Preparing Students for Practical Sessions Using Laboratory

Technology Report pubs.acs.org/jchemeduc

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

Preparing Students for Practical Sessions Using Laboratory Simulation Software Richard A. R. Blackburn,* Barbara Villa-Marcos,* and Dylan P. Williams* Department of Chemistry, University of Leicester, University Road, Leicester LE1 7RH, United Kingdom

Downloaded via 185.89.101.176 on December 18, 2018 at 01:46:16 (UTC). See https://pubs.acs.org/sharingguidelines for options on how to legitimately share published articles.

S Supporting Information *

ABSTRACT: A series of laboratory themed simulations developed by Learning Science Ltd. were integrated into a first year laboratory module at the University of Leicester. These simulations allow students to attempt the experiments they will do in the laboratory in a risk-free way that provides the opportunity to make mistakes and learn how to correct them using the immediate feedback generated. High student engagement was observed during our pilot, and student endof-module comments were very positive for this technological enhancement. KEYWORDS: Laboratory Instruction, Laboratory Computing/Interfacing, Laboratory Equipment/Apparatus, First-Year Undergraduate/General, Computer-Based Learning

■

BACKGROUND Laboratory teaching is an essential element of many undergraduate chemistry degree programs.1 The requirement for a high level of practical training is demanded by a range of stakeholders including relevant professional bodies (such as the American Chemical Society)2 and employers of chemistry graduates. In 2007, Reid and Shah argued that chemical educators needed to reconsider the role of experimental work in degree programs, with the introduction of prelaboratory exercises being one of the authors’ main recommendations.1a Recent studies to transform the laboratory teaching experience by making use of prelaboratory exercises,3 better use of technology,4 and flipped teaching approaches5 have all been shown to have a positive impact on student learning.6 It is generally accepted that some form of prelaboratory exercise (such as a quiz or a video that students must watch) can help students prepare for laboratory learning classes.3 Recent technological innovations have broadened the capabilities of prelaboratory preparation by allowing students to engage with self-marking multiple-choice quizzes which provide instant feedback,7 to view videos of the apparatus and techniques they will encounter in the laboratory,6c and to attempt interactive simulations of the experiments they will do in the laboratory.8 The first published examples of computer simulations of chemistry teaching experiments appeared in the 1970s.9 Many early laboratory simulations were based on physical chemistry10 and analytical laboratories (e.g., qualitative testing,9 titrations,11 and chromatography12 ). While the use of laboratory simulations as a supporting mechanism for the traditional teaching laboratory environment is reasonably wellestablished, there is relatively little published work on the use of simulations as tools to support preparation ahead of a © XXXX American Chemical Society and Division of Chemical Education, Inc.

teaching laboratory contact session. Climent-Bellido et al. (2003) published their findings on the use of a simulated laboratory software package, Virtual Chemistry Laboratory (VCL), which could be used as prelaboratory preparation.4b At present, a number of chemistry laboratory simulation packages exist including ChemCollective, Online Chem Laboratories, Late Nite laboratories, Chem Laboratories, MERLOT, Labster, and Learning Science.

■

INSTRUCTIONAL CONTEXT This contribution describes the integration of a series of prelaboratory simulations into year one of the chemistry degree programs at the University of Leicester. The focus of this report is the second semester first year module CH1062 Chemistry Practical, Part B, a 15-credit module (equivalent to 112.5 h. of study time). This is part B of the freshman year practical class, and it directly follows the first semester module CH1061 Chemistry Practical, Part A. The course is based on application of key introductory skills in synthetic and physical chemistry, with the students having learnt the basic skills the previous semester in CH1061. Approximately 100 students per year take this module. For this course, students undertake nine core experiments, each being composed of a set of prelaboratory activities, the 4 h. laboratory session, and associated writeup. The prelaboratory activities are hosted on the virtual learning environment (VLE). They involve students reading the experimental procedure (instructions), watching one or two instructional videos (made by the department using Received: July 11, 2018 Revised: October 31, 2018

A

DOI: 10.1021/acs.jchemed.8b00549 J. Chem. Educ. XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX

Journal of Chemical Education

Technology Report

Figure 1. Timeline of activities to be completed by a student per experiment.

Figure 2. Information given at start of the simulations. (a) Instructions screen for the “Rotary Evaporator” simulation. (b) Protocol for the simulated experiment. All graphics are screen shots of the simulations hosted by Learning Science Ltd. See ref 14. Reprinted with permission. Copyright 2018.

graduate students and/or staff), and completing a short

initial briefing at the start of the session and at various key points throughout the experiment’s practical component. Previous module questionnaires for the CH1062 course (and indeed for CH1061) had revealed that many of students felt “inadequately prepared” for their laboratories and were not “confident with the set up” or “familiar with some of the equipment”. These free text comments were gathered at the

prelaboratory multiple choice quiz on the protocol and safety considerations. During the laboratory session the students are supervised by an academic lead and a team of postgraduate student demonstrators. The demonstrators are responsible for a group of students doing a set experiment and will conduct an B



Technology Report

Figure 3. Responses given by simulations after student input. (a) Feedback panel for an incorrect attempt. (b) Correct panel for completed simulation. All graphics are screen shots of the simulations hosted by Learning Science Ltd. See ref 14. Reprinted with permission. Copyright 2018.

interact with the simulation (inputs and decisions) while also being expected to act on the feedback they receive. The site access license and annual support (hosting, maintenance, updates, and customization of resource library) are funded by the departmental teaching budget at a pretax cost of £5000 ($6400 approx.) to Leicester per annum. The simulations themselves are built with HTML5, making them suitable across a variety of devices, and are compatible with any VLE in a variety of different browsers. The simulations are hosted externally by Learning Science Ltd., who provided Leicester with an LTI (Learning Tools Interoperability) link to each of the simulations to be embedded within the institution’s VLE. This type of LTI link integration provides a seamless server transition and allows “single-sign-on” access to the simulations by logging in to the local VLE. The links/simulations work on personal devices and university devices and can be accessed both on and off the campus indiscriminately of network connection type. Our decision to license these particular simulations was based on the visual quality, HTML5 construction, the simple VLE interface, the ability to monitor engagement, and the detailed

end of a series of Likert type multiple choice questions asking them to agree or disagree with a series of statements about their laboratory experience. For the previous cohort of CH1062, less than 60% felt adequately prepared, and less than 70% were confident with experimental setup (vide infra). As reported by Nakhleh, it was also evident from interaction with students that the primary support required by students from the laboratory demonstrators was procedural rather than academic.13 To change the above situation, simulations were piloted as an integral part of the prelaboratory activities, and a typical timeline for a student’s experience of a CH1062 experiment as a result of this change is shown in Figure 1.

■

LEARNING SCIENCE LABORATORY SIMULATIONS The new resources were developed by Learning Science Ltd., a software developer with an established portfolio of laboratory simulations for use in science degree programs.14 The Learning Science laboratory simulations cover a wide range of core laboratory techniques used in the first year of university study (e.g., experimental setups, thin layer chromatography, column chromatography, and 1H NMR spectroscopy). The simulations are dynamic in nature, meaning that students are required to C



Technology Report

lations come predetermined, there is scope to have bespoke simulations designed which meet individual requirements. The methods used to evaluate the student perceptions and performance data were subject to the University of Leicester’s Code of Practice for Research Ethics and were approved by an internal panel.

dynamic feedback provided to students by the Learning Science package.

■

EMBEDDING LABORATORY SIMULATIONS Upon licensing the simulations, we audited the entire catalogue of simulations available and embedded LTI links to the relevant simulations for each experiment in the appropriate sections of the VLE. An initial testing and training period was then used to ensure that module leads and support staff, including postgraduate student demonstrators, were familiar with simulations associated with the experiments they were responsible for. The VLE pages for the practical modules were reconstructed and divided into content folders, one for each experiment. Within this folder were the links to the instruction videos (hosted by YouTube), the LTI links for the simulations, pre-entry quizzes, and experimental writeup materials. It is important to note that no significant changes to the quizzes, videos, or laboratory manuals (layout or instruction) were made as part of this report.

■

USAGE STATISTICS Access to the simulations by the 99 first year students was monitored using the VLE’s usage statistics toolkit and through a report of LTI link traffic provided by Learning Science Ltd. Overall, the simulations were accessed 4034 times during the running of our pilot module, equating to an average (mean) of 5.1 views per week per student. Analysis of the LTI-link logs highlighted that for all simulations the number of views (per simulation) was higher than the number of distinct students accessing that simulation. Students were therefore capitalizing on the opportunity to reattempt the simulation to increase their own sense of preparedness. Students have indicated that they used the laboratory simulations for 10−20 minutes the day before the laboratory session. When tracking access per day for the whole semester, a peak of 35% of access events occurred the day before the experiment takes place (Tuesday), with the second highest day for access being the lab day itself (Wednesday) as shown in Figure 4. Interestingly, we did notice

■

USING LABORATORY SIMULATIONS Students were advised that they were not being assessed on their performance in these simulations, that they had unlimited attempts, and that they should attempt the required simulations before attending the session. While the focus was for students to use the simulations as a preparative activity, many students also chose to access them on the PCs provided in the laboratory during the contact sessions themselves. The general procedure for completing a laboratory simulation is as follows: 1. Students must navigate to the relevant section of the VLE for the next experiment they will be doing in the laboratory. Upon arrival at the relevant section of the VLE, students click the link(s) for the simulation(s) suggested for that experiment. 2. The simulation then provides an overview and instructions screen (Figure 2a). Once they are ready to proceed, the students need to click on “Start”. 3. Students read the protocol for the simulated experiment (Figure 2b) and review the condition of the preassembled apparatus. 4. Students then make any changes to the setup of the apparatus they feel necessary and then click “Check”. 5. Students then read the feedback from their attempt (Figure 3a), make further changes (if necessary) and then click “Check” again (if necessary). 6. Steps 4 and 5 are repeated until the “Correct” screen (Figure 3b) is shown. The above general procedure is largely the same for all simulations. A full list of simulations used and which experiments they were supporting is detailed in the Supporting Information. For this particular example (Rotary Evaporation), students are able to manipulate settings such as flask height, vacuum, water bath temperature, and motor. The range of simulation types includes data collection (e.g., the simulations on melting point analysis and titrations), assembly of apparatus, and performance of experimental techniques. The feedback in these simulations is based on the accuracy of the measurements that the students take (i.e., how close is the melting point range recorded to the “true” value?) or the correctness and safe assembly of the apparatus. While the feedback options (precision/correct assembly) for all simu-

Figure 4. Student access to the simulations tabulated according to week day.

that the average number of views per student was highest among students who self-identify as having a learning difficulty such as dyslexia, dyspraxia, or ADD (attention deficit disorder). We observed that this student subgroup had an average monthly view count 1.6× greater than that for the remaining cohort, potentially because this group is likely to require more exposure to the material in advance of the session as a result of their self-identified learning difficulty.

■

IMPACT OF STUDENT CONFIDENCE AND PERFORMANCE Pleasingly, we have noticed a positive impact on student confidence, competency, and attainment as a result of the adoption of prelaboratory simulations as a component of their online prelaboratory preparation. The comparison of the endof-module student feedback for the cohorts with and without the simulations is shown in Figure 5. The data reveals a nonstatistically significant increase (p > 0.05, analyzed using an independent samples t test) of 6% in student preparedness for the laboratory sessions and a nonstatistically significant increase (p > 0.05, analyzed using an independent samples t test) of 10% in student confidence in setting up experiments D



Technology Report

of Leicester’s first and second year chemistry practical modules.

■

ASSOCIATED CONTENT

* Supporting Information S

The Supporting Information is available on the ACS Publications website at DOI: 10.1021/acs.jchemed.8b00549. Simulation experiment alignment matrix for CH1062 and full list of topics covered in the Chemistry Library of Simulations (as of August 2018) (PDF)

■

Figure 5. Pre- and post-module student evaluative comments.

AUTHOR INFORMATION

Corresponding Authors

*E-mail: [email protected]. *E-mail: [email protected]. *E-mail: [email protected].

for those students taking the module after the implementation of simulations. All other elements of the prelab were consistent for both the premodule and postmodule groups. In order to determine the transformative effect of the simulations on student attitudes to the laboratory environment, a small focus group was held. First, as also reflected in the improvement of the lab mark (vide infra), the interactive simulations were useful to develop lab performance. One student said “I was faster in the lab thanks to practicing the techniques with the simulations beforehand.” Second, it has been revealed that the new resources have helped to increase the students’ confidence in the lab. During the interviews, one of the students commented that “they gave me a lot more confidence in the lab. (...) it also helped me remember how to perform certain techniques as it was learnt in an environment that’s not so [sic.] stressful as the lab.” Another student answered that “it gave me confidence as it feels like you’ve had some practice before you have actually done the experiment.” Additionally, using the previous CH1062 cohort as a control, and the same assessors for both cohorts, it was possible to compare the average (mean) lab performance mark before and after the introduction of these simulations. The cohort taking the class without the aid of simulations scored an average (mean) of 67% for this component of their assessment while those who had access to the simulation had an average score of 74%. Finally, a debrief meeting with the experimental demonstrators ascertained that compared to previous years “student questions now tended to focus on theory rather than set-up”. The majority of student questions were “no longer centered on how to perform an operation” but rather the “theory they would need to understand their analyses and experimental writeups”. Demonstrators also noticed that students were less likely to run out of time and were generally more confident and competent in the lab.

ORCID

Richard A. R. Blackburn: 0000-0003-4074-9318 Dylan P. Williams: 0000-0002-1260-5926 Notes

The authors declare no competing financial interest.

■

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The authors acknowledge Iain Thistlethwaite and Learning Science Ltd. for their assistance in auditing the portfolio of laboratory simulations, their support during the integration of LTI links on the VLE, and the provision of usage statistics. We acknowledge Photography by Design Services, University of Leicester, for assistance with images in the abstract graphic.

■

REFERENCES

(1) (a) Reid, N.; Shah, I. The role of laboratory work in university chemistry. Chem. Educ. Res. Pract. 2007, 8 (2), 172−185. (b) Elliott, M. J.; Stewart, K. K.; Lagowski, J. J. The Role of the Laboratory in Chemistry Instruction. J. Chem. Educ. 2008, 85 (1), 145. (2) Committee on Professional Training. Undergraduate Professional Education in Chemistry: ACS Guidelines and Evaluation Procedures for Bachelor’s Degree Programs; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2015. https://www.acs.org/content/dam/acsorg/about/ governance/committees/training/2015-acs-guidelines-for-bachelorsdegree-programs.pdf (accessed October 2018). (3) Chaytor, J. L.; Al Mughalaq, M.; Butler, H. Development and Use of Online Prelaboratory Activities in Organic Chemistry To Improve Students’ Laboratory Experience. J. Chem. Educ. 2017, 94 (7), 859−866. (4) (a) Smith, S.; Stovall, I. Networked Instructional Chemistry: Using Technology To Teach Chemistry. J. Chem. Educ. 1996, 73 (10), 911. (b) Climent-Bellido, M. S.; Martínez-Jiménez, P.; PontesPedrajas, A.; Polo, J. Learning in Chemistry with Virtual Laboratories. J. Chem. Educ. 2003, 80 (3), 346. (c) Weibel, J. D. Working toward a Paperless Undergraduate Physical Chemistry Teaching Laboratory. J. Chem. Educ. 2016, 93 (4), 781−784. (5) Teo, T. W.; Tan, K. C. D.; Yan, Y. K.; Teo, Y. C.; Yeo, L. W. How flip teaching supports undergraduate chemistry laboratory learning. Chem. Educ. Res. Pract. 2014, 15 (4), 550−567. (6) (a) Crandall, P. G.; O’Bryan, C. A.; Killian, S. A.; Beck, D. E.; Jarvis, N.; Clausen, E. A Comparison of the Degree of Student Satisfaction using a Simulation or a Traditional Wet Lab to Teach Physical Properties of Ice. J. Food Sci. Educ. 2015, 14 (1), 24−29. (b) Hawkins, I.; Phelps, A. J. Virtual laboratory vs. traditional laboratory: which is more effective for teaching electrochemistry? Chem. Educ. Res. Pract. 2013, 14 (4), 516−523. (c) Jolley, D. F.; Wilson, S. R.; Kelso, C.; O’Brien, G.; Mason, C. E. Analytical

■

SUMMARY The introduction of interactive prelaboratory simulations developed by Learning Science Ltd. in the Department of Chemistry at the University of Leicester provided our students with an opportunity to attempt virtual versions of common experimental techniques and equipment before entering the laboratory environment. The resources have been very popular with students commenting that they were “faster in the lab thanks to practising [sic.] the techniques with the simulations beforehand”. The simulations have also contributed to increased attainment and improvement in the student confidence level. Following this successful pilot, the simulations are now being embedded in all of the University E



Technology Report

Thinking, Analytical Action: Using Prelab Video Demonstrations and e-Quizzes To Improve Undergraduate Preparedness for Analytical Chemistry Practical Classes. J. Chem. Educ. 2016, 93 (11), 1855− 1862. (7) Gryczka, P.; Klementowicz, E.; Sharrock, C.; Maxfield, M.; Montclare, J. K. LabLessons: Effects of Electronic Prelabs on Student Engagement and Performance. J. Chem. Educ. 2016, 93 (12), 2012− 2017. (8) Ramos, S.; Pimentel, E. P.; Marietto M. d. G, B.; Botelho, W. T. In Hands-on and Virtual Laboratories to Undergraduate Chemistry Education: Toward a Pedagogical Integration; 2016 IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE); 12−15 Oct 2016; pp 1−8. (9) Binder, B. Qualitative analysis simulation. J. Chem. Educ. 1979, 56 (2), 108. (10) Ricci, R. W.; Van Doren, J. M. Using Dynamic Simulation Software in the Physical Chemistry Laboratory. J. Chem. Educ. 1997, 74 (11), 1372. (11) Brooks, D. W.; Tipton, T. J.; Lyons, E. J. Laboratory simulations by computer-driven laser videodiscs. J. Chem. Educ. 1985, 62 (6), 514. (12) (a) Rittenhouse, R. C. HPLC: A computer simulation of highperformance liquid chromatography. J. Chem. Educ. 1988, 65 (12), 1050. (b) Haigh, J.; Lord, J. R. Simulation of the Physical Chemistry of Gas Chromatography. J. Chem. Educ. 2000, 77 (11), 1528. (13) Nakhleh, M. B. Chemical Education Research in the Laboratory Environment: How Can Research Uncover What Students Are Learning? J. Chem. Educ. 1994, 71 (3), 201. (14) Learning Science Ltd. homepage. https://www.learnsci.co.uk/ (accessed October 2018).

F


Preparing Students for Practical Sessions Using Laboratory

Recommend Documents