking the students to do this every morning was too much to ask; therefore, we eliminated this part in year 3. Instead, we asked them to discuss what questions their research answered from the day before. This prepared the students to think about research in terms of answering questions instead of thinking in terms of results. There were five characteristics that we wanted the students to explore: structure/crystallization, selectivity, characterization, luminescence, and sensitivity. The details of how both group answered these questions can be found in the Supporting Information. In year 3 we chose the activities we believed were most interesting to the students and most relevant to the research experience for Phase I. Table 2 details the changes and progression of these activities. We made sure that each activity could still answer basic questions such as reproducibility and accuracy, so as not to eliminate any concepts from previous years that were important.
In the second year we dedicated the entire third day of the workshop for instrument use. The students had already been exposed to XRD, TGA, DSC, the 532 nm laser, and 1H NMR spectroscopy while answering research questions during the first 2 days, but they were able to explore the SEM, optical microscope, fluorimeter, mass spectrometer, and single crystal X-ray diffractometer on the third day. A full list of experiments and what the students did can be found in the Supporting Information. It may seem daunting to introduce these sophisticated instruments that measure abstract concepts to younger students. We combated this by explaining what the instruments measure and what information we can gain from using them in the simplest terms. The students were introduced to the instruments and shown how to use them. This introduction early in the week in relation to the questions from the worksheets was very helpful to aid in their understanding. Because we reinforced what the instruments were measuring, most of the students were able to decide which instruments would help to answer their research questions and return with little guidance. Of course, the graduate students accompanied them during use for safety reasons. Additionally, at UC we have expert scientists in charge of the facilities who were willing to work with the students when they returned to the instruments later in the week. In the second and third years, we added more instrumentation into the structure of the workshop. We tried to include mostly instruments which produced picture-oriented data since we had learned the students responded more positively to these instruments because they were much easier to understand without lengthy explanations from us. One thing that should be noted is the need for balance between lecture and experimentation. If the lecture was too short, they would express feeling lost, like they did not get enough background information to complete the task. However, if the lecture was too long, they would easily become bored. A good rule of thumb for us was to explain the topic or concept in 15−20 min and then let the students perform the task. This seemed to be the perfect amount of time where we received few complaints about the amount of lecture.
Phase II: Analytical Research Facilities and Instrumentation
Phase III: Final Project
Phase III was a time for the students to work on their final project. Since innovation and invention are an integral part of science, Phase III was deliberately planned to engage students and give them the freedom to devise experiments and to make discoveries on their own. In the first iteration, the objective was for them to use everything they had learned throughout the week, in addition to any materials or equipment they had used, to design a working sensor for any anion (in water) of their choosing. They self-arranged into independent groups consisting of 2− 4 members. Each group designed their own sensor, used different instruments and techniques, and prepared a presentation or demonstration. Only one group made a sensor for perchlorate. The three remaining groups made sensors based on other observations they had made during the week. For example, one tested for bromate in water. Since they could make any type of sensor, another showed “out of the box” creativity by making a paper-strip sulfate sensor that did not involve platinum! Still others either used luminescence to show selectivity of the platinum complex or employed polymers in their sensor design. It was interesting to observe the group
Phase II was dedicated to learning, touring, and performing experiments in major analytical research facilities with different instruments. This part of the workshop was designed to help the students gain familiarity and experience with instrumentation and the data that can be obtained from each instrument. This was an important step so that they would be comfortable using the facilities on their own later in the week. Instrumentation and results validation are important to the scientific process, so we thought it was essential to expose the students to taking measurements using various instruments. In this way they experienced the facilities first-hand and learned to appreciate the complexity of doing research. In the first year of the workshop students first toured the different facilities and then used five different instruments: scanning electron microscope (SEM), X-ray powder diffraction, optical microscope, 532 nm laser, and IR spectrometer. Experimental details for each instrument are included in the Supporting Information. Unsurprisingly, students really enjoyed instruments that produced results in a more visual format, e.g., pictures, rather than those that only produced line spectra. D
DOI: 10.1021/acs.jchemed.8b00528 J. Chem. Educ. XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX
Journal of Chemical Education
Article
They were excited to present their findings and were encouraged to present in any way they wished. When they reflected upon their experiences at the end of the week, many said they appreciated the opportunity to explore what interested them. The leadership component was successful for this iteration. The student leaders enjoyed being able to participate for a second year and liked that the workshop goals had changed so that they were not participating in the same activities. The student leaders also helped their groups get started at the beginning of the week, which reduced the amount of hesitation from this group of participants.
dynamics. Some spent a lot of time planning and organizing, while a few immediately went into the lab to start working on experiments. Some had clear leaders, while others worked in partnerships. One group had two different ideas develop and decided to break into two subgroups, each pursuing their own ideas. The final project in year two of the workshop was more open-ended. The students were given the last 2 days to answer their own research questions utilizing any of the facilities or equipment that was accessible. Students were reorganized into 4 new groups, consisting of 1−4 members, based on their original research focus (Vapochromic or VOCs). These new groups posed their question, developed a hypothesis, and designed experiments to answer that question. Some of the students struggled with the task. To stimulate their thinking, we asked them about what experiments they had previously performed and what they had learned from them. Once they started discussing their activities, further questions arose, and they formed a hypothesis and began designing an experiment. There were two subgroups within the Vapochromic Group. Both wanted to see if they could make more accurate measurements to determine the water content in the complex. One used the microbalance, in conjunction with heating in an oven, while the other group used the microbalance coupled with 1H NMR spectroscopy. They also looked at the reproducibility of their results by drying the complex and reintroducing water to it. They also examined the sensitivity of their complex by using salt solutions which varied the humidity. The VOCs Group looked at the structural changes between the solvated and nonsolvated forms of the complex by growing crystals and solving structures using single crystal Xray crystallography.
Year Three Changes
In year three of the workshop we modified our approach and allowed the students to answer any research question that was not addressed during the first few days of the workshop. The fluorimeter activity was removed due to lack of interest and supplemented with an activity in which the students learned how to prepare sensor materials. In year two, we assumed the participants would understand what was meant by “answer a research question”. However, it seemed to be too broad of a statement and needed more explanation. Unfortunately, we did not realize this until the last 2 days of the workshop when everyone was confused about what they were expected to do. To combat this issue during year three, we introduced the concept of answering a research question on the first day and continued to reinforce and discuss this concept every day. Unlike the previous workshops, guidelines were set on the first day to help keep the students focused on the experiments. The week began by discussing the scientific method and safety guidelines that had to be followed. We also discussed what questions were being answered by the activities and the importance of those questions. Three research groups were established for year three using the same vapochromic projects from year two and additionally adding a new vapochromic project. The leadership program was also continued with two students who returned. On the day before Phase III started, we had each group present their question to ensure that everyone had a goal and focus for the following day. They again selfarranged into new groups, and a few even decided to work with a different platinum complex than what they had been studying all week. Surprisingly, all the students went back to various aspects of sensitivity because they felt they did not understand it very well and wanted to know more about it.
Outcomes of Years One and Two
With the final project shifting to a more research-driven assignment, it was deemed beneficial to eliminate experiments, and associated instrumentation, that were not directly related to the research in the second iteration of the workshop. With only 5 days we decided it was best to focus on the experiments which would help generate creative thinking. The day devoted to instrumentation and facilities reiterated the fact that students are interested in seeing and working with new equipment, although there is some disinterest when the focus is on lectures about the instrumentation rather than hands-on work. However, once they got started they were very interested and curious about the instruments. It was not surprising that the participants this year also preferred instruments that gave image-based results as opposed to instruments that yielded line spectra that needed to be interpreted. The optical microscope, SEM, and X-ray crystallography had the most interest, and this was reflected in the instruments they chose to use to answer their research questions. The first day of open research was difficult for some while others formulated a question or hypothesis more readily and quickly went to work. It was surprising that with little scientific training the students’ experimental designs mirrored what we do in lab. They asked questions that we asked ourselves and designed experiments very similar to those we had designed in our own research. It was encouraging to see them trying a large variety of ideas, with no group doing the exact same thing. Many of the students said these were their favorite 2 days, and that they had never been given an experience like this before.
■
CONCLUSIONS In conclusion, a successful workshop for ninth grade scientists was created with an environment that allowed participants to have fun while being engaged in the scientific process. They learned about careers in chemistry and got hands-on experience with high-tech laboratory instrumentation. Students also engaged in scientific activities and discovery. This workshop showed that students do not need a considerable scientific background to engage in scientific activities and be able to learn and enjoy science. The students responded positively, and many of them said that they enjoyed the opportunity to investigate their own curiosities. From our perspective, year three of the workshop was the most successful. Instituting a little more structure around what was meant by “answer a research question” helped all the participants understand what the goal was for the end of the workshop. In this iteration, none of the students were confused E
DOI: 10.1021/acs.jchemed.8b00528 J. Chem. Educ. XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX
Journal of Chemical Education
Article
would like to thank the E.P.A. S.TA.R. Fellowship for their generous support. We would like to thank Jeanette A. Krause (X-ray Single Crystal Facility), Necati Kaval (Sensors Facilities), Melodie Fickenscher (Advance Materials Characterization Facilities), and Stephen Macha (Mass Spectrometry Facility) for their support and time instructing students on the instruments in the analytical instrumentation facilities. J.A.K. thanks the NSF-MRI for generous support for the single crystal X-ray diffractometer (CHE-0215950). We would like to thank Mahmood Karimi Abdolmaleki for assisting the students with instrument use and for sample preparation. We would like to thank Pamela Baker and Daniel Waddell for their comments and suggestions. We would like to thank the Department of Chemistry at the University of Cincinnati for their support of our program.
about what to do when Phase III began. We attribute this to constantly discussing of what scientific questions are and helping them to have a better understanding of how to formulate hypotheses and questions on their own. As workshop leaders, we learned how to engage ninth grade participants in the discovery process which helped to build confidence and excitement. The structure of our workshop could easily be replicated at other institutions using different concepts and projects. By using a discovery-based strategy, we were able to simulate a research environment for these incoming ninth grade students. The students learned a great deal when given the freedom to explore and enjoyed that freedom very much.
■
FUTURE CHANGES In addition to the changes listed above, we would also suggest conducting a survey of the participants before and after the workshop to explore their perceptions on learning science. It has proven difficult to keep track of the participants after the workshop ended. We tried to send a survey via e-mail but did not receive any responses. It would be beneficial for any future workshops to administer surveys in person on the last day. We also tried recruitment online by creating a Twitter account, which had limited success. We published a Web site after the third iteration of the workshop.33 We believe recruitment would have benefitted had the Web site been published before our last iteration. Of interest is whether students will use the Web site to check in with us and take yearly surveys to see if the workshop impacted their decisions on continuing with STEM classes.
■
■
ASSOCIATED CONTENT
S Supporting Information *
The Supporting Information is available on the ACS Publications website at DOI: 10.1021/acs.jchemed.8b00528. Underlying chemistry, project descriptions, experimental details, instrumentation experiments, recruitment process, student demographics, safety, and worksheets (PDF, DOCX)
■
REFERENCES
(1) Casey, B. In STEM Education: Preparing for the Jobs of the Future; US Congress Joint Economic Committee: Washington, DC, 2012 https://www.jec.senate.gov/public/_cache/files/6aaa7e1f-958647be-82e7-326f47658320/stem-education---preparing-for-the-jobs-ofthe-future-.pdf (accessed Apr 2019). (2) Chen, X. STEM Attrition: College Students’ Paths into and out of STEM Fields; Statistical Analysis Report NCES 2014-001; National Center for Education Statistics, 2013 https://nces.ed.gov/pubs2014/ 2014001rev.pdf (accessed Apr 2019). (3) Akinbo, O. T. Bottled Water Analysis: A Tool For ServiceLearning and Project-Based Learning. In Service Learning and Environmental Chemistry: Relevant Connections; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2014; Vol. 1177, pp 149−191. (4) Osborne, J. Attitudes towards science: a review of the literature and its implication. International Journal of Science Education 2003, 25 (9), 1049−1079. (5) DeWitt, J.; Archer, L. Who aspires to a science career? A comparison of survey responses from primary and secondary school students. International Journal of Science Education 2015, 37 (13), 2170−2192. (6) Potvin, P.; Hasni, A. Analysis of the Decline in Interest Towards School Science and Technology from Grades 5 Through 11. J. Sci. Educ. Technol. 2014, 23 (6), 784−802. (7) Kuenzi, J. In CRS Report for Congress: Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) Education: Background, Federal Policy, and Legislative Action; Library of Congress: Washington, DC, 2008 http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/crsdocs/35/ (accessed Apr 2019). (8) Hilton, T. L.; Lee, V. E. Student Interest and Persistence in Science: Changes in the Educational Pipeline in the Last Decade. J. Higher Educ. 1988, 59 (5), 510−526. (9) Boyle, T. J.; Sears, J. M.; Hernandez-Sanchez, B. A.; Casillas, M. R.; Nguyen, T. H. Chemistry Science Investigation: Dognapping Workshop, An Outreach Program Designed To Introduce Students to Science through a Hands-On Mystery. J. Chem. Educ. 2017, 94 (10), 1425−1434. (10) Sherman, M. Polymers, polymers, everywhere!: A workshop for pre-high school teachers and students. J. Chem. Educ. 1987, 64 (10), 868. (11) Bell, R. C.; Moe, O. A.; Neidig, H. A. A summer chemistry workshop for secondary school students. J. Chem. Educ. 1980, 57 (1), 22. (12) Bering, C. L. Enzymes: A Workshop for Secondary School Students. J. Chem. Educ. 1994, 71 (3), 241. (13) Mills, P.; Sweeney, W. V.; Cieniewicz, W. Experiencing and Visualizing the First Law of Thermodynamics: An In-Class Workshop. J. Chem. Educ. 2001, 78 (10), 1360. (14) Enlow, J. L.; Marin, D. M.; Walter, M. G. Using Polymer Semiconductors and a 3-in-1 Plastic Electronics STEM Education Kit
AUTHOR INFORMATION
Corresponding Authors
*E-mail:
[email protected]. *E-mail:
[email protected]. ORCID
Amie E. Norton: 0000-0002-3538-7458 Jessica M. Ringo: 0000-0002-3608-5443 Present Address §
Department of Chemistry, Bowling Green State University, Bowling Green, Ohio 43403. Author Contributions †
A.E.N. and J.M.R. contributed equally.
Notes
The authors declare no competing financial interest. ‡ Deceased.
■
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS W.B.C. thanks the Camille and Henry Dreyfus Foundation, Prime Synthesis, and NSF for their generous support. A.E.N. F
DOI: 10.1021/acs.jchemed.8b00528 J. Chem. Educ. XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX
Journal of Chemical Education
Article
To Engage Students in Hands-On Polymer Inquiry Activities. J. Chem. Educ. 2017, 94 (11), 1714−1720. (15) Daina, A.; Blatter, M.-C.; Baillie Gerritsen, V.; Palagi, P. M.; Marek, D.; Xenarios, I.; Schwede, T.; Michielin, O.; Zoete, V. Drug Design Workshop: A Web-Based Educational Tool To Introduce Computer-Aided Drug Design to the General Public. J. Chem. Educ. 2017, 94 (3), 335−344. (16) Kubátová, A.; Pedersen, D. E. Developing and Implementing an Interdisciplinary Air Pollution Workshop To Reach and Engage Rural High School Students in Science. J. Chem. Educ. 2013, 90 (4), 417− 422. (17) Taylor, H. V.; Sarquis, M. First annual workshop at the interface of high school and college chemistry. J. Chem. Educ. 1981, 58 (3), 266. (18) Exstrom, C. L.; Mosher, M. D. A novel high school chemistry camp as an outreach model for regional colleges and universities. J. Chem. Educ. 2000, 77 (10), 1295. (19) Kice, J. L. Workshop for teachers on opportunities in chemistry: Today and tomorrow. J. Chem. Educ. 1988, 65 (7), 602. (20) Carpenter, S. R.; Hizer, T. J.; Baker, J. P. A chemistry workshop for secondary school science teachers. J. Chem. Educ. 1999, 76 (3), 387. (21) Gesser, H. D.; Baldwin, W. G.; Hickling, G. G. Squaric acid: A workshop for high school chemistry teachers. J. Chem. Educ. 1990, 67 (5), 388. (22) Pollock, E. C.; Symcox, K. D.; Malapati, S. Faculty Development through a Workshop in Food Chemistry. In Using Food To Stimulate Interest in the Chemistry Classroom; American Chemical Society, 2013; Vol. 1130, pp 153−165. (23) Gibson, H. L.; Chase, C. Longitudinal impact of an inquirybased science program on middle school students’ attitudes toward science. Sci. Educ. 2002, 86 (5), 693−705. (24) Gupta, T.; Burke, K. A.; Mehta, A.; Greenbowe, T. J. Impact of Guided-Inquiry-Based Instruction with a Writing and Reflection Emphasis on Chemistry Students’ Critical Thinking Abilities. J. Chem. Educ. 2015, 92 (1), 32−38. (25) Dunlap, N.; Martin, L. J. Discovery-based labs for organic chemistry: Overview and effectiveness. ACS Symp. Ser. 2012, 1108, 1−11. (26) Reilly, M. K.; King, R. P.; Wagner, A. J.; King, S. M. Microwaveassisted esterification: a discovery-based microscale laboratory experiment. J. Chem. Educ. 2014, 91 (10), 1706−1709. (27) Morrison, R. W.; Caughran, J. A.; Sauers, A. L. Classroom response systems for implementing interactive inquiry in large organic chemistry classes. J. Chem. Educ. 2014, 91 (11), 1838−1844. (28) Vittimberga, B. M.; Ruekberg, B. A discovery-learning 2, 4dinitrophenylhydrazone experiment. J. Chem. Educ. 2006, 83 (11), 1661. (29) Sweet, C.; Akinfenwa, O.; Foley, J. J., IV Facilitating Students’ Interaction with Real Gas Properties Using a Discovery-Based Approach and Molecular Dynamics Simulations. J. Chem. Educ. 2018, 95 (3), 384−392. (30) Schuster, M. L.; Peterson, K. P.; Stoffregen, S. A. Isobutylene Dimerization: A Discovery-Based Exploration of Mechanism and Regioselectivity by NMR Spectroscopy and Molecular Modeling. J. Chem. Educ. 2018, 95 (6), 1040−1044. (31) Stewart, S. A.; Sommer, A. J. Variable path-length cells for discovery-based investigation of the Beer-Lambert law. J. Chem. Educ. 1999, 76 (3), 399. (32) Taylor, S. D.; Howard, W.; Kaval, N.; Hart, R.; Krause, J. A.; Connick, W. B. Solid-state materials for anion sensing in aqueous solution: highly selective colorimetric and luminescence-based detection of perchlorate using a platinum(ii) salt. Chem. Commun. 2010, 46 (7), 1070−1072. (33) Norton, A.; Ringo, J. One Discovery Leads to Another; http:// onediscoveryworkshop.weebly.com/ (accessed Apr 2019).
G
DOI: 10.1021/acs.jchemed.8b00528 J. Chem. Educ. XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX
