In the Laboratory
Mini-Lab Activities: Inquiry-Based Lab Activities for Formative Assessment Daniel Branan* Department of Chemistry, USAF Academy, USAF Academy, Colorado 80840 *
[email protected] Matt Morgan Department of Chemistry, Hamline University, Saint Paul, Minnesota 55104
The effectiveness of inquiry-based instruction and laboratories has been demonstrated by several recent studies (1-5), and these types of laboratories are beginning to be used to a greater extent, in large part due to organized approaches such as processoriented guided-inquiry learning (6). The need for inquiry-based learning activities was recognized by the National Research Council more than a decade ago (7) and recently by the National Academy of Sciences in 2005 (8). However, most likely because of institutional and instructional inertia, the majority of laboratory activities are still performed in the traditional style. Chemistry instructors at the Air Force Academy are faced with the daunting task of teaching general chemistry to more than 1100 students each year, knowing that fewer than 2% of them will pursue chemistry as a major. Similar to other chemistry instructors, we were searching for a way to engage students more fully in the subject and to help them learn the concepts of chemistry more thoroughly. An opportunity to try some innovative approaches occurred when we decided to design a course aimed at the incoming first-year students who had demonstrated, through past performance and placement test scores, a proclivity for the sciences. We intended the course to be more challenging than the regular general chemistry course and also desired to give the students more exposure to the laboratory environment, which is recognized as critical to learning science (9, 10). Although the initial goal was to get students directly involved in classroom demonstrations, rather than just being passive observers, we realized that this could also give us an opportunity to learn how the students think about chemical principles. We were inspired by Mulford and Robinson's work to document common misconceptions about chemical and physical principles (11). In addition, Lesh et al. (12) proposed that an interactive activity such as we envisioned could also help the students' metacognitive awareness of their own mental models of how the world works. What Is a Mini-Lab? The mini-lab experience begins with the observation of some simple physical or chemical phenomenon. The students are initially presented with the task of observing a chemical or physical phenomenon and recording any observations that they think are important. Then, they are led through a series of increasingly deeper questions about what they observed, culminating in a final question, often asking them to make a prediction
_
that tests their grasp of the core concept illustrated by the activity. The goal is to allow both the instructor and student to ascertain if the student grasps the principles at work or if the student is merely relying on his or her previous experience with the natural world. At the heart of these activities are two ideas relating to students' existing ideas about the natural world. The first premise is that students have a mental model that describes how the world works and that this model seems accurate based on their personal experiences and previous knowledge. The second premise is that if the mental models are flawed, the students will be unlikely to relinquish them unless faced with the conceptual failure of their models (13, 14). During most of the activity, the students are encouraged to work collaboratively with one or more partners. They are allowed work as a large group to answer the questions, but they quickly learn that this approach is not very effective at preparing to answer the final question, which is done individually. At the end of a prescribed time, usually 40-45 min, the students are told to prepare to answer the final question. They are allowed to discuss the final question with their classmates but cannot write down an answer until told to by the instructor. They are given 5 min to answer the final question individually. The instructor then spends 10 min discussing the scientific principles and explaining the correct answer to the final question. How Are Mini-Lab Activities Different from Other InquiryBased Methods? It may seem at first glance that the mini-lab approach is no different than that of any other inquiry-based method of instruction. In one sense, this is true, since all inquiry-based approaches to teaching science attempt to essentially accomplish the same goals. However, we are not aware of other organized inquiry-based initiatives that combine guided inquiry with collaborative and cooperative-learning opportunities in the way that mini-lab activities do. The oldest and best known organized methods of teaching through inquiry are process-oriented guided-inquiry learning (POGIL), problem-based learning (PBL), and peer-led team learning (PLTL). These three approaches are summarized and compared in a recent article by Eberlein et al. (15). The main differences between these methods and mini-lab activities are summarized as follows: • POGIL involves structured student roles in a group-work setting, but laboratory exercises are presented in a traditional
_
r 2009 American Chemical Society and Division of Chemical Education, Inc. pubs.acs.org/jchemeduc Vol. 87 No. 1 January 2010 10.1021/ed8000073 Published on Web 12/18/2009
_
Journal of Chemical Education
69
In the Laboratory
way, covering multiple concepts with little scaffolding. Minilaboratories present one or two concepts with a scaffolded line of questions for the student to answer. • PBL is a long-term problem-solving approach that requires student research and is meant to supplant lectures entirely. Mini-lab activities are short-term problem-solving exercises and are meant to be done without preparation to reinforce and assess student understanding of scientific concepts. Also, mini-lab activities are meant to support other methods of content delivery. • PLTL, as the name implies, relies on peer leaders instead of instructors and requires significant preparation on the part of the students. Mini-lab activities require an instructor to employ Socratic questioning to encourage students to think deeply about their observations.
No single teaching method is a panacea, and each of these methods has a niche to fill. Good teaching requires instructors who are flexible and adventurous enough to try new ideas, and mini-lab activities are one more idea that can help science instructors keep their classrooms interesting and informative. The Role of the Instructor Other than the postactivity discussion, the instructor plays a minimal role during the activity. Since the goal of mini-lab activities is to elicit the students' ideas about how and why something happens, the instructor should minimize his or her input into the process, other than to engage in limited Socratic questioning and to ensure the safety of the lab. The instructor should stress that understanding is the goal of the activity, and if aspects of the lab do not seem to make sense, the student should think about them more deeply and perhaps discuss them with their classmates. It is particularly important for the instructor to be aware of and sensitive to the frustration level of the students during the mini-lab. Several of these activities have nonintuitive outcomes, and students may initially find this not only puzzling but also discouraging. Encouraging the students to apply what they know and to struggle to understand what is happening is critical to the success of the activity. In our experience, playing the role of the observer is a way to discern what the students are thinking. Usually, after about 10 min of struggling with the questions, the noise level increases as discussions and questions fly back and forth between students and groups. What, at first, appeared to be a simple process has now become a challenge, and it is interesting to observe how animated and engaged the students become when they realize that the instructor is not going to provide an answer. Unfortunately, there will be some students who do not move past the point of frustration, especially when they have only experienced one or two mini-lab activities. This is why the postactivity discussion is vital; it allows the instructor to lessen some of the frustration and explain how applying the principles of science can help to clarify a confusing situation. Formative Assessment of Student Understanding Part of the assessment value of the mini-lab is the observation of student discussions during the collaborative phase of the activity. The collaborative phase of a mini-lab harnesses the power of collaborative learning, while the presence of an individual assessment at the end of the mini-lab, which the students are aware of 70
Journal of Chemical Education
_
Vol. 87 No. 1 January 2010
_
and can discuss, is an example of cooperative learning (16). The combination of collaborative and cooperative learning, along with an individual assessment, makes the mini-lab program unique. It is in the individual student's answer to the final question that the instructor can glean some indications of the student's understanding of chemical principles. Also, by immediately discussing the activity, the students have the opportunity to assess their own level of knowledge. Therefore, this formative assessment is meant to benefit both the instructor and the student. A Specific Example A typical mini-lab, developed in the standard one-page mini-lab format, is shown in Figure 1. This is the five-part format used for all mini-lab activities:
1. Purpose: overarching statement, sometimes a “hook” 2. Think about this: additional information, sort of a directional “push” 3. Safety: standard statements, plus anything unique to the activity 4. Questions: questions to be answered collaboratively and sometimes a few minimal directions 5. FINAL: the “individual effort” question that asks a complex question requiring understanding of the principles involved
In addition to the five format elements, the activities are designed around three essential principles: • Simplicity: focus on one or two principles, giving the students time to think • Conservation: conserve resources and minimize waste • Connectedness: link to other natural science courses
To assist the instructor, we have also prepared activityspecific instructions and guidance. Each Mini-Lab file has the student activity as the first page with the instructor's page(s) following. We usually administer the mini-lab shown in Figure 1 after lessons covering thermodynamics and spontaneity. We anticipated that the well-informed students, especially those selected because of high achievement in science, would quickly complete this activity. However, in three semesters, we have been consistently amazed at the level of deep discussion about thermodynamics we observe during this mini-lab. In fact, things progress in a fairly predictable way: The first 5 or 10 min is spent exploring and being amazed at what they experience, especially when the rubber band contracts (it gets noticeably colder). Then, the students spend 20 or 25 min in animated discussions about the rest of the questions, especially the one about the entropy change for the spontaneous process. Finally, after about 35 min of thinking and discussing, a sizable percentage of the students start saying things such as “It just doesn't make sense!” and “My head hurts from thinking about it.” Usually, about 70-80% of the class will answer the final question correctly, although nonintuitively: the rubber band will NOT expand when heated. The rest of the students will stick with their intuition that things should get “floppy” and stretch out when heated. When the instructor demonstrates that this is not the case, that the rubber band even contracts slightly when heated, and explains how the thermodynamic analysis arrives at that conclusion, the majority of students appear convinced. Employing the Mini-Lab Concepts in the Classroom We designed the mini-lab concepts as a general approach to engage students in an active-learning environment. We viewed
pubs.acs.org/jchemeduc
_
r 2009 American Chemical Society and Division of Chemical Education, Inc.
In the Laboratory
Figure 1. Example of a mini-lab about thermodynamics.
these exercises as a way to provide formative assessment of student learning at the end of major units of the curriculum or at intermediate points during a major topic. For example, an
r 2009 American Chemical Society and Division of Chemical Education, Inc.
_
instructor might use a mini-lab to test student understanding of molecular motion in a system partway through a unit on kinetics. Then, at the end of the unit, or perhaps partway into the next
pubs.acs.org/jchemeduc
_
Vol. 87 No. 1 January 2010
_
Journal of Chemical Education
71
In the Laboratory
unit of the course, the instructor might use another mini-lab that tests understanding of temperature effects on rates of reaction. These exercises are not meant to replace traditional laboratories or lectures but to supplement them and provide formative assessment of student learning. Lessons Learned and Future Plans After three semesters of employing mini-lab activities in our advance-placement general chemistry course, survey results indicate that 60% of students agree or strongly agree that minilab activities help in the understanding of chemical concepts, with 25% being neutral, and negative feedback coming from only 15%. These results are slightly less positive than those for regular laboratories, where the corresponding responses in the same categories were 76%, 13%, and 11%. Instructors report a high degree of satisfaction with the activities and think that they are valuable in illustrating chemical principles, based on personal interviews. At this point in time, we have no data showing the impact of mini-lab activities on student learning, although a study is being planned for the fall semester of 2009. Instructor response during this same period has been overwhelmingly positive. Mini-lab activities are seen as a fresh new way to teach chemistry concepts, with the added benefit of giving insights into the way that students think about science. Comments from instructors have mainly focused on the integrative nature of the activities, the simplicity of administration, and the excitement and interest they elicit in students. We have developed 26 mini-lab activities and plan to add to that number. We created a Web site to make these mini-lab activities available and also to solicit new ideas for activities (17). The mini-lab activities are also available in the supporting information. We are currently working to determine the effect of these activities on student learning and to test the mini-lab concept in high schools to understand whether they can fill the need for short, inquiry-based activities at that level. Conclusions The mini-lab concept seems to be a useful way to help students understand their own mental models of science and to test those models against real results within a purposefully limited scope. These activities are easy to understand but can be challenging to understand completely. In providing some guided lines of inquiry, they help the student begin to see that seemingly simple processes are much more complex than initial observations may imply. Mini-lab activities also demonstrate that scientifically approaching one question can sometimes lead to multiple questions in pursuit of the answer. Thus, in the process of learning about some of the principles of science, students can also begin to model the process of science. Acknowledgment Each of these mini-lab activities started out as a traditional experiment or demonstration. These were obtained from four sources: The USAFA Chemistry Department Demo Manual
72
Journal of Chemical Education
_
Vol. 87 No. 1 January 2010
_
(2005), The USAFA Lab Procedures (Chemtrails), the Royal Chemistry Society's Classic Chemistry Experiments booklet (18), and the SCALE-UP chemistry Web site at North Carolina State University (19). The hard work that went into creating these demonstrations and experiments is greatly appreciated. Also, special thanks to Barry Hicks and Rick Deans (USAF Academy Chemistry Department) for their assistance, advice, and encouragement in initial the creation of this program. Literature Cited 1. Rudd, J. A., II; Greenbowe, T. J.; Hand, B. M.; Legg, M. J. J. Chem. Educ. 2001, 78, 1680. 2. Sanger, M. J. Abstracts of Papers. 221st ACS National Meeting; San Diego, CA, Apr 1-5, 2001; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2001; AN 2001:198989. 3. Kern, A. L.; Sande, M.; Roehrig, G. Abstracts of Papers. 233rd ACS National Meeting, Chicago, IL, Mar 25-29, 2007; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2007; AN 2007:290526. 4. Zhao, N.; Schmidt, F. Abstracts of Papers. 234th ACS National Meeting, Boston, MA, Aug 19-23, 2007; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2007; AN 2007:879789. 5. Yousefzadeh, M. J.; Martin, E. M.; Rogers, A. L. Chem. Educ. 2007, 12, 296–398. 6. POGIL Home Page. http://new.pogil.org (accessed Sep 2009). 7. National Research Council. National Science Education Standards; National Academy Press: Washington, DC, 1996. 8. National Academy of Sciences. Rising Above the Gathering Storm: Energizing and Employing America for a Brighter Economic Future; National Academy Press: Washington, DC, 2005. 9. Hofstein, A.; Lunetta, V. N. Rev. Educ. Res. 1982, 52, 201–217. 10. Elliott, M. J.; Stewart, K. K.; Lagowski, J. J. J. Chem. Educ. 2008, 85, 145–149. 11. Mulford, D. R.; Robinson, W. R. J. Chem. Educ. 2002, 79, 739– 744. 12. Handbook of Research Design in Mathematics and Science Education, 1st ed.; Kelly, A. E., Lesh, R. A., Eds.; Lawrence Erlbaum: Mahwah, NJ, 1999. 13. Posner, G. J.; Strike, K. A.; Hewson, P. W.; Gertzog, W. A. Sci. Educ. 1982, 66 (2), 211–227. 14. Hattie, J.; Biggs, J.; Purdie, N. Rev. Educ. Res. 1996, 66, 99–136. 15. Eberlein, T.; Kampmeier, J.; Minderhout, V.; Mook, R. S.; Platt, T.; Varma-Nelson, P.; White, H. B. Biochem. Mol. Biol. Educ. 2008, 36 (4), 262–273. 16. Panitz, T. Deliberations. http://www.londonmet.ac.uk/deliberations/ collaborative-learning/panitz-paper.cfm (accessed Sep 2009). 17. Mini-Labs Home Page. http://www.mini-labs.org (accessed Sep 2009). 18. Classic Chemistry Experiments. http://www.chemsoc.org/networks/ learnnet/classic_exp.htm (accessed Sep 2009). 19. Scale-Up. http://www.ncsu.edu/PER/scaleup.html (accessed Sep 2009).
Supporting Information Available Mini-lab activities. This material is available via the Internet at http://pubs.acs.org.
pubs.acs.org/jchemeduc
_
r 2009 American Chemical Society and Division of Chemical Education, Inc.
