Using Technology To Enhance the Effectiveness of General Chemistry

Information

•

Textbooks

•

Media

•

Resources edited by

Teaching with Technology

Gabriela C. Weaver

Using Technology To Enhance the Effectiveness of General Chemistry Laboratory Courses

Purdue University West Lafayette, IN 47907

Kathleen M. Carvalho-Knighton* and Linda Keen-Rocha Department of Environmental Science, University of South Florida–St. Petersburg, St. Petersburg, FL 33701; *[email protected]

Chemistry students need to be competent in using various computer programs before seeking jobs or applying to graduate school. Introducing the use of computers in the science curriculum is, therefore, a necessary practice today. Using computers to undertake science laboratory activities is one promising application of computers as learning and teaching tools. Incorporating computer technology into the science classroom and laboratory fits with the wide-ranging goals of science education in that it seeks to provide opportunities for students and instructors to explore and understand workplace applications of science; to develop skills of investigation, reflection, and analysis; to generate or refine knowledge; to find solutions; and to pose problems. Increasing the understanding of science studied and the development of higherlevel reasoning skills such as these are central to realizing reform efforts in science education (1). Computer-based learning—or computerized interface (CI) systems, as it is often called—involves connecting one or more sensors to a computer so that the sensor’s relayed signal can be viewed on the computer’s screen as calibrated data either in tabular or graphical form. The data are usually available in real time, as investigations proceed. Increasingly complex computer-based lab systems are being devised and used by universities in their science laboratories for data logging, analysis of data, interaction with the student in the analysis of that data, and the development of understanding of concepts. The literature related to potential applications of CI laboratory technology in biology, chemistry, and physics education continues to increase with timely suggestions for their use (2, 3). The potential of such technology to enhance learning lies in its ability to overcome barriers to learning, including delays in processing results, observation of concepts in multiple representations, and the capability of simultaneous multiple measurements (4). This suggests that even introductory science laboratory students potentially have access to a variety of research quality data. According to Lazarowitz and Tamir (4), laboratory experiments conducted using computer-interface devices promote these four goals in chemistry education: 1. Research quality data collection and manipulation via computer technology 2. Development of student skills in logical thinking and in organization 3. Providing practical examples, including those that confront misconceptions 4. Constructing a system of values related to the nature of science

www.JCE.DivCHED.org

•

Even though the computer does the technical work, it is expected that students are more able to think, solve problems, and employ higher-order thinking skills, and that continuous interaction with the experimental data should aid in the identification of alternate conceptions and conceptual change. Rogers and Wild (5) assert that it is “easier to describe data-logging activities than to define their benefits to students’ learning and understanding of science” and that many reports refer predominantly to the technical aspects of the technology use rather than measured learning gains. Some studies, however, have investigated students’ learning outcomes. For example, Nakhleh and Krajcik (6) found that students using CI technology achieved larger positive gains in differentiation and integration of their knowledge of acids and bases compared to traditional bench method users. Stein, Nachmias, and Friedler (7) found that CI technology and traditional bench users both drew equally valid conclusions from data drawn from experiments investigating heat and temperature. Additionally, Friedler, Nachmias, and Songer (8) and Friedler, Nachmias, and Linn (9) reported a positive effect on the development of scientific inquiry skills for students using CI technology. While such studies reflect the general potential of the use of CI technology, they fail to provide persuasive evidence to support the implementation of computer-based laboratories into school laboratories and curricula as a means of improving learning outcomes. The questionable nature of the effect of CI technology on learning outcomes is summarized by Lazarowitz and Tamir (4) who concluded that research is unsure as to whether the application of such technology does enhance learning. Understanding Computer-Based Learning in the Lab Few studies have investigated what students and instructors actually do and how they interact with CI technology, how it influences teaching and learning, and the significance of instructor and student variables—such as beliefs about teaching and learning—on its use. Hodson (10) argues that until detailed studies are undertaken into what students actually do in laboratories we are unlikely to understand the pedagogic value of laboratories in learning. Accordingly, understanding why teachers teach and students learn as they do in current classroom learning and teaching environments is a sound base for developing an understanding of the pedagogical value of laboratory activities using computer-interface technology, and also for informing professional development and bringing about changes required for effective

Vol. 84 No. 4 April 2007

•

Journal of Chemical Education

727

Information

•

Textbooks

•

Media

•

Resources

Table 1. Comparison of Post-Lab Measures for Treatment and Control Group Students, Fall Semester 2001 CI Instructiona Student Measures

Grade Ranges (1–100)

TB Instructionb

Grade Means (Standard Deviations)



Differences of Means

Post-Lab Quiz: HNc (N = 24)

50–95

75.0

(11.6)

40–80

60.8

(11.0)

14.2

Post-Lab Formal Report: HNc (N = 24)

82–98

88.2

(4.5)

62–98

79.2

(9.8)

9.0

Post-Lab Quiz: HSd (N = 24)

45–95

72.9

(14.4)

40–85

64.1

(12.3)

8.8

Post-Lab Formal Report: HSd (N = 24)

75–98

89.2

(6.2)

65–92

76.1

(8.0)

13.1

a

Computer-interfaced techniques;

b

Traditional benchtop techniques;

c

Heat of neutralization experiment;

d

Heat of solution experiment.



TB Instructionb






30–95

73.7

(15.1)

40–80

60.6

(11.2)

13.1


82–98

90.2

(4.2)

65–89

77.6

(7.6)

12.6


45–95

73.3

(16.3)

40–85

64.7

(12.8)

8.6


75–98

88.2

(6.3)

65–92

75.8

(7.7)

12.4

aComputer-interfaced

techniques;

bTraditional

benchtop techniques;

cHeat

of neutralization experiment;

dHeat

of solution experiment.



TB Instructionb






30–95

74.3

(15.9)

35–85

58.5

(11.2)

15.8


82–98

89.5

(4.9)

62–92

78.3

(9.1)

11.2


45–95

72.9

(16.6)

45–85

63.1

(12.4)

9.8


75–98

88.2

(7.0)

65–88

76.5

(7.6)

11.7

a

Computer-interfaced techniques;

728

b

Traditional benchtop techniques;


•

c

Heat of neutralization experiment;


•

d

Heat of solution experiment.

www.JCE.DivCHED.org

Information

use of that resource (11). Therefore, the purposes of this research were to: 1. Investigate the implementation and use of computerinterface technology in the chemistry laboratory 2. Investigate the student learning and thinking occurring using the computer-interface technology 3. Understand how learning is utilized in the laboratory by the students and instructors 4. Draw implications for effective incorporation of computer-based technology in the classroom and laboratory

Methods Students performed two laboratories adapted from LABTREK: Experiments for General Chemistry, 3rd ed., by Jay H. Worrell (12). The control group performed a traditional bench laboratory procedure, while the experimental group performed the lab using the LabWorks computer-interfaced learning system. This study evaluated the two methods using a sample of students (N = 48 per year; 24 per class) taking the General Chemistry I laboratory course at the University of South Florida’s St. Petersburg campus over a three-year period (2001–2003). The LabWorks system is an effective, inexpensive combination of hardware and software that enables students to obtain and analyze experimental data. The system is controlled by a personal computer that tells the interface to obtain experimental data. Wide varieties of data probes are available, including colorimeters, pH electrodes, and thermistors. During week 1, control group students (Group 1) performed a heat of neutralization lab exercise (HN) without the computer-interfaced program; experimental group students (Group 2) performed the same lab with the computerinterfaced program. Student knowledge of the concepts was evaluated with a post-lab quiz and post-lab formal report of their results. Both the post-lab quiz and post-lab formal report tested the student’s knowledge of the general concepts for the lab performed. During week 2, Group 1 performed a heat of solution lab (HS) with the computer-interfaced program (experimental group). Group 2 performed the same lab without the computer-interfaced program (control group). As in week 1, student knowledge of the concepts was evaluated with a postlab quiz and post-lab formal report of their results. Summary of Results Comparing Both Methods This study involved a comparison of the effectiveness of two different laboratory techniques used for teaching a general chemistry laboratory to students majoring in science. The two individualized instructional laboratory techniques, computer-interfaced (CI), and traditional bench (TB) were evaluated using a sample size of 144 students (48 per year) over a three-year period. The overall course grades for the participants were not significantly different. Statistical analysis using an independent-samples t-test was performed on the data from this three-year study.

www.JCE.DivCHED.org

•

•

Textbooks

•

Media

•

Resources

Table 4. Independent t-Test Comparisons of Post-Lab Measures for Treatment and Control Group Students P-Values,a Fall 2001

P-Values,a Fall 2002

P-Values,a Fall 2003

Post-Lab Quiz: HNb (N = 24)

0.000

0.001

0.000

Post-Lab Formal Report: HNb (N = 24)

0.000

0.000

0.000

Post-Lab Quiz: HSc (N = 24)

0.029

0.050

0.000

Post-Lab Formal Report: HSc (N = 24)

0.000

0.000

0.026

Student Measures

a t- Test results significant at p ⬍ 0.05; experiment; cHeat of solution experiment.

b Heat

of neutralization

The mean post-lab quiz and post-lab formal report scores were compared for the students taught with CI techniques and the students taught with TB techniques for each experiment (HN and HS) in each year (Tables 1–3). In all cases, the mean scores were higher for students using the computerinterface tools for their data collection. In addition, the difference in the mean scores for the post-lab quizzes and post-lab formal reports for the three-year study favor the use of the CI curriculum (Tables 1–3). Independent-samples t-tests (Table 4) were conducted for each year to compare the two forms of pedagogy. There was a statistically significant difference between all of the student scores in the computer-interfaced laboratory curriculum and the traditional bench curriculum. After evaluating the results, it is evident that the use of computer-interface instruction is a favorable alternative to traditional benchtop instruction. Computer-interface devices offer several advantages both with respect to providing additional time for an improved learning process and in terms of the quality of the data collected. However, according to Pienta and Amend (13) some might argue that a CI data collection device is a “black box”. Nevertheless, such a system enables students to record reliable data. In almost all instances, there is time to repeat experiments as needed. This supports learning about the process of chemistry in which understanding of a concept is built around examination of the variables. The data provide evidence that student laboratory activities with computer-interface systems can improve student understanding about calorimetry. Literature Cited 1. Bybee, R.; DeBoer, G. E. Research on Goals for the Science Curriculum. In The Handbook of Research on Science Teaching and Learning; Gabel, D. L., Ed.; Macmillan: New York, 1994; pp 357–387.


•


729

Information

•

Textbooks

•

Media

•

Resources

2. Soares, A.; Creevy, S. School Sci. Rev. 1995, 76, 75–77. 3. Adamson, G. E.; Zimmerman, J. R.; Nakhleh, M. B. J. Comp. Math. Sci. Teaching 1997, 16, 513–525. 4. Lazarowitz, R.; Tamir, P. Research on Using Laboratory Instruction in Science. In The Handbook of Research on Science Teaching and Learning; Gabel, D. L., Eds.; Macmillan: New York, 1994; pp 94–128. 5. Rogers, L.; Wild, P. J. Comput. Assist. Learn. 1996, 12, 130– 145. 6. Nakhleh, M. B.; Krajcik, J. S. J. Res. Sci. Teach. 1994, 31, 1077–1096. 7. Stein, S.; Nachmias, R.; Friedler, Y. J. Edu. Comput. Res. 1990, 62, 183–202.

730


•

8. Friedler, Y.; Nachmias, R.; Songer, N. B. School Sci. Math. 1989, 89, 58–67. 9. Friedler, Y.; Nachmias, R.; Linn, M. C. School Sci. Math. 1990, 27, 173–191. 10. Hodson, D. Sci. Educ. 1992, 23, 214–221. 11. McRobbie, C. J.; Tobin, K. J. Res. Sci. Teach. 1995, 32, 373–385. 12. Worrell, J. H. LABTREK: Experiments for General Chemistry, 3rd ed.; Contemporary Publishing Co.: Raleigh, NC, 1997. 13. Pienta, N. J.; Amend, J. R. Electronic Data Collection To Promote Effective Learning during Laboratory Activities. In The Chemists’ Guide to Effective Teaching, Pienta, N. J., Cooper, M. M., Greenbowe, T., Eds.; Prentice-Hall Publishing Co.: Upper Saddle River, NJ, 2004; Chapter 14.


•

www.JCE.DivCHED.org

Using Technology To Enhance the Effectiveness of General Chemistry

Recommend Documents