Integrated Laboratories: Crossing Traditional Boundaries - Journal of

Research: Science and Education

Integrated Laboratories: Crossing Traditional Boundaries

W

Debra K. Dillner, Robert F. Ferrante, Jeffrey P. Fitzgerald, William B. Heuer, and Maria J. Schroeder* Department of Chemistry, U.S. Naval Academy, Annapolis, MD 21402; *[email protected]

Integrated or unified laboratory courses have been used in several chemistry programs over the past 30 years with varying success (1–6). An integrated laboratory course includes experiments that simultaneously explore or illustrate concepts from two or more traditional subdisciplines of chemistry (organic, inorganic, analytical, physical, and biochemistry). Over the years, the purpose and degree of integration has varied with institution. For example, several institutions offer a single upper-level integrated laboratory course, such as a combination analytical–physical chemistry course, while others have developed a comprehensive multi-semester sequence of unified laboratory courses (2–3, 5). The advantages and disadvantages of integrated laboratory courses have been discussed elsewhere (1, 6). This paper focuses on a new integrated laboratory curriculum implemented at the U.S. Naval Academy, including its benefits for students and faculty. Background The U.S. Naval Academy is a highly selective undergraduate institution of 4500 students that prepares young men and women to become professional officers in the U.S. Navy and Marine Corps. While unique in its mission, the Naval Academy Chemistry Department is ACS-accredited with 25–40 chemistry majors each year, some of whom continue their studies in medical or graduate school. Because all students are required to complete one year of general chemistry in their first year and class sizes are limited to 20 students, there are about 30 tenure-track faculty members in the department. Except for military training courses, our curriculum is similar to those of engineering or technical schools.

The integrated laboratory curriculum was developed as part of a comprehensive overhaul of our majors’ curriculum in response to: (i) the 1999 ACS guidelines published by the Committee on Professional Training (CPT) (7), which mandated inclusion of a required biochemistry course and stronger emphasis on student research; and (ii) the desire to introduce more student choice in the majors’ curriculum. To help meet these requirements, we embarked on a complete redesign of our laboratory program. Previously the major was based on separate lecture and laboratory courses in the traditional subdisciplines of organic, inorganic, analytical, and physical chemistry. To include biochemistry and enhance opportunities for student research, 11 credit hours of traditional laboratory courses were replaced with 8 credit hours of an integrated laboratory sequence, and a research experience was included for all students in the senior year. At the same time, the lecture components from the former analytical, physical, and inorganic chemistry courses were rescheduled and reconfigured to complement the new laboratory sequence (Table 1). The four-semester sequence of integrated laboratory (IL) courses is organized along broader themes within chemistry with most experiments investigating multiple areas of chemistry simultaneously. It also has the pedagogical advantage of showing students a more realistic view of how chemistry is actually performed in research and industrial settings. Beginning in the sophomore year, students are introduced to basic techniques and instrumentation. The sequence progresses as a continuum intended to develop student skills in laboratory methods, record-keeping, and communication, while also supporting content taught in the concurrent chemistry lecture

Table 1. Comparison of Former and New Laboratory Courses by Sequence in the Chemistry Curriculum Sophomore Year

Former Lab Curriculum, 11 Total Creditsa,b

Junior Year

Fall Semester

Spring Semester

Organic Lab I (2)

Organic Lab II (2)

Fall Semester

Senior Year

Spring Semester

Quantitative Physical Chemistry Analysis Lab (2) Lab I (1)

Fall Semester

Spring Semester

Instrumental Analysis (2)

Inorganic Lab (1)

Physical Chemistry Lab II (1)

New Lab Curriculum, 8 Total Creditsa

Integrated Lab I (2)

Integrated Lab II (2)

Integrated Lab III (2)

Integrated Lab IV (2)

Student Research

Lecture Courses, New Curriculum

Organic Lecture I

Organic Lecture II

Analytical Chemistry II

Inorganic Chemistry

Advanced Chemistry Elective Courses

Analytical Chemistry I

Biochemistry

Physical Chemistry II

Physical Chemistry I aCredits

1706

are in parentheses; each credit hour equates to three lab hours/week. bEach lab of the former curriculum had a concurrent two- or three-credit-hour lecture.

Journal of Chemical Education

•

Vol. 84 No. 10 October 2007

•

www.JCE.DivCHED.org


courses and ultimately preparing students for research. All the major subdisciplines of chemistry (organic, analytical, inorganic, physical, and biochemistry) are integrated into the List 1. Descriptions of the Integrated Laboratory Courses Integrated Laboratory I: Reactions, Separation, and Identification (IL 1)

• Examines a number of important organic reactions; introduces the methods of separation, identification and quantification of chemical substances • Includes these techniques: recrystallization; distillation; column chromatography; GC; HPLC; TLC; extraction; sublimation; and IR and NMR spectroscopy

Integrated • Explores modern chemical Laboratory II: analysis using: IR; NMR; mass Reactions, Chemical spectrometry; atomic and and Instrumental molecular spectroscopy; and gas Analysis (IL 2) and liquid chromatography • Applies qualitative and quantitative methods in analyzing the products of a number of important chemical reactions, including multistep syntheses • Students apply methods to the separation and identification of a two-component unknown Integrated Laboratory III: Physical Principles and Quantitative Analysis (IL 3)

• Focuses on the theory and behavior of molecules and ions in aqueous solution, and on classical methods of determination • Includes these techniques: quantitative and modern instrumental (spectroscopic, electrochemical, thermal) methods of analysis and examination of the thermodynamics of simple systems • Students implement experiments of their own design

Integrated Laboratory IV: Advanced Laboratory Techniques (IL 4)

• Emphasizes the theory, structure, synthesis, and characterization of inorganic and organometallic compounds • Includes these methods: multistep synthesis; photochemical and high-temperature reactions; polymer characterization; molecular orbital calculations; magnetic and X-ray diffraction measurements; Raman and high resolution gas phase spectroscopy; and fast reaction kinetics

sequence, including some advanced topics. In 2004, our first class of chemistry majors graduated under the new, integrated curriculum. In 2006, CPT proposed further revisions to the ACS guidelines for bachelor’s degree programs in chemistry (8). This integrated laboratory curriculum, in terms of the laboratory component, adheres to the proposed CPT revisions. In fact, CPT specifically mentions the use of integrated laboratories stating that “the laboratory component of the foundation experience will be at least 180 hours, ideally involving all five major areas of chemistry. One mechanism for achieving breadth is integrated laboratory experiences” (8). Although other integrated programs have been developed, the integrated laboratory curriculum at the Naval Academy is unique in several ways. The sequence begins immediately after general chemistry (taken in the first year) and is completed by the end of junior year. Because there is less flexibility in the students’ schedules and we do not have transfer students or many nonmajors in our courses (except for some premedical students), it is relatively simple to implement our sequence as all students start at the same place. Also, because students in the chemistry program at the Naval Academy follow nearly the same sequence of lecture courses as well, we include experiments to support these concurrent courses allowing for better correlation between lecture and laboratory concepts. A common thread in all of our IL courses is the application of analytical methods and use of instrumentation. Since our IL courses are team-taught by faculty members of different backgrounds, expertise in certain areas is shared among students and faculty. This is possible due to our large and diverse department, and our newly renovated facilities designed to support the new curriculum. Team-teaching with faculty from other subdisciplines lowers the anxiety of new instructors entering the sequence and facilitates an appreciation of other areas of chemistry. It also illustrates to students how different chemists approach problems and work together. Finally, because our majors complete their core chemistry training by the end of their junior year, they are better prepared to select a research mentor and area. By interacting with various faculty members and with exposure to all the major subdisciplines of chemistry, students can select advanced courses and research projects that match their interests and skills. Redesigning the Curriculum List 1 outlines each integrated laboratory course. The following considerations informed our curriculum redesign: 1. Exploring or illustrating techniques and principles from two or more areas of chemistry 2. Integrating concepts from lecture courses taught concurrently or previously 3. Incorporating analytical methods and instrumentation throughout the sequence 4. Using common text resources throughout the sequence 5. Programming the progression of laboratory skills and reporting requirements 6. Expecting consistency in laboratory record-keeping 7. Standardizing laboratory report formats

www.JCE.DivCHED.org

•


•


1707


Explanations of how some of these considerations were incorporated into the curriculum are included below.

Making the Connections In order to make this program truly integrated, we looked for natural pairings of techniques and concepts that crossed traditional boundaries. Because our program begins with the sophomore-year courses, we investigated connections between the usual organic laboratory experiments and other areas of chemistry. We identified two strong connections between analytical and organic techniques: chromatography and UV–vis spectroscopy. In most organic laboratory manuals, these techniques are used without significant explanations of theory and quantification (9), while analytical texts focus on optimization of conditions and quantification without significant emphasis on analyte structure (10). Rather than having distinct experiments in these two areas, we adapted a series of experiments to seamlessly bring these concepts together. A group of experiments that focus on chromatography is listed in Table 2, while those that include UV–vis spectroscopy are shown in Table 3. Sophomore-Year Integrated Laboratory Courses The first three chromatography experiments listed in Table 2 are taught in IL 1 and occur as a round-robin series, with students first conducting the thin-layer chromatography (TLC) experiment to understand the basic features of chromatographic separation and optimization, and then completing the other two experiments as time and equipment permits. By conducting the experiments together, students realize that chromatography can be used to accomplish several goals and that these goals can be met by choosing the appro-

priate chromatographic technique. In IL 2, the students perform the final experiment on optimizing conditions for an HPLC (high-performance liquid chromatography) analysis. This is placed later in the sequence to better correspond to the analytical chemistry lecture material covering this instrumental technique. The UV–vis spectroscopy-related experiments listed in Table 3 are conducted in the order given, with the column chromatography and absorption experiments occurring in IL 1 and the remainder in IL 2. Our first-year general chemistry laboratory uses UV–vis spectrophotometry extensively so our chemistry majors already have significant exposure to the Beer–Lambert Law. The integrated lab sequence builds on this knowledge, emphasizing the structure of absorbing species and wavelength of absorption, and adding more sophisticated techniques, such as fluorescence. Of the experiments listed, several are standard organic chemistry experiments in which we have included additional steps and learning objectives to emphasize spectroscopic principles. For example, in our column chromatography experiment, students obtain UV–vis spectra of their separated materials and use this information to determine the effectiveness of their separation. The aldol and chemiluminescence experiments involve commonly used synthetic reactions to which significant laboratory questions have been added that require students to relate the structure of the compounds prepared to their spectroscopic properties. The experiments discussed represent only two examples of the approach we have taken with our sophomore-year experiments. The remaining experiments in the IL 1 and IL 2 courses have been chosen to meet other goals, such as developing laboratory techniques, utilizing instrumentation, and improving written communication skills. However, when it

Table 2. Comparison by Focus of Experiments Integrating Chromatographic Techniques MExperiment

Primary Focus

Secondary Focus

MColumn chromatography of ferrocene MMand acetylferrocene

MChromatographic separation

MMUV–vis spectroscopic analysis of products

MThin-layer chromatography MMof analgesics

MOptimization of separation

MMIdentification of an unknown

MQuantification of caffeine MMby HPLC

MQuantification of components of a mixture

MMEffect of structure on order of elution

MHPLC: Adjustment MMof instrumental parameters

MOptimization of separation

MMEffect of structure on order of elution

Table 3. Comparison by Focus of Experiments Integrating UV–Visible Spectroscopy Techniques MExperiment

Primary Focus

Secondary Focus

MColumn chromatography of ferrocene MMand acetylferrocene

MChromatographic separation

MUV–vis spectroscopic analysis of products

MAbsorption spectroscopy

MWavelength of absorption

MBeer–Lambert Law

MDetermination of riboflavin in a vitamin MMtablet by fluorescence spectroscopy

MQuantification of a component MMof a mixture

MEffect of structure on spectroscopic properties

MAldol reaction

MPreparation of an organic compound


MChemiluminescence

MSynthesis of cyalume


1708


•


•

www.JCE.DivCHED.org


is possible and natural, these experiments have also been adapted to include concepts from other areas of chemistry. Overall, our students no longer view the experiments as organic or analytical—rather, students in lab are using the appropriate technique to address a particular chemical problem.

Junior-Year Integrated Laboratory Courses Another excellent example of incorporating traditional exercises into a more discipline-integrated product is offered by the IL 3 experiment Bomb Calorimetry: the Energy Content of Pizza (11). Prior to the new curriculum, our standard physical chemistry experiment was the determination of the enthalpy of formation of naphthalene. While clearly supporting the thermodynamics discussed in the corresponding lecture course, the experiment itself had little appeal to the curiosity or interest of students. The faculty felt that the technique and analysis associated with bomb calorimetry were sufficiently important that they should be retained in the new curriculum, with a “twist” added to support some topics in the other concurrent lecture courses of analytical chemistry and biochemistry, while at the same time expanding student appeal. Rather than using a pure sample of naphthalene as the analyte, students are provided with a slice of frozen pizza, or encouraged to bring in their own pizza sample. The samples are formed into pellets and analyzed in a bomb calorimeter, as described by Stout et al (11). Such samples are, by far, the most heterogeneous laboratory samples the students ever encounter. This allows us to connect textbook and literature discussions on sampling principles and to introduce the practice of analytical sampling into this “physical chemistry” experiment. After grinding up their dried pizza samples, students construct and use a paper cone riffle splitter (12) to prepare a representative sample to be formed into pellets for combustion. Even the post-combustion titration of bomb washings takes on new significance. This test, which usually represents only a minor correction to the heat of combustion of pure samples, now provides an experimental measure (albeit crude) of the protein percentage in the pizza sample (see Stout et al.). Both the energy and protein content are compared to “accepted” values on the package, or, in the case of fresh pizza, to determinations listed in the USDA National Nutrient Database for Standard Reference (13). In addition to integrating concepts from three subdisciplines of chemistry, this experiment has become one of the most popular of the semester. The final course in the IL sequence involves advanced laboratory techniques. Although most of the experiments support our inorganic chemistry and quantum mechanics courses, IL 4 allows us to pursue other areas of chemistry that reach beyond traditional boundaries. For example, the Synthesis and Characterization of Polymer Networks experiment incorporates aspects of polymer chemistry, materials science, engineering, and main-group chemistry in the study of polydimethyl siloxane (PDMS), an industrially important material. Students rotate through a series of investigations involving the study of polymer properties. In one investigation, the effects of polymers on the viscosity of liquids are examined. Using simple capillary viscometers, students determine the viscosities of dilute solutions of linear PDMS of varying molecular weights and extract physical properties of the polymer. Students then use linear PDMS chains to synthesize cross-linked networks, www.JCE.DivCHED.org

•

or elastomers. The straightforward synthesis incorporates aspects of silicon chemistry and organometallic catalysts. The networks are then characterized through swelling (a property that surprises students) and tensile tests. The tensile properties are measured using both a crude, homemade apparatus and a commercial tensile tester. The engineering concepts of stress and strain, which are new to the chemistry students, are applied in the analysis of their synthesized materials coupling aspects of chemistry and engineering as commonly done in industry. Because of its emphasis on applications and partially for its novelty, this experiment has been a favorite among students. In our previous curriculum, this experiment probably would not have existed since it does not follow a traditional chemistry subdiscipline. Finally, it is interesting to note that this experiment was developed by a research student from the Naval Academy based on his research experience with PDMS synthesis. Indeed, some of our research students choose projects in the area of laboratory development. Several of these developed experiments are now part of the IL sequence and have made significant contributions to improving the laboratory experience.

Developing Students’ Communication and Lab Skills To maintain consistency throughout the IL sequence and among the various laboratory sections, the written reporting requirements for experiments are standardized. A common format for laboratory notebooks is introduced in IL 1 and maintained throughout the sequence. For experiments involving only observations or very little analysis, such as the first experiment on crystallization and melting-point techniques, only the notebook pages are submitted for grading. Answers to post-laboratory questions and a conclusion are also components of the notebook. For more in-depth studies, an abstract summarizing the experimental methods and results is also required. For comprehensive experiments, a formal report organized in the format of a journal article is submitted. This three-tiered system of laboratory submissions seems to have alleviated some of the workload issues for students and faculty while still preserving a written record of each experiment. As students progress through the sequence, more formal report submissions are required and higher standards for written work are expected. Since later experiments are often multiweek efforts, the number of reports required is reduced as the experiment length increases. To facilitate use of instrumentation in the IL courses, some experiments are completed in a round-robin fashion, with groups of students working on different experiments at the same time and then rotating through the experiments. It is not uncommon to have four experiments conducted in a rotation, especially in the advanced courses where specialized instrumentation is limited. Though a bit chaotic at first, the rotation is feasible by having two instructors and a support technician available during the laboratory session. One drawback to this is that some experiments may not coincide with the coverage in the concurrent lecture courses, so some students conduct experiments without having much theoretical background. However, with access to several faculty (in laboratory and lecture) and detailed lab handouts to guide students, this has not been a major problem. Since the IL courses are taught as a continuum, we also include experiments that build on or review concepts from previous courses.


•


1709


Considerations for Planning an IL Curriculum

Faculty Support Developing a four-semester sequence of laboratory courses requires careful planning and preparation. Previous reports (1, 6) have provided valuable insight into issues that can affect the success or failure of an integrated laboratory program; several of these items have been alluded to above. By both circumstance and design, our program appears to answer the major challenges identified in those works. For example, in accordance with the recommendations of Miller and Hage (1), our conversion from traditional subdisciplinespecific laboratory courses to an integrated laboratory program was undertaken to address a specific problem (the need to incorporate a biochemistry course and provide an enhanced senior research experience), and not merely done for the sake of change alone. Since the conversion was a radical departure from the status quo, the entire department became involved in the fundamental planning and all were expected to be involved in the courses themselves. With “ownership” by the entire department, success of the program does not rely on the continued zeal (and effort) of a few faculty members. Specific program development guidance was delegated to an Integrated Laboratory Committee, a group of instructors from each of the traditional subdisciplines. The original sequence of IL experiments was constructed from the preexisting sequence of experiments by this committee, whose first major task was to narrow the list of good experiments into ones adaptable to integration, essential for the support of a corresponding lecture course, or both. This could not have been accomplished without the whole department’s backing. The time-consuming effort of developing the resulting set of experiments was supported by the institution in the form of curriculum development project grants providing summer support to the individuals involved. Since the first few years, changes in the experiments have been evolutionary rather than revolutionary, and the requirement of extra support time has diminished significantly. New experiments have also appeared as individual faculty members (some on the committee, some not) chose to prepare such materials. The IL Committee has evolved into a sort of governing body for the entire IL sequence, surmounting the often-cited concern that no single discipline would take responsibility for such multi-discipline courses. The committee was responsible for developing the unified notebook and reporting requirements described above. Working cooperatively with the course coordinators of the different IL courses, the committee also tracks student activities in the separate courses to maintain a continuum of experiences for the students. Within any semester, coordination of lectures with the labs remains a challenge, yet no greater than existed before the change. Since at least one instructor from the corresponding lecture courses is almost always involved in teaching a laboratory section as well, this issue is addressed by discussions among the lecturers and the individual IL course coordinators. As in other aspects of the program, such cooperation appears to be an essential element of success. Laboratory Logistics Both the Cartwright (6), and Miller and Hage (1) surveys cited an advantage of efficiency in space or equipment usage perceived by their respondents. While we agree that this 1710


•

probably is the case, a four-semester program such as ours demands that serious thought be applied to planning and physical layout in order to reap the benefits. With the IL sequence, both sophomore and junior laboratory classes are often operating simultaneously, and the experiments are such that both groups could require the same instrumentation. Because initial planning of the IL sequence coincided with the design phase for a major building renovation, we were able to ensure physical access for both groups by placing major equipment in an instruments suite adjacent to both laboratory rooms. While common instrumentation such as IRs and GCs reside in the IL laboratories themselves, more specialized instrumentation is located in the instruments suite. This allows all students, both IL and research, access to the instruments in our department. In the laboratories, additional space for group work is available to support the round-robin nature of some of our experiments. We have also considered the implications of this in recent instrument purchases. For some analytical instrumentation (IR, UV–vis, AA, GC), we have made the conscious decision to procure several simpler systems, rather than a single research-grade instrument. The increased availability of instrumentation clearly simplifies scheduling problems and minimizes the use of round robins.

Staffing Requirements Successful implementation and ongoing development of the IL sequence has been facilitated by the availability of a relatively large pool of interested faculty with diverse backgrounds and interests. Faculty members typically rotate into the IL courses for one or two years. During the past few years, the courses in the IL 1/2 sequence have been offered in four sections, each with a maximum enrollment of 14 students. Two pairs of sections meet concurrently in laboratory spaces sharing a common work area. Staffing of the IL 1/2 sections often pairs an organic chemistry instructor in one laboratory with an instructor from one of the other subdisciplines, typically an analytical chemist, in the adjacent room. This arrangement provides a readily available contact person who can support a faculty member teaching outside of his or her specialty. A similar staffing model is employed in the IL 3/4 courses, with proportionately greater involvement of faculty specializing in the “core” content area of each course (i.e., analytical and biochemistry faculty for IL 3, and physical and inorganic chemistry faculty for IL 4), yet always including at least one instructor from one of the other subdisciplines. The relevance and vitality of the courses has been greatly enhanced by this team-teaching approach. For example, several new biochemically oriented analytical and physical chemistry experiments have been recently introduced into IL 3 and IL 4 by biochemists teaching sections of the courses. Assessment Assessment has always been an important aspect of our curriculum development process. To evaluate the success of this program, we have collected assessment data such as: standardized exam performance; senior exit interviews (pre- and postcurriculum change); focus group interviews; course surveys; lab experiment ratings; tracking of exam performance; and oral and written communication assessment. However, because of a variety of circumstances, including a major flood (from Hurricane Isabel) and a building renovation, our as-


•

www.JCE.DivCHED.org


sessment efforts have been affected. With the loss of all lab spaces for most of one semester, and a second semester spent in temporary quarters with limited specialized equipment, the IL track was disrupted for two of the three classes of majors who have graduated since the curriculum change. Although preliminary assessment efforts point to significant improvement in both satisfaction and outcomes for the students, we do not feel we have sufficient data to draw conclusions at this time. A future paper will provide our assessment results with an update on the status of our curriculum. We do include some preliminary observations of the IL program based on student focus group discussions mediated by an assessment specialist from outside the department. These focus groups have assisted us by identifying areas of student satisfaction and concerns. Generally, students are quite pleased with the program, especially with the early and continued exposure to advanced instrumentation. We have used the concerns raised to make improvements to the program. One specific issue raised in the first two years was the length and frequency of laboratory reports. As a result, the requirements for laboratory submissions were modified as discussed above, and subsequent focus groups have shown fewer negative perceptions in this area (although students continue to feel that laboratory reports are challenging and time-consuming). Interviews with graduating seniors before our curricular change indicated dissatisfaction with the limited opportunities for pursuing research or an area of specialization. Under the new curriculum, our graduating majors generally indicate their ability to pursue an independent project as their most satisfying experience. In fact, we have observed a significant increase in students pursuing a second semester of research, which is optional in our program. Before the curriculum change (2000–2003), an average of ~20% of majors completed a second semester of research. Under the new curriculum (2004–2006), an average of ~65% of majors chose to participate for a second semester. Furthermore, student attendance at scientific meetings greatly increased from ~34% of majors before the curriculum change (2002–2003) to ~52% of majors after the change (2004–2006). Since our desire to provide enhanced research opportunities was a driving force for the development of the IL program, the department feels that the program has been successful. Since implementation of the new program, the number of chemistry majors has increased. In the ten years before the curriculum change, the department averaged ~21 chemistry majors a year. Under the new curriculum, the average is now ~33 majors. While it may be premature to draw any conclusions from this observation, the positive trend suggests that the new curriculum does not discourage potential majors. In fact, with its integrated approach and research opportunities, our new curriculum has been a great recruiting tool. Currently, the department continues to make improvements in the experiments and implementation of the program as well as maintaining assessment efforts. Conclusions While the integrated laboratory curriculum at the U.S. Naval Academy was instituted primarily as a means to incorporate the recent ACS CPT curricular recommendations into our majors’ program, the experience thus far has revealed numerous benefits that extend far beyond this limited goal. Iniwww.JCE.DivCHED.org

•

tial implementation of the IL-centered curriculum required an unprecedented level of cooperation and compromise on the part of all members of our large department. Hard choices had to be made, and significant challenges had to be overcome in order to design a sequence of laboratory experiences that satisfies the often divergent needs of the concurrent lecture courses. Ultimately, the size and diversity of our faculty has proven to be a key supporting element in the ongoing evolution of the program. Furthermore, while perhaps not essential to its ultimate success, the ability to configure laboratory facilities to meet the specific needs of the IL courses has certainly helped to smooth the transition to the new curriculum. Our experience has shown that the integrated laboratory concept offers many attractive benefits and is subject to several potential difficulties. Perhaps our experience will assist any faculty contemplating a similarly comprehensive curricular change to carefully weigh these factors as a means of evaluating the feasibility and sustainability of such a program in their own unique educational environment. Acknowledgments The U.S. Naval Academy provided funding for this effort through its Curriculum Development Project program. The authors are also grateful for the patience and support of the Chemistry Department faculty and chemistry majors during the curriculum change. Supplemental Material See this issue of JCE Online for a listing of the experiments in each of the IL courses and their content coverage. W

Literature Cited 1. Miller, K. M.; Hage, D. S. J. Chem. Educ. 1995, 72, 248–250. 2. Goodney, D. E.; Norman, J. H.; Chapple, F. H.; Brink, C. P. J. Chem. Educ. 1986, 63, 703–706. 3. McMinn, D. G.; Nakamaye, K. L.; Smieja, J. A. J. Chem. Educ. 1994, 71, 755–758. 4. Brown, T. L. J. Chem. Educ. 1972, 49, 633–635. 5. Silverstein, T. P.; Hudak, N. J.; Chapple, F. H.; Goodney, D. E.; Brink, C. P.; Whitehead, J. P. J. Chem. Educ. 1997, 74, 150–152. 6. Cartwright, H. M. J. Chem. Educ. 1980, 57, 309–311. 7. American Chemical Society, Committee on Professional Training. Undergraduate Professional Education in Chemistry: Guidelines and Evaluation Procedures; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 1999. 8. American Chemical Society, Committee on Professional Training. Proposed Revision to the ACS Guidelines; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2006. 9. Williamson, K. Macroscale and Microscale Organic Experiments, 4th ed.; Houghton Mifflin: Boston, MA, 2003. 10. Skoog, D. A.; West, D. M.; Holler, F. J.; Crouch, S. R. Fundamentals of Analytical Chemistry, 8th ed.; Thomson Brooks Cole: Belmont, CA, 2004. 11. Stout, R. P.; Nettleton, F. E.; Price, L. M. J. Chem. Educ. 1985, 62, 438–439. 12. Gerlach, R. W.; Dobb, D. E.; Raab, G. A.; Nocerino, J. M. J. Chemometrics 2002, 16, 321–328. 13. USDA National Nutrient Database for Standard Reference, Release 19. http://www.ars.usda.gov/Main/docs.htm?docid=4451 (accessed May 2007).


•


1711

Integrated Laboratories: Crossing Traditional Boundaries - Journal of

Recommend Documents