Escape the Lab: An Interactive Escape-Room Game as a Laboratory

Laboratory Experiment Cite This: J. Chem. Educ. XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX

pubs.acs.org/jchemeduc

Escape the Lab: An Interactive Escape-Room Game as a Laboratory Experiment Matthew J. Vergne,*,† Joshua D. Simmons,‡,§ and Ryan S. Bowen‡ †

Department of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Lipscomb University, Nashville, Tennessee 37204, United States Department of Chemistry & Biochemistry, Lipscomb University, Nashville, Tennessee 37204, United States

‡

Downloaded via VOLUNTEER STATE COMMUNITY COLG on April 18, 2019 at 17:10:53 (UTC). See https://pubs.acs.org/sharingguidelines for options on how to legitimately share published articles.

S Supporting Information *

ABSTRACT: An escape-room-game activity was introduced to foster team building and collaborative learning in a laboratoryexperiment setting. The students were placed in a laboratory with clues and puzzles that required the students to use a sequence of analytical instruments in the laboratory in order to escape. The instruments utilized included a UV−vis spectrophotometer, an FTIR spectrometer, a gas chromatograph, and a gas chromatograph−mass spectrometer (GCMS). Student groups solved the puzzles and escaped by identifying a mystery compound at the end of the game. Student surveys indicated that the students enjoyed the lab and that they felt it was an effective review of laboratory techniques. KEYWORDS: General Public, Second-Year Undergraduate, Analytical Chemistry, Laboratory Instruction, Collaborative/Cooperative Learning, Humor/Puzzles/Games, UV−Vis Spectroscopy, IR Spectroscopy, Gas Chromatography, Mass Spectrometry

■

INTRODUCTION Escape rooms are a cross between puzzle games and theater. They are physical spaces filled with clues, challenges, and puzzles that fit a specific theme, such as an alien spaceship, government spy installation, or bank vault. The implementation of escape rooms began in Japan in 2007, and they first appeared in the United States in 2012.1 The growth has been tremendous, from 22 escape-room businesses in the United States in 2014 to more than 2300 in 2018.2 Participating groups are left inside these rooms and must work collectively to piece together clues that may include the use of secret compartments or passageways in order to “escape” within a certain time limit. The use of games and game shows in an educational setting has been tested,3−8 but these games do not develop group cooperation, and few games are available in a laboratory setting. For example, an escape-room game in a classroom setting where the students solved puzzles on paper in a cooperative-learning style was developed, but it was not done in a laboratory setting.9 Furthermore, a lab-safety trivia game, a laboratory-equipment-identification game, and a tutorial for the first day of lab have been introduced in other studies, but these laboratories did not involve a hands-on lab activity and were only focused on an introduction to a laboratory course.10−12 Escape-room activities have been reported in high-school settings in Malaysia13 and Israel,14 but we have yet to see an activity like this implemented in an undergraduate college laboratory. The laboratory experiment presented here embedded an escape-room game into a laboratory setting © XXXX American Chemical Society and Division of Chemical Education, Inc.

where students had to use analytical instrumentation as part of the challenges. The theoretical underpinnings that inform the incorporation of an escape game into the laboratory setting are rooted in the literature on cooperative learning, an active-learning pedagogy that encourages students to work together to achieve a common goal. There are numerous studies detailing the need for chemical-laboratory-educational reform,15−20 and cooperative learning is one pedagogical approach some educators are using to meet this need. Previous work has shown that students who participated in a cooperative-learning laboratory demonstrated higher metacognitive traits and problem-solving abilities.16 Furthermore, studies in the lecture setting have linked group problem solving to higher overall course performance21,22 and have commented on the opportunities for peers to refine each other’s justifications about the content of the course.23 Though these studies took place in lectures and not in the laboratory, these studies have been informational and insightful in regard to the design of the laboratory experience presented in this article. The escape-room-game adaptation outlined here was specifically designed for undergraduate students enrolled in an Instrumental Methods of Analysis course (which typically has second-, third-, and fourth-year students enrolled). By creating an escape room within the laboratory setting, we Received: December 13, 2018 Revised: April 1, 2019

A

DOI: 10.1021/acs.jchemed.8b01023 J. Chem. Educ. XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX

Journal of Chemical Education

Laboratory Experiment

Figure 1. Diagram of the escape-game laboratory.

Figure 2. Flowchart for the escape room.

B




is also an important consideration when adapting this experiment for other settings, courses, and institutions. The instruments used in the lab included a Vernier UV−vis spectrophotometer (Beaverton, OR), a Bruker Alpha FTIR with a diamond attenuated-total-reflectance (ATR) accessory (Billerica, MA), an Agilent 6890N GC-FID, and a HewlettPackard GCD Series II GCMS (Agilent, Santa Clara, CA). The GC and GCMS methods are described in the Supporting Information. The UV−vis and FTIR instruments are portable and were placed on lab benches in the main lab. The GC and GCMS instruments were located in two side rooms behind locked doors, adding suspense in this version of the game. The scenario can be adapted with all of the instruments located in the same laboratory room, depending on the space available. Furthermore, other instruments (HPLC, LCMS, etc.) could be adapted for use in the escape scenario. In terms of sample preparation, methyl salicylate (JT Baker, Pittsburgh, NJ) was used as a neat solution for FTIR spectra on the ATR mount. A 20 mg/L aqueous solution of caffeine (Sigma, St. Louis, MO) was used for UV−vis analysis. For GCMS, a 10% (v/v) methyl salicylate solution was prepared in methanol in a 1 mL sample vial. A 2 mL vial of 0.5% (w/v) of ethanol (Fisher, Suwannee, GA) was prepared in methanol for GC analysis.

hoped to reinforce prior lab techniques, allow for student-led instrument operation with minimal professor oversight, promote critical thinking and problem solving with an emphasis on chemistry-related topics, and encourage team building within the lab space. The escape-room lab in an instrumental analysis course served as a review of instrumental techniques at the end of the semester; students tend to forget how to operate instruments used in laboratories earlier in the course as the semester progresses. The ultimate goal of this design was to achieve a student-directed, rather than a professor-prompted, approach to laboratory obstacles. Other activities and studies in the literature have had similar objectives but used different pedagogical approaches.24,25 The escape-room lab design was intended to revisit several instrumental techniques and topics introduced in earlier laboratory periods during the semester. These techniques included UV−vis spectroscopy, gas chromatography (GC), gas chromatography−mass spectrometry (GCMS), and IR spectroscopy (FTIR). Students were expected to operate the instruments independent of the professor and to analyze the given results. This included peak-integration comparison, standard-curve application, IR-peak identification, and massspectrum interpretation. Successful instrumental analysis by the students led to advancement (i.e., solving clues) in the escape room. The instrumental techniques were instructor tested beforehand to ensure that students’ results would yield the correct results (Supporting Information). Groups could request help in the form of a “hint” from the instructor, but incurred a time penalty after the third hint, which is typical in commercial escape rooms. The goal was for the group to escape the room and have the lowest time; however, the time component was solely meant to mimic an actual escape game and to engage students in friendly competition with the other groups. It was not linked to the assessment of their performance or grade. The purpose of this paper is to outline the series of challenges used by the authors, provide the reader with examples of actual student feedback (in the form of a questionnaire), and discuss important considerations to be made when adapting this idea for use in other courses.

■

SCENARIO Typically, the Instrumental Methods of Analysis lab has an enrollment of about 15 students; it is a 4 h lab that meets one time per week. The 4 h lab period was separated into three 1 h time blocks, and each student was assigned to a group of four to six students and a time block. The activity was scheduled near the end of the semester after students had completed lab experiments using each of the instruments during the semester; therefore, the students were somewhat familiar with the instrumentation at this point. The students were informed that the laboratory space itself would be the escape room. A flowchart of the scenario is shown in Figure 2. Upon arriving to lab, the group was handed an urgent letter. It outlined the room’s premise, the primary objective, and the time limit. It read: Research Chemist, Ned Schneebly, of Mandy Sandy Candy Company developed a secret compound to add as a flavor to the company’s candy products. Dr. Schneebly has disappeared without a trace, but he has left clues in the lab. You will be locked in Dr. Schneebly’s lab with a onehour time limit to escape. In order to escape you must identify the secret compound and report it to the lab instructor before your one-hour time limit is up. The laboratory door was opened to the students, and they noticed puzzle pieces scattered around the lab benches. (The instructor may leave sections of the puzzle solved in order to speed up the puzzle-clue challenge.) Students explored the room and realized the puzzle was a clue that they needed to complete in order to continue. This compelled the students to work as a group to collect and complete the puzzle. When the puzzle was completed, the students discovered that they had to flip the puzzle using a piece of cardboard to see a clue. The backside of the puzzle had an image of a soda can with an arrow indicating that the top of the can must be rotated to open (Figure 3). The students searched and found a soda can on a shelf amid other beverage cans labeled for lab testing. The students had completed a lab the previous week testing caffeine in beverages. Remembering the puzzle’s clue, the students

■

MATERIALS The main lab room with connecting side rooms was the setting for the escape room. The side rooms each have a locked door. One side room has a GC and the other has a GCMS, which were both part of the game. The side-room-door locks can be opened with the same key; however, colored lab tape was used to mark the keys and door locks as different for the purposes of the escape room. Figure 1 shows a diagram of the lab rooms used, and Figure 2 shows a flowchart for the escape-room lab. Two numeric-combination lock boxes, commonly used in real estate, with compartments large enough to hold a key and a 2 mL sample vial, were used. These lock boxes were purchased for the lab from an online retailer (Amazon). A soda-can diversion safe used to store a clue for the escaperoom game was also purchased from Amazon. A 100-piece puzzle was purchased from a toy store. The puzzle was assembled and a clue was added to the back of the assembled puzzle (Figure 3). The puzzles and search for objects in the escape-game lab did not take up significant time. This was to ensure that students spent the majority of their time working on laboratory-related skills and techniques rather than solving puzzles and wandering around the lab searching for clues. This C




Figure 3. Back of the jigsaw puzzle with a clue.

twisted the top of the soda can, revealing the fact that the can is a diversion safe with an inner secret compartment (Figure 4).

Figure 5. Standard-curve information for solving the last two digits of the combination for Lock Box A.

door-knob lock for the side room with the GC. The students deduced that the presence of a GC sample vial in the lock box indicated that the GC in the side room was to be used for analysis, and the side room was opened by the color-coded key. The instrument computer had the GC software already open and an experiment set to run. The students inserted the vial into the autosampler vial rack and selected the correct vial location within the software. Affixed to the GC oven was a slip of paper indicating the first two digits to the combination of Lock Box B. The first two digits of this clue matched the first two digits of the retention time in minutes for the unknown solution provided in Lock Box B (Figure 6).

Figure 4. Soda-can diversion safe with hidden compartment containing a cuvette for UV−vis spectrophotometric analysis.

Once the students twisted the can open, they found inside a sealed quartz cuvette containing a clear mystery liquid (the 20 mg/L aqueous solution of caffeine). The group also found a piece of paper with the first half of a four-number combination to a house-key storage lock box (Lock Box A) printed on it (Supporting Information). The slip of paper prompted a quick search of the lab for a lock box labeled “A”. The discovery of the cuvette prompted the group to measure the absorbance using a UV−vis spectrophotometer in the main lab room. The students found Lock Box A hanging from a projectorscreen pull-down cord, and when the students pulled down the projector screen, they found a paper clue with a standard curve and a Beer’s Law equation (Figure 5). The molar absorptivity constant for the unknown liquid was provided, and there was a note that the last two digits to the combination for Lock Box A were the first two digits of the concentration of the sample from the soda can. Using the equation from the calibration curve (Figure 5) and the measured absorbance at the wavelength of maximum absorbance (λmax) from the UV−vis spectrophotometer, the group solved for the concentration, indicating the last two digits of the combination of Lock Box A. The students were not told what wavelength to measure; they theorized that they should use λmax, which was 283 nm for caffeine on the UV−vis spectrophotometer in the lab. After solving the equation, the group discovered the combination and opened Lock Box A. Within the lock-box compartment was a key and another unknown (0.5%, w/v, ethanol in water) in a 2 mL GC vial. The key was color-coded to indicate that the key would open the matching color-coded

Figure 6. Clue for the first two digits of Lock Box B’s combination.

The GC retention time of ethanol was tested ahead of time by the instructor and determined to be 2.3 min. Another clue was taped to a lab bench. The answer to this periodic-tablebased riddle (Figure 7) yielded the final two digits to Lock Box B’s combination. Underneath an image of the periodic table read, “17, 18, 19 was afraid of εδ (-ite).” The riddle took advantage of the atomic numbers and the locations of chlorine (17), argon (18), and potassium (19). When linked together in order, the elements read, “ClArK” or “Clark”, a common first name. The written clue made subtle reference to a well-known superhero, Superman, whose real name is “Clark Kent”. In the famous comic book series, Superman is made notoriously weak in the presence of the fictional Kryptonite, which was named by the writers by adding the ending “-ite” to the word krypton. If anyone from the group made this connection, the answer became obvious: krypton. The supporting line read, “where εδ is a number”. This suggests the students use the atomic number for Kr to obtain the combination to Lock Box B. Alternate periodic table clues are included in the Supporting Information. Within the hidden compartment of Lock B, the students found another key and a vial with an unknown liquid sample (a neat solution of methyl salicylate). The key was color-coded to D




Figure 7. Puzzle for the determination of the last two digits for Lock Box B.

the door of the second side room with a GCMS. The autosampler rack contained about 20 vials spread out across 90 numbered wells. To discover which sample vial to analyze, the students first needed to investigate the unknown liquid sample provided for them in Lock Box B. One last unused instrument, an FTIR paired with a computer, was set out on the lab bench. When the students pressed a key on the computer, the monitor woke up and displayed a message in the center of the screen: “What are the last two digits of the carbonyl peak’s matching wavenumber? This is the vial number to run on GCMS.” The students used a pipet to place a sample of the solution on the ATR mount of the instrument and acquired an FTIR spectrum. The carbonyl peak for methyl salicylate was found at 1673 cm−1, indicating that the correct vial number for GCMS was 73. The group found that the one correct unlabeled sample vial was in position 73 of the autosampler rack among 19 other vials in various positions. The other positions contained blank vials (methanol), and the instructor left empty positions around vial 73 in case the students’ solution for the IR wavenumber was off by a wavenumber or two. Vial 73 was then analyzed with the GCMS instrument. Using the mass spectrum software library (NIST 98 library), students quickly found the identity of the chemical: methyl salicylate. Once the students correctly reported the identity of the compound, they completed the game and were allowed to “escape” from the room. In the latest iteration of this lab, an additional clue was left that the nominal mass of the mystery compound would be used to determine a numbered lab drawer (#152) with a congratulatory note from Dr. Schneebly. The timer was stopped, and the group’s time recorded. The instructor read the congratulatory note from Dr. Schneebly. The three groups took between 35 and 55 min to solve the escape game with no more than three clues from the instructors. After completing the mission, the students were debriefed to highlight the

instrument methods used, and they noted that methyl salicylate is oil of wintergreen, commonly used as a food flavoring, which fits with the candy-company laboratory scenario. Students posed for a group photograph and set up the room for the next group of students. During the game, students were encouraged not to guess the digits for the lock combinations; instead, they were encouraged to solve the puzzles presented in order to solve the puzzles in the way they were intended. The instructors asked the students not to tell other groups how to solve the escape game outside of the lab. Cheating in this manner was not observed in our case, but it may be an important consideration for faculty wishing to implement this experiment.

■

HAZARDS There are no significant hazards in this experiment. Students will use small quantities of methanol, ethanol, and methyl salicylate, which are harmful if ingested, inhaled, or absorbed through skin contact. Students should wear gloves, aprons, and protective eyewear in the lab.

■

DISCUSSION AND SURVEY RESULTS Two groups of approximately 15 students participated in the escape-room lab in 2017 and 2018. After completion of the escape-room lab, students were asked to complete an anonymous survey that provided insight into their attitudes and beliefs regarding the content and the format of the lab. The results from agree−disagree questions are tabulated in Table 1. The survey answers indicated that the escape-room-game lab was welcomed by students and that they believed it to be an effective review of techniques. Another question on the survey asked students to rate their overall enjoyment of the lab on a scale of 1−10 with 10 indicating that it was the students’ favorite lab. The average student response to lab enjoyment E




ORCID

Table 1. Comparative Survey Results

Matthew J. Vergne: 0000-0002-0841-0018 Ryan S. Bowen: 0000-0002-3749-6180

Survey Responses,a n = 21 Survey Question

Mean Score

Standard Deviation

4.6 4.9 4.6 4.6

0.5 0.2 0.7 0.6

4.6

0.6

The lab was an effective review of techniques. I had fun while learning. I thought the group size was appropriate. I felt that I was actively able to participate in lab. The lab was well-organized.

Present Address §

J.D.S.: Division of Infectious Diseases, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee 37235, United States Notes

The authors declare no competing financial interest.

■

a

Strongly agree = 5, agree = 4, neutral = 3, disagree = 2, strongly disagree = 1.

(1) Nicholson, S. Peeking Behind the Locked Door: A Survey of Escape Room Facilities, 2015. http://scottnicholson.com/pubs/ erfacwhite.pdf (accessed April 2019). (2) Spira, L. July 2018 Escape Room Industry Growth Study. https://roomescapeartist.com/2018/07/28/2018-escape-roomindustry/ (accessed April 2019). (3) Capps, K. Chemistry Taboo: An Active Learning Game for the General Chemistry Classroom. J. Chem. Educ. 2008, 85 (4), 518. (4) Campbell, S.; Muzyka, J. Chemistry Game Shows. J. Chem. Educ. 2002, 79 (4), 458. (5) Bindel, T. H. Exploring Chemical Equilibrium with Poker Chips: A General Chemistry Laboratory Exercise. J. Chem. Educ. 2012, 89 (6), 759−762. (6) Edmonson, L. J.; Lewis, D. L. Equilibrium Principles: A Game for Students. J. Chem. Educ. 1999, 76 (4), 502. (7) Grinias, J. P. Making a Game Out of It: Using Web-Based Competitive Quizzes for Quantitative Analysis Content Review. J. Chem. Educ. 2017, 94 (9), 1363−1366. (8) Hanson, R. M. The Chemical Name Game. J. Chem. Educ. 2002, 79 (11), 1380. (9) Dietrich, N. Escape Classroom: The Leblanc ProcessAn Educational “Escape Game. J. Chem. Educ. 2018, 95 (6), 996−999. (10) Collison, C. G.; Cody, J.; Smith, D.; Swartzenberg, J. Formalizing the First Day in an Organic Chemistry Laboratory Using a Studio-Based Approach. J. Chem. Educ. 2015, 92 (9), 1510− 1513. (11) Kavak, N.; Yamak, H. Picture Chem: Playing a Game To Identify Laboratory Equipment Items and Describe Their Use. J. Chem. Educ. 2016, 93 (7), 1253−1255. (12) Gublo, K. I. A Laboratory Safety Trivia Game. J. Chem. Educ. 2003, 80 (4), 425. (13) Nguyen, T. Chemistry education moves from classroom to escape room. Chem. Eng. News 2018, 96 (19), 32. (14) Peleg, R.; Yayon, M.; Katchevich, D.; Moria-Shipony, M.; Blonder, R. A Lab-Based Chemical Escape Room: Educational, Mobile, and Fun! J. Chem. Educ., in press, 2019, DOI: 10.1021/ acs.jchemed.8b00406 (15) Hofstein, A.; Mamlok-Naaman, R. The laboratory in science education: the state of the art. Chem. Educ. Res. Pract. 2007, 8 (2), 105−107. (16) 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. (17) 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. (18) Gabel, D. Improving Teaching and Learning through Chemistry Education Research: A Look to the Future. J. Chem. Educ. 1999, 76 (4), 548. (19) 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. (20) Millar, R. The Student Laboratory and the Science Curriculum. J. Educ. Teach. 1990, 16 (2), 208−209.

was 9.76 out of 10. The survey stated the following learning objectives for the lab: review operation of various analytical instruments, provide a review of spectroscopic identification (FTIR and GCMS), and review key concepts such as quantitation and gas chromatography. When asked how well the lab met the learning objectives, 71% of respondents chose “excellent”, 19% chose “very good”, and 10% chose “satisfactory”. Students provided comments on the survey as well; one student wrote that they enjoyed the teamwork aspect of the lab. Another student wrote, “Any way to incorporate fun into science should be embraced by educators.” The lab experiment can easily be modified for different instruments and settings. The lab had the students rotate through in three groups of four to six students, but the number could be increased, especially if multiple instruments are available. Escape-game laboratory experiments may work well in analytical-chemistry laboratories, general-chemistry laboratories, and organic-chemistry laboratories with appropriate modifications. Challenges involving concentration determination by acid−base titration or gravimetric analyses may be substituted for instrumental analyses. For example, the experimentally determined concentration from acid−base titration could then indicate a lock combination to advance in an escape-room setting.

■

CONCLUSION The search for alternative, unconventional teaching methods is an ongoing quest in both classroom and laboratory settings. An escape-game laboratory experiment focusing on instrumental methods of analysis is presented here. On the basis of student survey responses, the escape-game lab was an example of an activity that can be used to reinforce concepts in a way that is enjoyable, exciting, and effective. Students were encouraged to engage in team building, and in the process, they gained or reinforced valuable skills in instrument operation.

■

ASSOCIATED CONTENT

* Supporting Information S

The Supporting Information is available on the ACS Publications website at DOI: 10.1021/acs.jchemed.8b01023. Notes for instructors, clues, and sample GCMS chromatogram and mass spectrum (PDF, DOCX)

■

REFERENCES

AUTHOR INFORMATION

Corresponding Author

*E-mail: [email protected]. F




(21) Mahalingam, M.; Schaefer, F.; Morlino, E. Promoting Student Learning through Group Problem Solving in General Chemistry Recitations. J. Chem. Educ. 2008, 85 (11), 1577−1581. (22) Anderson, W. L.; Mitchell, S. M.; Osgood, M. P. Comparison of student performance in 340 cooperative learning and traditional lecture-based biochemistry classes. Biochem. Mol. Biol. Educ. 2005, 33 (6), 387−93. (23) Becker, N.; Rasmussen, C.; Sweeney, G.; Wawro, M.; Towns, M.; Cole, R. Reasoning using particulate nature of matter: An example of a sociochemical norm in a university-level physical chemistry class. Chem. Educ. Res. Pract. 2013, 14 (1), 81−94. (24) Bowen, R. S.; Picard, D. R.; Verberne-Sutton, S.; Brame, C. J. Incorporating Student Design in an HPLC Lab Activity Promotes Student Metacognition and Argumentation. J. Chem. Educ. 2018, 95 (1), 108−115. (25) Shibley, I. A.; Zimmaro, D. M. The Influence of Collaborative Learning on Student Attitudes 350 and Performance in an Introductory Chemistry Laboratory. J. Chem. Educ. 2002, 79 (6), 745.

G


Escape the Lab: An Interactive Escape-Room Game as a Laboratory

Recommend Documents