Survey of Long-Term lntegrated Laboratory Use in Undergraduate Chemistry Programs K. Machele Miller and David S. ~ a ~ e '
University of Nebraska, Lincoln, N E 68588 I n recent years a number of undergraduate Table 1. Responding Institutions with Past or Present Experience chemistry programs have sought new ways to in lntegrated Laboratories provide students with a better overall view of chemistrv and the wav i t is a o ~ l i e din the real California Inst. Tech. (Pasadena. CA) Univ Illinois (Urbana, IL) world. ~ L i is s illustratkd by a recent NSF report Carnegie-Mellon Univ (Pittsburgh, PA) Univ lowa (lowa City, IA) oointine out the im~ortanceof seekine alternati\.e approaches to undt~rgr;idu:itv instructmn Colgate University (Hamilton. NY) Univ. Kansas (Lawrence, KS) I I . One such :~lrt~m:ltivr approach is the use of integrated chemistry labor&ries. An integrated Michigan State University (E. Lansing, MI) Univ. Missouri (Columbia. MO) chemistry laboratorv refers to the use of experi- Rensselaer Polytech. Inst. (Troy, NY) Univ North Carolina (Chapel Hill, NC) ments t h a t teach techniques or obtained from two or more areas of chemistry (ex., Univ. Cal.-Los Angeles (Los Angeles, CA) Williamette University (Salem, OR) analytical and physical chemistry). The theoreiical advantages of this type of lab are that it presents the &dent with more realistic picture of how chemistry is performed in an i n d k t r i a l or research members of UNL's peer group regardless of whether or not setting and helps students to see the interdependence of they had any known experience with integrated laboratothe different chemical disciplines (2). ries. The Chemistrv D e ~ a r t m e n ta t the Universitv of Nebraska-Lincoln ( u N ~ )recently examined the pos&ble use Survey Results of intemated lahoratories in an u ~ m a d eof its current unThe survey on integrated laboratory use was sent during dergra2uate program. As part of %s process, a literature the Summer of 1992 to chemistry departments a t 28 U. S. survev was first conducted on the use of intemated chemcolleees and universities. I n this survev. ", a n inteerated istry iaboratories by other institutions. over the search pelaboratory was defined as "an experiment, series of expeririod of 1965-1992, only seven specific reports from U. S. ments or laboratorv course which combines the use or orinschools or universities were found (2-9). These reports inciples of two or more fields of chemistry." The group'surcluded five descriptions of class and laboratory sequences veved consisted of 11chemistry. d e.~ a r t m e n t sknown from (3-7) and a short commentarv on the advantaees and disthk literature (2-9) or other sources to have used inteadvantages of integrated lab&atories (8). A 19?9 survey of grated laboratories (Group A) and 17 institutions made up North American universities bv Cartwrieht examinine the of Midwest universities or members of the University of actual and perceived advantagesldisadvantages of inteNebraska's peer group (Group B). A total of 17 institutions mated labs (2) also was considered in the literature survev. (61%) responded to the survey, including eight from Group Some advantages of integrated labs cited i n these reA and 9 from Group B. Those answering the survey inports are that thev allow more efficient utilization of labocluded 15 professors, two instructors, two laboratory direcEatery equipment (8) and give students a more holistic tors, and one lecturer. In some cases more than one review of chemistry ( 2 3 ) . Disadvantaaes mentioned insponse per institution was obtained. cluded the greatertime and commitment required by facOf all the chemistry departments responding to the surulty versus conventional laboratories (4, 61, organizational vey, a total of 12 (eight from Group A and 4 from Group B) difficulties (2, 4, 6, 81, and the lack of suitable texts or exreported the past or present use of integrated lahoratories. periments (2). Despite these disadvantages, the user instiA list of these institutions is given in Table 1. The time tutions generally considered the advantages of integrated ~ e r i o d over s which these departments had used inteerated laboratories to make them a worthwhile endeavor (3-7). iabs ranged from eight to 2g years, with an average zf 16.5 However, the survey by Cartwright of both user and nonyears. The levels and areas of chemistry combined to form user institutions was less conclusive regarding the value of the integrated labs are shown in the figure. More than twothis approach (2). thirds of the integrated labs were a t the Junior and Senior In our review of these reports, we found that one item levels. The most common types of integrated labs were not specificallv considered was the lone term behavior or those combining analytical/~hysical chemistrv and inor. . success of a n htegrated laboratory For example, ganidorganic chemist&. in most of the previous reports (3,5, 7-81 the labs described had been i n use for fewer than five years. We obtained data Resources used in the development of the integrated on the long term success of integrated labs by conducting a laboratories were predominantly generated in-house survey of institutions that had previously reported their (51121, but were also obtained from the literature (31121, use and of other schools known to have similar programs. faculty research projects (2112) or lab texts (21121. Lack of Another concern we had regarding earlier reports was that resources in developing integrated chemistry experiments only one was from a Midwest university similar to UNL in was cited as a problem in only one of the surveys. size and mission (3). This item was dealt with by sending Each of the departments with experience in integrated the same survey to various Midwest universities andlor labs was asked to compare these to normal labs in terms of the student knowledge gained, the faculty time required, 'Author to whom correspondence should be addressed. etc. A summary of the responses is shown in Table 2. No
-
-
-
248
Journal of Chemical Education
-
Freshman
Sophomore
Course Type and Level Types and levels of integrated laboratories offeredat institutions with past or current integrated lab experience
apparent differences were noted i n the results obtained from departments t h a t currently used integrated laboratories (6114 responses) versus those in which integrated lahs had once been used but were later discontinued (8114 responses). Similar results also were noted regardless of whether the school was from Group A o r B. Overall, integrated laboratories were ranked better than normal chemistry labs in terms of the amount of student knowledge and experience gained, the preparation of students for researchlacademia and t h e utilization of lab equipment. These items were consistently cited as t h e main advantages of using integrated laboratories. Examples of positive comments which reflect this were:
Table 2. Comparison of lntegrated and Conventional Chemistry Laboratories by Departments with Present or Past Experience in lntegrated Laboratories Relative Rank of lntegrated Labs (Numberof ResponseslTotal) Item
Better
Same
Worse
Ease of Operation
3/14
7114
4/14
Time Involvement of FacultyiT.A.'s
3/13
3/13
7113 1114
Utilization of Laboratory Equipment 10114
3114
Student Knowledge Gained
10113
311 3
"Students are much more confident about their laboratory skills." "Students are better prepared for undergraduate research." "The faculty involved became more educated in the other
Student Experience Gained
11114
3114
Student Preparation for Academia1 9115 Graduate School
5/15
1/15
area."
Student Preparation for Nonacademic Jobs
7115
2/15
These benefits agree with those predicted or obtained in earlier studies ( 2 3 , 8 ) . The data in Table 2 ranked integrated laboratories worse t h a n conventional labs in terms of the ease of operation and t h e increased time involvement of faculty and teaching assistants. Comments made to t h e survey indicated t h a t these were t h e main disadvantages of using integrated laboratories. Examples of statements that reflected this included: "Integrated lahs are difficult to associate with a single disciplinary course. If the integrated lab is not a separate course, serious orablems in facultv and student responsibilities and expectations can arise." "Great administrative problems-tendency for no discipline to take real responsibility for the lab course." "It is very tough to keep an integrated lab program going. You need a group of dedicated faculty to oversee the program." "Took too much time teachinglpreparing. With large teaching loads we couldn't afford to have two professors in one lab course each semester."
6/15
Despite these problems, instructors a t two institutions stated that they still felt the benefits of integrated labs far outweighed its disadvantages. Of t h e 12 departments t h a t had used integrated labs, half (6112) no longer used them or were in the process of discontinuing their use. The reasons most often cited for this were 1. the failure of any one division to take responsibility for
the labs, 2, faculty time constraints, and 3, lack of faculty participation.
Examples of specific comments made on why these labs were discontinued were: "The integrated laboratories which we discontinued. . .languished because they could not be strongly associated with a single course. As a result, it was difficult to tell who was re-
Volume 72
Number 3 March 1995
249
sponsible for the course and the various segments did not hang together well." "No discipline area took primary responsibilityfor multi-dis-
tired of being always involved in the lab instruction:" These results indicated the need for a group of committed faculty and for well-defined ground ~ l e i ns determining which divisions are responsible for a n integrated lab. Each of these institutions also was asked to rank the overall response of students, faculty, and teaching assistants (if applicable) to the integrated labs. In a series of five choices (excellent, generally positive, average, somewhat negative, or poor), the average responses for all three types of individuals were in the "generally positive" category. The typical responses of faculty and students a t institutions that had discontinued the use of integrated labs were only slightly lower (between "generally positive" and "average") than a t institutions which were current users. Conclusions In summaw. a survey of institutions with lonc-term experience i n ikegrated-labs indicated that this-approach does offer a number of advantages over conventional laboratories. These advantages iniluded a n improvement in the amount of student knowledge and experience gained, the better ~ r e ~ a r a t i oofn students for research and the more efficient utilization of lab equipment. Disadvantages associated with integrated labs included their greater difficulty of operation and the increased time commitment reauired bv facultv and teaching assistants. These results &ee with those obtained in earlier studies of these programs (2-9). A fairly high proportion (50%) of the integrated labs in this survey were no longer in use or were in the process of being discontinued. The reasons commonly @ve" t*r this wrre'frw:lty tinw cunstrdints, lack of facul~i. panirtpntion, 2nd the, lack of clcwlr- defined dlvlslonal responsibilities in teaching the lab.
..
250
Journal of Chemical Education
These results indicate that integrated labs are definitely worth ~ u r s u i n ai n terms of the student benefits obtained. ~ e c a n s eof this, plans are now being made to begin some integrated labs a t UNL. However, this survey also suggests that several precautions be observed before implementing these labs. For example, firm ground rules must be in place regarding which divisions will he responsible for supervising the lab and which pool of faculty members will he involved in teaching it. The increased time commitment, especially in the early stages of the program, might require that some release time be granted for faculty involved in the lab's development. A definite purpose and plan of attack also should exist for implementing this type of lab, a s opposed to starting it for the mere purpose of trvinn something new. With these ~recautions.an integr&z laboratorihas the potential to be an enriching experience for both facultv and students. If these items are not considered, the may eventually become more of a burden than a blessing. Acknowledgment The authors thank the University of Nebraska for funding this project and those individuals who participated in Dart.. this survev. S u ~ ~ ofor r t K. M. M. was obtained. in . through a'199i-1992 fellowship from the U. S: Department of Education under the Graduate Assistance in Areas of National Needs (GAANN)program. Literature Cited 1. La Salk, A. J.. Ed. Repon on the Nntionol Seipnec Fovndviion Dirciplinc~Wwkshops on Undergmduak Education; National Science Foundation: Washinnon, DC, 1389. 2. Cartwright, H. M. J. Chem. Educ 1980.S7.309-311. 3. Brown, T.L. J. Cham. Educ. 1972.49, 633-635. 4 . Cochian. J. C.; Lewis. D. K.: Stagg, W. R.:Wolf. W A. J. Chem Educ 1972, d9. 630cT3
5 . Goodney. D. E.: Hudak. N. J.: Chappie. F H.: Brink. C.
P J. Chrm. Educ 1986.63.
