Integrating Authentic Research Experiences into the Quantitative

May 31, 2019 - Integrating authentic research-based experiences that mimic real-world scientific practices and relevance to student personal life into...
0 downloads 0 Views 1MB Size
Download PDF
Article Cite This: J. Chem. Educ. XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX

pubs.acs.org/jchemeduc

Integrating Authentic Research Experiences into the Quantitative Analysis Chemistry Laboratory Course: STEM Majors’ Self-Reported Perceptions and Experiences Jacinta M. Mutambuki,*,† Herb Fynewever,‡ Kevin Douglass,§ William W. Cobern,∥ and Sherine O. Obare⊥ †

Department of Chemistry, Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, Oklahoma 74078, United States Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry, Calvin College, Grand Rapids, Michigan 49546, United States § MPI Research, a Charles River Company, Mattawan, Michigan 49071, United States ∥ The Mallinson Institute for Science Education, Western Michigan University, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49008, United States ⊥ Department of Nanoscience, Joint School of Nanoscience and Nanoengineering, University of North Carolina at Greensboro, Greensboro, North Carolina 27401, United States

Downloaded via GUILFORD COLG on July 20, 2019 at 07:46:35 (UTC). See https://pubs.acs.org/sharingguidelines for options on how to legitimately share published articles.

‡

S Supporting Information *

ABSTRACT: Integrating authentic research-based experiences that mimic real-world scientific practices and relevance to student personal life into a chemistry curriculum can make abstract chemical principles more palpable to students. Unfortunately, many reported research-based experiences chemistry laboratory experiments lack relevance to a student’s personal life. Additionally, the impact of a “relevant” authentic researchbased experience curriculum on students’ affective outcomes beyond the General Chemistry courses has been overlooked. Two authentic research experiences modules developed around nanotechnology applications were implemented in a Quantitative Analysis Chemistry laboratory course for STEM majors. A follow-up study assessed the STEM majors’ perceptions of the learning environment and the organization of lab after exposure to both conventional experiments and authentic research-based experiences modules, as well as their perceived learning gains and the relevance of the laboratory experiments. Data were collected through validated surveys, and open-ended survey items and classroom observations. There were 55 students who participated in the study. Results showed significant improvements of students’ perceptions of learning environment and organization of the laboratory, favoring authentic research experiences modules over the conventional experiments. Self-reported learning gains and relevance of the experiments to students were also associated with the authentic research-based experiments. Students’ perceptions favoring the intervention modules related to learning through scientific inquiry, content relevance to real-world applications and student personal life, and use of real-world materials and a wide array of chemical instruments and techniques. Results imply the need to implement authentic research-based experiences centered on real-world issues and student personal life in the chemistry laboratory courses. KEYWORDS: Chemical Education Research, Inquiry-Based/Discovery Learning, Collaborative/Cooperative Learning, Second-Year Undergraduate, Student-Centered Learning, Analytical Chemistry FEATURE: Chemical Education Research

■

INTRODUCTION

ations, engage in argument, and evaluate and communicate information.1 The Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS) emphasize that “any education that focuses predominantly on the facts of science without developing an understanding of how those facts were established or that ignores the many important applications of science in the world misrepresents science” (p

Students in science and engineering should to be able to explain real-world phenomena and design solutions using understanding of the Disciplinary Core Ideas.1 The core ideas should “relate to the interests and life experiences of students or be connected to societal or personal concerns that require scientific or technological knowledge”.1 Training in these disciplines should prepare students to ask questions, plan and carry out investigations, analyze and interpret data, use mathematics and computational thinking, construct explan© XXXX American Chemical Society and Division of Chemical Education, Inc.

Received: November 4, 2018 Revised: May 16, 2019

A

DOI: 10.1021/acs.jchemed.8b00902 J. Chem. Educ. XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX

Journal of Chemical Education

Article

2).2 Chemistry laboratories should promote students’ understanding of science and scientific research,3,4 and relevance to students’ daily experiences.5 Unfortunately, most laboratories follow structured inquiry6,7 with little attention paid to relevance of authentic research experiences. This misalignment between laboratory activities and chemists’ practices8−10 makes chemistry hard to get through, and students can become indifferent in pursuing chemistry.9,11 Often, chemistry teaching is centered on big ideas of chemistry, while students tend to be interested in learning ideas and contextual issues relevant to their daily experiences.5 Incorporating relevance in authentic research-based experiences12,13 can help chemistry students practice scientific skills, apply knowledge like chemists, and promote chemistry relevance.5 Authentic research-based experiences encompass techniques that mimic real research done in the laboratories, using creativity and inquiry to generate knowledge, using real-world research contexts, making observations, collecting and interpreting data, and identifying and utilizing resources to address research questions.12 Slow adoption of a researchbased curriculum in science laboratories is partly due to the need to learn and become comfortable implementing researchbased instruction.14 We report findings from a study investigating the influence of authentic research-based experiences modules, exhibiting relevance, on students’ affective outcomes: “perceptions”. Findings showed a positive influence of authentic research-based experiences on STEM majors’ perceptions of a chemistry course.

and interest in research26 compared to conventional experiments. Many chemistry CUREs have been implemented in General Chemistry courses, and often, the curricula materials lack relevance to student personal life; hence, little is reported about STEM majors’ perceptions of advanced chemistry laboratory courses designed around authentic research-based experiences and their relevance to students. The current study addressed this gap and reports features of an authentic research-based curriculum students reported to have enhanced their learning and appreciation of chemistry. The research questions investigated follow. (1) Does integration of authentic research experiences in a decontextualized, cookbook conventional Quantitative Analysis Chemistry laboratory course change STEM majors’ perceptions of the learning environment? (2) Does integration of authentic research experiences in a decontextualized, cookbook conventional Quantitative Analysis Chemistry laboratory course change students’ perceptions of organization of the lab? (3) How do STEM majors perceive conventional Quantitative Analysis Chemistry laboratory experiments blended with authentic research-based modules in relation to learning gains and relevance to daily experiences? We hypothesized that participants will report more positive perceptions of the learning environment and the lab organization, favoring authentic research experiences modules over the decontextualized cookbook conventional experiments. Situated learning and affective domain frameworks informed the design of authentic research modules, and the study, respectively.

■

■

LITERATURE ON CLASSROOM AUTHENTIC RESEARCH EXPERIENCES Alternatives to undergraduate research experiences (UREs) are being sought to scale-up research experiences to prepare a large enough STEM workforce. Course-based undergraduate research experiences (CUREs) are becoming a common learning environment, especially in life sciences.13,15,16 CUREs are learning experiences in which students investigate a research question with unknown outcomes that are of interest to the scientific community.15,16 Most CUREs in biology require students to work on a novel and publishable research;13,15,16 thus, both students and faculty benefit from the publications. Other reported benefits include increased confidence in doing science, increased retention, improvements in GPA and graduation rates, and gains on scientific skills and clarification of science careers.17,18 Novel and publishable research in undergraduate chemistry laboratories may not be feasible at some universities. However, tapping into key features of CUREs like engaging students in scientific practices1 can develop students’ understanding of science and scientific research. The few reported CURE programs in chemistry follow this model. Examples are the Center for Authentic Science Practice in Education (CASPiE),19,20 the Research Experiences to Enhance Learning (REEL) projects,21,22 and the Freshman Research Initiative (FRI). 23 Other similar models include problem-based learning,24,25 and integrating faculty research.26 The latter model was adopted in the current study but integrated with real-world contexts to promote chemistry relevance to students. Chemistry CURE studies have reported improved student confidence in conducting research,20 the development of research creativity, 19 searches for further research opportunities,19,26 and a positive attitude toward chemistry

SITUATED LEARNING AND AFFECTIVE DOMAIN FRAMEWORKS The situated learning framework draws from the cognitive apprenticeships model, which emphasizes the enculturation of learners to authentic practices through activities and social interaction to foster learning and cognition.27 This framework utilizes three interactive elements of the learning process which were considered in the development and implementation of the intervention modules.28 They include the following: (1) curriculum design, embedding authentic contexts that reflect real-world application of knowledge, activities that mimic practices of practitioners, expert performance and modeling of processes, and opportunities to assume multiple roles and investigate multiple perspectives; (2) student-centered design, fostering collaborative knowledge construction, student reflection, and communicating knowledge; and (3) curriculum implementation, a learning environment that reinforces coaching and scaffolding.27,28 Affective domain framework explains how people deal with things emotionally and encompasses the following: feelings or perceptions, values, appreciation, enthusiasm, motivation, and attitudes.29 Affective outcomes are important for enhancing student learning.30 Using this framework, we assessed students’ “perceptions” related to the learning environment, organization of laboratory experiments, and learning gains and relevance of the experiments. Understanding students’ perceptions of the learning environment and laboratory activities can inform the development of effective curricula. The literature indicates a correlation between students’ perceptions of the classroom learning environment and their learning approaches. For instance, Dart et al. reported a significant correlation between students’ perceived adoption of deep learning approaches and student-centered learning environments.31 B

DOI: 10.1021/acs.jchemed.8b00902 J. Chem. Educ. XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX

Journal of Chemical Education

Article

file (Table S1). The nanochemistry modules fostered collaborative learning involving 3−4 individuals per group and provided opportunities for scaffolding, critiquing, defending, and communicating students’ ideas.27,28 Students were required to devise experimental procedure(s); collect, analyze and interpret data; and communicate their findings through class discussions and writing lab reports.1,6,12 These practices also align with the ACS Committee on Professional Training (CPT) guidelines: team learning, designing experiments, interpreting data, engaging in innovative thinking, and utilizing and evaluating primary literature.3 The course was taught by one TA, who had over 3 years of teaching experience in the same course, and who was experienced in inquiry instruction and gold nanoparticles (Au NPs) synthesis research. For module 1, students discussed literature studies on realworld applications of nanotechnology.41 The groups formulated a procedure for Au NPs synthesis using supplied reagents, and determined the molar absorptivity of their nanoparticles using the Beer−Lambert law. For module 2, students watched a video clip from ABC News, “Contamination of Orange Juice with Pesticides”,42 and discussed the pros and cons of pesticide use in society, their role as chemists in solving similar problems, and safety of grocery items. The groups were assigned a cabbage leaf sprayed with an unknown organophosphorus (OP) pesticide, fenthion or malathion (1 μL OP dissolved in 3 mL distilled water), devised an extraction procedure for their unknown pesticide residue, and reported to the class as peers critiqued their ideas.27,28 The class arrived at a consensus method of extraction, but each group was responsible for identifying the appropriate amounts of reagents to use. Next, the groups determined analytical techniques and methods for identifying and quantifying their pesticide residue. Figure 1 shows a summary of scientific practices and laboratory techniques employed in module 2. After collecting the data, the groups shared and defended their results.27

Context-based chemistry curricula are common at the high school level,32−35 and in introductory lower-level chemistry courses.36−39 For example, the Chemistry in Context textbook36 presents chemistry concepts and their applications in understanding key societal issues such as air, global warming, ozone layer, nuclear radiation, and food. Findings from many of these studies indicate increased student interest and engagement in science, and positive attitudes toward chemistry compared to decontextualized traditional courses. In contrast, context-based learning in advanced undergraduate chemistry courses like Analytical Chemistry has been shallowly investigated, and the few existing studies indicate mixed results on its impact on student affective outcomes.40 For instance, Pringle and Henderleiter40 found that, compared to the traditional experiments, students exposed to context-based experiments designed around real-world scenarios in an Analytical Chemistry course perceived them as unenjoyable and as not fulfilling the laboratory expectations. However, the treatment group expressed more confidence in self-perceived abilities, reasoning and metacognition, and general conceptual knowledge than students exposed to the traditional experiments. These mixed results provide few insights about the influence of the context-based learning environment on student affective outcomes in advanced courses;40 thus, more research is needed in this area. Importantly, there is a critical need to assess the affective impact of authentic research-based experiences involving real-world materials that have relevance to student personal life.

■

CONTEXT

Development and Implementation of Authentic Research-Based Modules

The intervention modules were developed and implemented in the introductory Quantitative Analysis Chemistry laboratory course, a 3-credit hour, sophomore level course at a researchbased university in the United States. STEM majors in secondyear to senior-year of college and sometimes first-year students take the course. Students learn skills necessary for solving analytical problems. They meet once per week for 2 h 50 min. The lab is offered in conjunction with the lecture course. Typically, laboratory experiments follow “cookbook” procedures, with clear experimental directions provided; thus, students verify scientific facts by following the steps provided.6,7 Two conventional experiments, UV−vis absorbance analysis and gas chromatography, were modified to incorporate components of authentic research-based experiences. These components included the following: using creativity to design experiments, making observations, collecting and interpreting data, and communicating results (open-inquiry learning); solving a real-world issue or problem; embedding real-world contexts or using real-world items to bring relevance of the laboratory experiments to students; identifying and utilizing resources to address important research questions; using techniques that mimic real-world scientific research like integrating a wide array of chemical techniques to analyze data; and learning collaboratively (Supporting Information 1). The modules were developed around nanotechnology applications in the detection of pollutants,41 adopted from one chemistry professor’s research. Features of authentic research-based (nanochemistry) modules versus conventional experiments are described in the first Supporting Information

Figure 1. Scientific practices and laboratory techniques employed in nanochemistry module 2.

■

METHODS

Research Design

A within-group experimental design involving a mixedmethods approach was employed.43 The same participants were subjected to two laboratory conditions, decontextualized cookbook conventional experiC

DOI: 10.1021/acs.jchemed.8b00902 J. Chem. Educ. XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX

Journal of Chemical Education

Article

Data Collection and Analysis

ments and nanochemistry modules. The conventional experiments preceded the nanochemistry modules. To assess the change in perceptions, validated surveys were completed after the conventional experiments (midsurveys) and again after the intervention modules (postsurveys) as shown in Figure 2. The

Data were collected for three semesters using validated surveys, and open-ended survey items and classroom observations (qualitative data). Prior to collecting the data, two researchers reviewed the items from the validated surveys and identified relevant items addressing research questions 1 and 2. Frequency analysis of the quantitative data showed there were no outliers, indicating that the reported data were within the rating scales. The qualitative data supported the survey results. Internal reliability tests on the current survey data47 yielded 0.96 and 0.81 Cronbach’s coefficients for the EBL learning environment survey and the survey on measuring lab organization, respectively. The acceptable Cronbach’s coefficient is ⩾0.7;47 thus, current coefficients suggest a high internal reliability of the survey data meaning that the results are dependable.47,48 There is consensus in the research community that reliability is essential in the assessment of validity.48 Quantitative methods were employed to determine changes in students’ perceptions from the two learning environments. The open-ended items were embedded in the postsurvey to assess perceived learning gains and relevance of the experiments. The items included the following: (a) Which experiment do you feel you learned the most from? (b) Which experiment do you feel you learned the least from? (c) Which experiment do you feel helped you to see the relevance of chemistry to your daily experiences and society? Participants were also asked to describe reasons for the experiments identified in all three questions above: “Describe the reasons for your choice”. For classroom observations, one researcher observed the nanochemistry sessions to verify the use of inquiry-based instruction (evidence of students devising experimental procedures), and to capture, using field notes and recorded videos, student self-reported experiences. Only the audiotaped data were analyzed. Data triangulation was important to ensure richness and trustworthiness of the results.49 An affective domain framework was applied in the analyses of qualitative data to uncover students’ perceptions of learning gains and relevance of the experiments. Analyses of openended survey responses proceeded in two phases. In phase I, one individual (coder 1) identified experimental topics associated with the “most” and the “least” learning gains, and “relevance to students’ daily experiences and society”, and computed the frequency of responses. In phase 2, coders 1 and 2 independently coded 20% of the responses (11 participants) on perceived reasons for selected experiments identified in phase I. All generated codes were similar and were developed into categories. Coder 1 coded the remaining data by applying the previously identified categories to relevant segments of the survey responses as new codes were allowed to emerge.34 Salient codes and categories were then merged into major categories (Supporting Information 3, Tables S2−S4). Analyses of classroom observations (field notes and audiotaped data) were conducted by coder 1 to determine students’ perceptions of the laboratory experiences. Prior to analysis, coder 1 reviewed the field notes and typed relevant statements. This coder also listened to the audiotaped data and extracted relevant statements. These statements were typed and merged with the field notes (Supporting Information 4). Next, coder 1 identified patterns (codes) related to participants’ perceived experiences from the modules. Relevant codes identified from the open-ended responses were also

Figure 2. Timeline for implementation of conventional laboratory experiments versus authentic research-based experiences modules, and mid- and postsurvey administration.

surveys included Enquiry-Based Learning (EBL),44 assessing perceptions about the learning environment, and Attitudinal Survey, assessing lab organization45 (Supporting Information 2). Students were required to have had some experiences with the course experiments to respond to the survey items; hence, no presurveys were administered. Participants also completed open-ended survey items and were observed during the nanochemistry modules. These qualitative data answered questions related to perceived learning gains and relevance of the experiments. Using self-perceptions to assess the quality of the opportunities offered by a given learning environment can pose self-response bias related to situational norms and learning expectations: social desirability.46 To minimize this bias, the researchers refrained from assessing self-reported perceptions specific to a given learning environment, conventional laboratory experiments and authentic research experiences modules; rather, assessments generally focused on the learning environment and organization of the laboratory. For instance, when administering the survey assessing the learning environment, the construct “inquiry-based learning” was omitted in the title of the survey to minimize a trigger for negative responses for conventional experiments, or positive responses for authentic research experiences modules. Participants

The Institutional Review Board approved the study, and participants consented to have their responses used for study purposes. Sixty-one students, enrollees in the course during the three semesters of data collection, consented to the study. However, only 55 of 61 students (90% response rate) who completed both the mid- and postsurveys were considered in the data analyses. Of the 55 individuals, 58% were male and 42% were female. Participants were in different years of their programs (47% seniors, 38% juniors, 9% sophomore, and 6% first year). Represented STEM majors included the following: chemistry (40%), biochemistry (31%), and other STEM (biology, biomedical sciences, physics, chemical engineering, among others) (29%). Participants’ self-reported average scores on the demographics were as follows: GPA scores (3.36 ± 0.46, N = 51), hours per week in studying chemistry (17.85 ± 13.60, N = 54), and years of chemistry, including high school (4.35 ± 1.55, N = 55). Many participants (44%) reported 3−4 years of chemistry. D

DOI: 10.1021/acs.jchemed.8b00902 J. Chem. Educ. XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX

Journal of Chemical Education

Article

(RQ2) Does Integration of Authentic Research Experiences in the Conventional Quantitative Analysis Chemistry Laboratory Course Change Students’ Perceptions of the Organization of the Lab?

applied in coding the classroom observations data, and salient codes developed into categories. Categories similar to those previously identified from the open-ended survey responses were merged into major categories,43 which were then crossverified against the coded data by a third party to ensure internal validity of the interpretations.49 There were no conflicts on the generated major categories between coder 1 and the third party. We discuss these categories in the Results section.

Finding: Authentic Research-Based Modules Significantly Improved Students’ Perceptions about Organization of the Laboratory. We hypothesized that study participants will report more positive perceptions of the lab organization, favoring authentic research experiences. Current results confirmed this hypothesis. Paired-sample t-test comparison on the overall midsurvey and postsurvey mean scores (Figure 4) showed a significant difference in

■

RESULTS We present the results by addressing each research question. We first present results from the quantitative data (surveys, research question (RQ1 and RQ2) followed by findings from the qualitative data (RQ3). For qualitative findings, we present a few representative examples of participants’ responses to support the reported findings. (RQ1) Does Integration of Authentic Research Experiences in a Cookbook Conventional Undergraduate Quantitative Analysis Chemistry Laboratory Course Change STEM Majors’ Perceptions of the Learning Environment?

Finding: Authentic Research Experiences Improved Students’ Perceptions of the Learning Environment. We hypothesized that study participants will report more positive perceptions of the learning environment, favoring authentic research experiences modules. Paired-sample t-test results revealed a significant mean difference in perceptions about the learning environment between midsurvey (mean = 3.57 ± 0.623, N = 55) and postsurvey (mean = 3.68 ± 0.626, t(54) = 2.098, p = 0.041), but with a small effect size (d = 0.2) (Figure 3). Reported mean scores were slightly above the “neutral”

Figure 4. Shows mid- and postsurvey overall mean scores on students’ perceptions about organization of the lab. The standard mean error values follow: mid = 0.068, post = 0.071. The mean difference was statistically significant, with the effect size approaching moderate (N = 55, p = 0.001, d = 0.43).

participants’ perceptions about the “organization of the laboratory”, with the postmean rating score being significantly higher (post: mean = 3.51 ± 0.526) than the midsurvey score (mid: mean = 3.29 ± 0.506, t(54) = 3.662, p = 0.001). This difference was associated with nearly a moderate effect size, d = 0.43.50 Individual item analysis showed that participants liked designing experiments, “I like labs where I get to help design an experiment to answer a question” (p < 0.05). They also highlighted opportunities for experimental design from the course: “This course provided opportunities for me to help design experiments to answer a question” (p < 0.05). These practices are characteristic of the nanochemistry modules. Furthermore, correlation results showed no significant association (p > 0.05) between demographic data (i.e., gender, GPA, hours of study of chemistry per week, years of student of chemistry, and major) and the overall midpost mean scores, except “year in program”, which was negatively correlated with the “learning environment” (r = −0.28, p = 0.039) and the “organization of the lab” (r = −0.44, p = 0.001); however, the correlations were weak. Overall, results suggest exposure to authentic research experiences significantly improved students’ perceptions of the learning environment and lab organization.

Figure 3. Shows mid- and postsurvey overall mean score on students’ perceptions about the learning environment. Standard mean error values for midsurvey and postsurvey mean scores are 0.084. The mean difference was statistically significant, with small effect size (N = 55, p = 0.041, d = 0.2).

(RQ3) How Do STEM Majors Perceive the Blended Quantitative Analysis Chemistry Laboratory Experiments in Relation to Learning Gains and Relevance to Daily Experiences?

range (score = 3), but participants significantly (p < 0.05) indicated more positive perceptions in the postsurvey than in the midsurvey. This suggests students appreciated laboratory experiences from the nanochemistry modules over the conventional experiments. Individual item analysis revealed statistically significant differences (p < 0.05) between the midsurvey and postsurvey mean scores on items related to authentic research experiences such as designing experiments, consulting primary literature, collaborative learning, instructor support, and relevance to student careers and real-world applications (Supporting Information 6, Table S8).

Finding 1: Participants Reported the “Most” Learning Gains from Authentic Research-Based Modules. Figure 5 shows participants’ responses to the experiment associated with the “most learning gains”. Out of the 51 participants’ responses, 45% mentioned the most learning gains from the “Nano-chemistry experiments”; about 25% mentioned “Titration of calcium & zinc”; ∼8% stated “Potentiometric titration E

DOI: 10.1021/acs.jchemed.8b00902 J. Chem. Educ. XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX

Journal of Chemical Education

Article

Figure 5. Percent of participants’ responses on the experiments they perceived to have “learned the most from”. The red bar denotes “the intervention experiments; blue bars denote conventional experiments. Grey bars are opinions reflecting “none of the experiments”, or “all the experiments.”.

of acid”; and ∼6% mentioned “Fluorometric determination of aluminum”. Other responses are shown in Figure 5. Out of 26 reported responses on reasons favoring nanochemistry modules, 53.8% related to inquiry-based learning, 19.2% to content relevance, and 19.2% to the use of varied chemical instruments. For inquiry-based learning, participants reported understanding of chemistry concepts due to afforded opportunities to “design experimental procedures” and to “think critically”: “It gave us more to think about, and we had to design our own experiment. This made us understand the concepts better because there was more critical thinking.” “We had to devise our lab procedure, rather than follow a [given] procedure.” Additionally, the collaborative learning environment enhanced students’ learning through brainstorming of ideas: “Because discussing an experiment made my understanding more.” Classroom observations also confirmed participants liked designing experiments: TA: “What are your feelings about the experiment [Nanochemistry Module 1]?” Group 1: “I liked the idea that we were able to design the procedure.” Group 3: “I liked that we came up with ideas... I do not like the procedures we are given; it makes it boring... This lab was interesting and we should be doing that [designing experiments].” For content relevance, participants attributed their understanding of chemistry concepts to content that reflected their daily experiences, and laboratory practices similar to those in their fields of study. Participants said: “I learned the most from this lab because I could directly apply it to real life.” “... [nanochemistry labs] had sufficient matter that was applicable to my field of study.” Last, participants associated learning gains with the use of various analytical instruments and techniques. Some expressed that the chemical instruments were new to them, while others developed firsthand knowledge in using multiple instruments: “I chose this lab because I used equipment that I’ve never seen before.” “[I] understood how to

work with UV−vis spectrophotometers, GC; understood % transmittance vs. absorbance relationship.” Overall, authentic research experiences promoted participants’ creativity and critical thinking, and exposure to different analytical techniques, which increased their understanding of chemistry principles. Finding 2: Many Participants Reported the “Least” Learning Gains from the Conventional Experiments. Thirty-four participants mentioned “least learning gains” from the conventional experiments, including “calibration of glassware” (20 responses) and “titration labs” (10 responses). Popular reported explanations associated with “least learning gains” included the following: (1) familiarity of the investigated phenomena from previous courses (14 responses), “I’ve already done many of similar laboratories, so I did not learn new information”, “Titrations were common and I learned about them in all of my classes”, “...it gets boring”; (2) experiments being tedious (7 responses), “Very tedious and stressful”, “It was more busy work to ease us into the lab than learning”; and (3) simple experiments (6 responses), “Easy, self-explanatory”, “Very straightforward.” A few participants (n = 5) reported “least learning gains” from the nanochemistry modules. The mentioned explanations (4 responses) related to (1) a lack of preparation prior to the lab (1 response), large working groups (1 response), disjointed experiments (1 response), and challenging experiments (1 response). Overall, redundancy, tediousness, and simplicity of the conventional experiments were perceived to be ineffective in enhancing student learning of chemical principles. Finding 3: Nanochemistry Modules Were Reported the “Most Relevant” to Students’ Daily Lives or Society. Thirty-nine out of 50 respondents (78%) reported nanochemistry experiments as the “most relevant to their daily experiences and society”. Thirty-eight responses were provided with reasons for the choice of nanochemistry experiments. Common explanations included the following: direct application to daily experiences, real-world application, and relevance to society (57.9% responses); development of scientist/ F

DOI: 10.1021/acs.jchemed.8b00902 J. Chem. Educ. XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX

Journal of Chemical Education

Article

modules, but the effect size was small. Survey item analysis showed more positive perceptions attributed to authentic practices like designing experiments, consulting the primary literature, collaborative learning, relevance to student careers and real-world applications, and instructor support. Similarly, results showed a significant positive change in midpost mean perceptions about the organization of the lab, favoring intervention modules. Survey items revealed students’ “enjoyment in designing experiments” and “opportunities to design experiments” were rated significantly higher in the postsurvey, favoring the intervention modules. Qualitative data confirmed these results. Unlike other studies that reported student resistance to research-based curricula,51,22 current participants were receptive of authentic research experiences. One explanation might be due to relevance and the need to prepare for relevant career skills given most students were in the final years of their degree programs. Qualitative findings revealed nanochemistry modules enhanced student learning of chemistry. Many participants mentioned they “learned the most” from these modules over the conventional experiments. In addition to perceived conceptual understanding, participants reported gains in creativity and critical thinking skills, development of scientist/chemist identities, and knowledge of analytical techniques and their applications. Other have reported similar results.12,19,25,52 Gains reported were enhanced by an inquirylearning approach, relevance of the experiments to future careers and daily experiences, and integration of many analytical instruments and techniques. Participants not only designed experiments similar to what chemists do but also extracted and quantified pesticide residues from a vegetable they consume daily, therefore having a direct application to their personal life. Results further indicated students appreciated using multiple lab tools or equipment in the same way chemists do. For example, they used GC to quantify their pesticide residue and identify the unknown pesticides, and a UV−vis spectrophotometer to study the surface plasmon resonance of nanoparticles upon titration with the pesticide residue. Participants also used micropipettes to measure volume at microscopic levels. In conventional experiments, students too often use the same tools but can fail to visualize their use within the chemistry community due to decontextualized activities.27 Current and other CURE studies suggest that chemistry students can be attuned to instructional approaches and laboratory experiences that seem to have personal relevance and to engage them in scientist-like practices. Overall, participants liked authentic research experiences modules, but they reported less enthusiasm from the conventional experiments.

chemist identity and relevance to future careers (13.2% responses); use of real-world materials (10.5% responses); and exposure to varied chemical instruments and techniques (7.9% of responses). Participants reported that the content and techniques learned from the nanochemistry experiments directly applied to their daily experiences, and had real-world applications, or relevance in addressing societal issues. Some remarked: “It related to my daily life and it applied to the lunch I ate today and I liked that.” “The experiment helped me see the relevance of chemistry to society because it brought in a real-world issue and used chemistry to evaluate the problem.” For science identities and relevance to future careers, some participants mentioned that nanochemistry experiments developed their identity as scientists or chemists, and clarified future roles and practices they will engage in. Some mentioned the scientific practices mirrored what chemists do daily, and what they will be doing in future careers: “[It] made me a better scientist.” “It helped me figure out what chemists actually do daily.” “I plan to work in the industry and these are the types of experiments that we will do.” Classroom observations confirmed similar results. For example, one student shared with peers the relevance of authentic research learning environment in industry: “This lab would be good if you were going to work in industry where you need to design experiments, know how to use equipment and analytical techniques, and collaborate with other members in the industry.” These results suggest that students are cognizant of scientific skills required in science careers. Others mentioned the nanochemistry modules as the most relevant due to the use of real-world materials: “[We] worked with pesticides...” “We used a real-world piece of cabbage in our experiment and analyzed our results.” Finally, some participants mentioned the development of knowledge in using chemical instruments and techniques and the relevance in the real world: “[I learned] how each technique is used for environmental and industrial questions.” “We used two different types of machines to get data for the results.” Similar self-reported experiences were confirmed from the classroom observations: TA: “What are your experiences with the nanoscale sciencebased experiments?” Student: “We practiced what chemists actually do.” Student: “We enjoyed solving a real-world problem.” Additional participant data supporting the qualitative findings are in Supporting Information 4 and Supporting Information 5. Overall, students’ perceptions of the learning environment and organization of the lab improved with exposure to authentic research experiences. These modules were also associated with the most learning gains, and relevance to students’ daily experiences, and their future careers. Moreover, participants reported development of scientist/chemist identities, and firsthand experiences in using different chemical techniques and instrumentation.

■

STUDY LIMITATIONS

The study is limited in two ways. First, the assessment compares only two intervention modules versus seven conventional experiments. An equal number of intervention experiments to the conventional experiments should be considered in future research for replication purposes. Also important is the replication of the study at different institutional contexts. Second, the small enrollment in the course, consisting of only one section and capped at 24 students, posed a challenge for a randomized study design; hence, causal statements cannot be made from the results. We

■

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS This study investigated how research-based modules developed around scientific practices and student personal life and blended with conventional experiments influence STEM majors’ perceptions of the learning environment and the lab organization, and perceived learning gains and relevance of the experiments. Results suggested a significant improvement of students’ perceptions, favoring authentic research-based G

DOI: 10.1021/acs.jchemed.8b00902 J. Chem. Educ. XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX

Journal of Chemical Education

Article

Notes

recommend future researchers to consider advancing this work using a larger sample and a more controlled study design.

The authors declare no competing financial interest.

■

■

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE Current results provide a number of implications for practice in developing the chemistry laboratory curriculum. First, results imply that incorporating relevance in authentic research-based experiences that mimic scientific practices in the chemistry laboratories can promote students’ appreciation and learning of chemistry while practicing chemist-like skills. Second, STEM students value chemistry laboratory experiments that are intentionally structured to include scientific inquiry, integration of a wide array of chemical instruments and equipment within one laboratory lesson, scientific practices that match what chemists do, and investigations carried out on real-world issues or embedded contexts relevant to student personal life.5,27 Third, integrating research topics that have societal applications like nanotechnology applications can provide avenues for learning scientific skills while mitigating the redundancy and monotony of standard laboratory practices and procedures. Last, authentic research experiences should be considered in all levels of chemistry courses beyond General Chemistry courses.20,21,23,26 Unlike other studies that have reported student resistance in learning through CUREs in General Chemistry,26 qualitative findings showed STEM majors are receptive to “relevant” authentic research-based experiences. Overall, incorporating “relevance” to authentic research experiences curriculum can positively influence student perceptions of learning of chemistry and the learning environment, and enhance the development of relevant scientific skills. Further research is, however, needed to understand the effects of authentic research experiences on cognitive outcomes.

■

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS We are grateful to Lloyd Mataka for helping with part of the qualitative data analysis, and the input of the anonymous reviewers in improving this manuscript.

■

(1) Next Generation Science Standards. Three Dimensional Learning. https://www.nextgenscience.org/three-dimensions (accessed Jan 2019). (2) Next Generation Science Standards Release. Appendix F Science and Engineering Practices in the NGSS; 2013.http://www. nextgenscience.org/sites/default/files/ Appendix%20F%20%20Science%20and%20Engineering%20Practice s%20in%20the%20NGSS%20-%20FINAL%20060513.pdf (accessed July 2018). (3) Wenzel, T. J.; Larive, C. K.; Frederick, K. A. Role of undergraduate research in an excellent and rigorous undergraduate chemistry curriculum. J. Chem. Educ. 2012, 89, 7−9. (4) Awong-Taylor, J.; D’Costa, A.; Giles, G.; Leader, T.; Pursell, D.; Runck, C.; Mundie, T. Undergraduate Research for All: Addressing the Elephant in the Room. Council on Undergraduate Research (CUR) Quarterly 2016, 37, 11−19. (5) De Jong, O.; Talanquer, V. Why is it relevant to learn the big ideas in chemistry at schools? In Relevant chemistry EducationFrom theory to practice; Eilks, I., Hofstein, A., Eds.; Sense Publishers: Rotterdam, 2015; pp 11−31. (6) Domin, D. S. A content analysis of general chemistry laboratory manuals for evidence of higher-order cognitive tasks. J. Chem. Educ. 1999, 76 (1), 109−111. (7) Buck, L. B.; Bretz, S. L.; Towns, M. H. Characterizing the level of inquiry in the undergraduate laboratory. J. Coll. Sci. Teach. 2008, 38, 52−58. (8) Taber, K. S.Epistemic Relevance and Learning Chemistry in an Academic Context. In Eilks, I., Hofstein, A., Eds.; Relevant Chemistry EducationFrom Theory to Practice Sense Publishers; Springer: Rotterdam, 2015; pp 79−100. (9) Gilbert, J. K. On the Nature of “Context” in Chemical Education. Int. J. Sci. Educ. 2006, 28, 957−976. (10) Stolk, M. J.; Bulte, A. M. W.; de Jong, O.; Pilot, A. Towards a framework for a professional development programme: empowering teachers for context-based chemistry education. Chem. Educ. Res. Pract. 2009, 10, 164−175. (11) Seymour, E.; Hewitt, N. M. Talking about Leaving: Why Undergraduates Leave the Sciences; Westview Press: Boulder, CO, 2000. (12) Spell, R. M.; Guinan, J. A.; Miller, K. R.; Beck, C. W. Redefining authentic research experiences in introductory biology laboratories and barriers to their implementation. CBE-Life Sci. Educ. 2014, 13, 102−110. (13) Bangera, G.; Brownell, S. E. Course-based undergraduate research experiences can make scientific research more inclusive. CBE-Life Sci. Educ. 2014, 13, 602−606. (14) Mutambuki, J. M.; Schwartz, R. We Don’t Get Any Training: The Impact of a Professional Development Model on Teaching Practices of Chemistry and Biology Graduate Teaching Assistants. Chem. Educ. Res. Pract. 2018, 19, 106−121. (15) Dolan, E. L.Course-Based Undergraduate Research Experiences: Current Knowledge and Future Directions; National Research Council Commissioned Paper: Washington, DC, 2016. (16) Auchincloss, L. C.; Laursen, S. L.; Branchaw, J. L.; Eagan, K.; Graham, M.; Hanauer, D. I.; Dolan, E. L.; et al. Assessment of coursebased undergraduate research experiences: a meeting report. CBE-Life Sci. Educ. 2014, 13 (1), 29−40.

ASSOCIATED CONTENT

S Supporting Information *

The Supporting Information is available on the ACS Publications website at DOI: 10.1021/acs.jchemed.8b00902.

■

REFERENCES

Supporting Information 1: Nanochemistry modules (PDF, DOCX) Supporting Information 2: Survey instruments (PDF, DOCX) Supporting Information 3: Codes and categories (PDF, DOCX) Supporting Information 4: Examples of participants’ selfreported experiences captured from the classroom observations (PDF, DOCX) Supporting Information 5: Major categories and selected participants’ responses (PDF, DOCX) Supporting Information 6: Enquiry-based learning survey measuring learning environment: statistically significant items (PDF, DOCX)

AUTHOR INFORMATION

Corresponding Author

*E-mail: [email protected]. ORCID

Jacinta M. Mutambuki: 0000-0001-7158-8604 H

DOI: 10.1021/acs.jchemed.8b00902 J. Chem. Educ. XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX

Journal of Chemical Education

Article

(17) Bascom-Slack, C. A.; Arnold, A. E.; Strobel, S. A. StudentDirected Discovery of the Plant Microbiome and Its Products. Science 2012, 338, 485−486. (18) Jordan, T. C.; Burnett, S. H.; Carson, S.; Caruso, S. M.; Clase, K.; DeJong, R. J.; Dennehy, J. J.; Denver, D. R.; Dunbar, D.; Elgin, S. C. R.; et al. A Broadly Implementable Research Course in Phage Discovery and Genomics for First-Year Undergraduate Students. mBio 2014, 5, e01051. (19) Russell, C. B.; Weaver, G. C. A comparative study of traditional, inquiry-based, and research-based laboratory curricula: impacts on understanding of the nature of science. Chem. Educ. Res. Pract. 2011, 12 (1), 57−67. (20) Szteinberg, G. A.; Weaver, G. C. Participants’ reflections two and three years after an introductory chemistry course-embedded research experience. Chem. Educ. Res. Pract. 2013, 14 (1), 23−35. (21) Clark, T.An Ambitious Statewide Transformation of Introductory Chemical Courses: Assessing the Ohio Consortium for Undergraduate Research: Research Experiences to Enhance Learning (OCUR-REEL) Project. In Assessment of Chemistry. Assessment in the Disciplines; Ryan, J., Clark, T., Collier, A., Eds.; Association for Institutional Research: Tallahassee, FL, 2010; Vol. 5, pp 7−26. (22) Clark, T. M.; Ricciardo, R.; Weaver, T. Transitioning from expository laboratory experiments to course-based undergraduate research in general chemistry. J. Chem. Educ. 2016, 93 (1), 56−63. (23) Simmons, S. One institution’s approach: How the University of Texas at Austin merges research and teaching through the Freshman Research Initiative. FASEB J. 2014, 28 (1), 93−101. (24) Kerr, M. A.; Yan, F. Incorporating course-based undergraduate research experiences into analytical chemistry laboratory curricula. J. Chem. Educ. 2016, 93 (4), 658−662. (25) Coppock, P.; Park, S. H.; Paredes, J.; Pennington, R.; Pursell, D. P.; Rudd, G.; Sloop, J. C.; Tsoi, M. Y. Enhancing Research Skills and Attitudes in Undergraduate Organic Chemistry with a CourseEmbedded Undergraduate Research Experience (CURE) via Green Organic Synthesis. J. Lab. Chem. Educ. 2017, 5, 41−47. (26) Tomasik, J. H.; Cottone, K. E.; Heethuis, M. T.; Mueller, A. Development and preliminary impacts of the implementation of an authentic research-based experiment in General Chemistry. J. Chem. Educ. 2013, 90 (9), 1155−1161. (27) Brown, J. S.; Collins, A.; Duguid, P. Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Edu. Res. 1989, 18 (1), 32−42. (28) Herrington, J.; Oliver, R. Critical Characteristics of Situated Learning: Implications for the Instructional Design of Multimedia; ASCILITE 1995 Conference 3−7 December 1995; University of Melbourne: Melbourne, pp 253−262. (29) Krathwohl, D. R.; Bloom, B. S.; Masia, B. B. Taxonomy of Educational Objectives: Handbook II: Affective Domain; David McKay Co.: New York, 1964. (30) Menthe, J.; Parchmann, I. Getting Involved: Context-Based Learning in Chemistry Education. Affective Dimensions in Chemistry Education; Kahveci, M., Orgill, M., Eds.; Springer: Heidelberg, 2015; pp 51 − 68. (31) Dart, B.; Burnett, P.; Boulton-Lewis, G.; Campbell, J.; Smith, D.; McCrindle, A. Classroom learning environments and students’ approaches to learning. Learning environments research 1999, 2, 137− 156. (32) Bennett, J.; Lubben, F.; Hogarth, S. Bringing science to life: A synthesis of the research evidence on the effects of context-based and STS approaches to science teaching. Sci. Educ. 2007, 91, 347−370. (33) Schwartz, A. T. Contextualised chemistry education: The American experience. Int. J.Sci. Educ. 2006, 28 (9), 977−998. (34) King, D. New perspectives on context-based chemistry education: Using a dialectical sociocultural approach to view teaching and learning. Stud. Sci. Educ. 2012, 48, 51−87. (35) Tarkin, A.; Uzuntiryaki-Kondakci, E. Implementation of casebased instruction on electrochemistry at the 11th grade level. Chem. Educ. Res. Pract. 2017, 18, 659−81. (36) American Chemical Society (ACS). Chemistry in Context: Applying Chemistry to Society, 7th ed.; McGraw Hill: Dubuque, 2011.

(37) Gutwill-Wise, J. The Impact of active and context-based learning in introductory chemistry courses: An early evaluation of the modular approach. J. Chem. Educ. 2001, 78 (5), 684−690. (38) American Chemical Society (ACS). Chemistry in the Community (ChemCom), 6th ed.; W. H. Freeman: New York, 2012. (39) Griep, M. A.; Reimer, K. An Inconvenient Truth: Is It Still Effective at Familiarizing Students with Global Warming? J. Chem. Educ. 2016, 93, 1886−1893. (40) Pringle, D. L.; Henderleiter, J. Effects of Context-Based Laboratory Experiments on Attitudes of Analytical Chemistry Students. J. Chem. Educ. 1999, 76, 100−106. (41) National Nanotechnology Initiative Strategic Plan Unites States of America, 2011. http://nano.gov/sites/default/files/pub_resource/ 2011_strategic_plan.pdf (accessed Jan 2017). (42) ABC News. Is Your Orange Juice Safe?: FDA Says Carbendazim Causes No Safety Concern. 2012. Retrieved from http://abcnews.go.com/US/orange-juice-safe-fda-carbendazimsafety-concern/story?id=15504105#.UYLSdkocPyU (accessed Feb 2012). (43) Creswell, J. W.Qualitative Inquiry & Research Design: Choosing among Five Approaches; Sage Publications: Thousand Oaks, CA, 2007. (44) Moore, I.Draft Student Enquiry Based Learning (EBL) Survey; 2006. http://www.manchester.ac.uk/ceebl/resources/evaluation/ evaluation_survey.rtf (accessed Jan 2017). (45) Lewis, E.; Seymour, E. Attitudinal Survey; http://archive. wceruw.org/cl1/flag/extra/download/cat/attitude/attitude.pdf (accessed Jan 2017). (46) Grimm, P.Social Desirability Bias. Wiley International Encyclopedia of Marketing; Wiley, 2010. DOI: 10.1002/ 9781444316568.wiem02057 (accessed Feb 2019). (47) Hinkle, D. E.; Wiersma, W.; Jurs, S. G. Applied Statistics for the Behavioral Sciences, 4th ed.; Houghton Mifflin: Boston, MA, 1998. (48) Sullivan, G. M. A Primer on the Validity of Assessment Instruments. J. Grad Med. Educ. 2011, 3 (2), 119−120. (49) Tashakkori, A.; Teddlie, C. Mixed Methodology: Combining Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches; Sage Publications Ltd.: Thousand Oaks, CA, 1998. (50) Cohen, J.Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences; Academic Press: New York, 1969. (51) Gormally, C.; Brickman, P.; Hallar, B.; Armstrong, N. Effects of inquiry-based learning on students’ science literacy skills and confidence. IJ-SoTL. 2009, 3 (2), 16. (52) Pontrello, J. K. Bringing research into a first semester organic chemistry laboratory with the multistep synthesis of carbohydratebased HIV inhibitor mimics. Biochem. Mol. Biol. Educ. 2015, 43, 417− 427.

I

DOI: 10.1021/acs.jchemed.8b00902 J. Chem. Educ. XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX