Research: Science & Education
The Nature and State of General Chemistry Laboratory Courses Offered by Colleges and Universities in the United States The Chemical Education Group: Michael R. Abraham,* Mark S. Cracolice, A. Palmer Graves, Abdulwali H. Aldhamash, Joann G. Kihega, Julieta G. Palma Gil, and Valsamma Varghese Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry, University of Oklahoma, Norman, OK 73019 In recent years there has been renewed interest in renovating general chemistry courses in colleges and universities. The National Science Foundation has a program designed to upgrade beginning chemistry courses and the American Chemical Society has a task force looking into improving general chemistry. Much of this interest has focused on the laboratory. As curriculum and instructional strategies used in laboratory will potentially change over the next years, it would be useful to learn where we stand now. How is general chemistry laboratory taught and managed? What varieties of practices are being used? To investigate these questions, the chemical education group at the University of Oklahoma conducted a survey on the nature and state of general chemistry laboratory courses offered in the United States. We asked coordinators of the first general chemistry course at colleges and universities to provide information for this survey. The questionnaire and the responses of those who returned the survey are in the Appendix, which is available on JCE Online (http://jchemed.chem.wisc.edu/). Laboratory experience is an essential part of learning chemistry. It helps students comprehend concepts and develop skills to a degree that cannot be accomplished by lecture or demonstration methods alone (1, 2). Different instructional strategies for teaching general chemistry in the laboratory have been suggested (3–5). The role of the laboratory has been an ongoing interest of chemistry educators. The curriculum and instructional strategies used in the laboratory have undergone many changes over the years (6). The following discussion describes the results of the survey. These results can help in evaluating and putting into perspective ideas for the improvement of general chemistry laboratory courses. Survey Design The survey instrument was designed by the chemical education group at the University of Oklahoma. The group comprised one faculty member and six graduate students in various stages of their studies. In a series of brainstorming sessions, topic categories and issues associated with laboratory were identified. Potential questionnaire items were written and rewritten. Reviews of a 1986 survey on general chemistry laboratory courses (7) and the items in a previous research study concerning laboratory instruction (8) were also used to identify some general-chemistry laboratory concerns that could be addressed by the survey. The questionnaire was reviewed and modifications were suggested by chemical education faculty from other institutions. Finally, the survey packet, which included a cover letter, the questionnaire, and an answer sheet, was sent to the
W
coordinators of the first general chemistry laboratory course at colleges and universities for their responses. The main focus of our survey was on the following category topics: laboratory administration, laboratory goals, laboratory procedures, laboratory instructor preparation, laboratory instructor behaviors, teaching assistant qualifications, and laboratory equipment and instrumentation. The Sample The population from which the survey sample was chosen consisted of the approximately 600 U.S. colleges and universities with chemistry programs approved by the American Chemical Society. Three hundred of these institutions were randomly chosen as the sample. The survey questionnaire, an answer sheet, and an instruction sheet were mailed to each of the 300 institutions in the sample. A follow-up letter was mailed 30 days after the initial mailing to those institutions that had not yet returned the survey instrument. A final total of 203 institutions returned the questionnaire, a return of 68%. Four of the returned surveys were omitted from the analysis because these institutions do not offer general chemistry as their first laboratory course. Institutions were classified as small if the total student population was less than 3000 and large if the student population exceeded 12,000. Twentynine percent of the institutions in the sample were small, 37% were mid-sized, and 34% were large. Results The following discussions summarize and interpret the results of each section of the survey. The discussions are limited to selected items and are not intended to be comprehensive. Readers are invited to study the raw data of the survey for their own interpretation and to explore issues not covered in the following discussions (see Appendix, in JCE Online: http://jchemed.chem.wisc.edu).
Section 1. Laboratory Administration Several questions concerning the administrative and organizational aspects of the laboratory were asked in this section of the survey. The results were similar to those found in a previous survey (7), although that survey was limited to selected large institutions. Differences in administrative practice exist among institutions of different size. In 71% of small schools, the instructor of the lecture course directly instructs and supervises the laboratory. This is in contrast with large institutions, where only 18% of the instructors of the lecture course directly instruct and supervise the laboratory. Overall, the preparation of materials and equipment for the laboratory was done by a staff laboratory manager in 54% of
*Corresponding author. Email:
[email protected].
Vol. 74 No. 5 May 1997 • Journal of Chemical Education
591
Research: Science & Education
Section 2. Laboratory Goals In section 2 of the survey, respondents were given the opportunity to choose the relative importance of five general goals or outcomes of a laboratory program: concepts, processes, skills, facts, and attitudes. Although many would argue that all five goals are important, the questions in this section were organized to force respondents to rank the goals. By weighting the percentage of time each goal was chosen as first through fifth, it was possible to obtain an overall average ranking (1 = highest to 5 = lowest) for the five goals and, consequently, to determine the overall relative importance of the goals. Table 1 summarizes those results. According to this information, the development of concepts is considered the most important outcome of a laboratory program and learning factual information is the least important. This result represents a historical shift from the stated goals of laboratory found in the literature. In the 1950s, factual information was emphasized; and in the 1960s, there was an emphasis on scientific processes (6). Furthermore, some chemical educators have called for increasing the amount of “descriptive chemistry” (i.e., factual information) in general chemistry courses (10–12). It might be argued that the natural venue for the study of descriptive chemistry is in the laboratory (13, 14). However, a concern for descriptive chemistry (as represented by factual information) is not reflected in the results of this survey. Table 1. Average Rank of Laboratory Goals
Section 3. Laboratory Procedures
Two issues explored in this section are of particular interConcepts 2.12 est: the relationship Laboratory Skills 2.43 between laboratory Scientific Processes 2.49 and lecture, and the Positive Attitudes 3.71 extent to which inquiry-based laboraLearning Facts 4.31 tory formats are being used. There are four categories that define the relationship between the lecture and laboratory components of general chemistry: (i) stand alone (lab is a separate course), (ii) no formal coordination, (iii) coordinated (topics in lab and lecGoal
592
Ave.Rank
80
% Respondents
70
Small Mid-Sized
60
Large
50
All Schools
40 30 20 10 Integrated
Coordinated
No Coordination
Stand Alone
0
Figure 1. Categories of laboratory/lecture relationships.
90 80 70
% Respondents
the institutions and by the course instructor in 21% of the institutions surveyed. In small schools, the preparation of materials and equipment is done by a staff laboratory manager in 38% and by the course instructor in 40% of those surveyed. In the interest of safety, the American Chemical Society recommends 25 students per instructor as the maximum capacity of a chemistry laboratory (9). Our survey supports the findings of Rund et al. (7) that these safety guidelines are violated by a significant number of institutions. Seventy-four percent of institutions schedule laboratory for 3 hours per week. Sixty-eight percent of laboratory instructors have between 3 and 8 contact hours per week in laboratory-related activities. This seems to indicate that the most common instructional commitment for instructors is two laboratory sections. These contact hours also include recitation/discussion periods. Approximately 70% of institutions have a recitation/discussion period that supports the laboratory. The laboratory directions used in general chemistry are predominantly unpublished, internally produced manuals (60%); commercial manuals (29%) or separates (11%) are also used.
60
Small Mid-Size Large All Schools
50 40 30 20 10 0 None
Discussion → Lab → Lab Discussion
Figure 2. Discussion/laboratory relationships.
ture are studied at about the same time), and (iv) integrated (results in lab are used in lecture). Figure 1 summarizes how the lecture and laboratory components of general chemistry are related. The data show that a coordinated relationship is by far the most common association between the laboratory and lecture in general chemistry courses. Only a handful of institutions have integrated laboratories. Increasing numbers of journal articles seem to recommend the use of discovery or guided and open inquiry laboratory as a procedural format for instruction (3, 15–22). To what extent have these laboratory formats found their way into practice? This question, and the very nature of the general chemistry laboratory, have been of interest to us for some time. A previous research study found that inquirybased laboratory and traditional laboratory formats have different characteristics that are recognized by the students exposed to them (8). Several of these characteristics inspired items presented in this section of our survey. These items emphasize the role of the student in laboratory activities. Ninety-one percent of respondents said their students often or almost always follow step-by-step instructions from the laboratory guide. Eighty percent said their students seldom or never are allowed to go beyond regular laboratory exercises and do experiments on their own. Sixty-eight percent said their students seldom or never are asked to design their own experi-
Journal of Chemical Education • Vol. 74 No. 5 May 1997
Research: Science & Education ments. Seventy-nine percent said their students seldom or never identify the problems to be investigated. These items when presented to students (8) characterize traditional laboratory formats. Furthermore, when students who are exposed to this more common laboratory type are asked to indicate the relative importance of laboratory goals (see the discussion for section 2), they identify their laboratories as stressing factual knowledge and skills over concept development. If any one characteristic differentiates inquiry laboratory from traditional laboratory formats, it is the relationship between data and concepts. In traditional laboratory formats, laboratory data are used to verify or confirm the validity of a concept (concept → data). This is sometimes referred to as a deductive use of laboratory. In inquiry formats, laboratory data are used to introduce concepts (data → concept). This is an inductive use of laboratory. Figure 2 shows the extent of the use of inductive laboratory in our sample. At the present time only about 8% of colleges and universities use inquiry laboratories.
Sections 4–6. Laboratory Instructor Preparation, Laboratory Instructor Behaviors, and Teaching Assistant Qualifications These sections were concerned with laboratory instructors, their preparation, and activities. Questions about how laboratory instructors are prepared for teaching were asked. Of all the universities and colleges surveyed, 37% do not give any formal training. Of those that give some kind of training, 59% 1 conduct informal individualized training by an experienced instructor and 56% conduct formal training by the department. For those who conduct departmental training, 17% spend more than one day in training activities. The most common topic of departmental instructor preparation sessions is safety (98% of institutions have preparation sessions). Other common topics are discussion of grading techniques (83%), analysis of laboratory activities (75%), discussion of teaching theory and goals of the laboratory course (72%), and discussions of handling problem students (66%). Of those institutions with international laboratory instructors, 81% provide the same training as for other lab instructors, while 34% provide additional training in verbal English. Forty-one percent of those surveyed do not use international lab instructors. As might be expected, a large portion (62%) of those who do not use international lab instructors are small schools and only a small portion (12%) are large schools. When asked about the behaviors of the laboratory instructor during the laboratory period, 71% said instructors often or almost always go around the room and ask students questions about the experiment and 64% said instructors often or almost always check the results and data of students while they are doing the experiment. Since a number of colleges and universities in the United States (especially large institutions with graduate programs) use teaching assistants to teach general chemistry laboratory courses, questions were asked about the qualifications of teaching assistants. Ninety-four percent of those who use teaching assistants to instruct laboratories assign faculty to supervise the teaching assistants. The minimum required qualifications of teaching assistants are spoken English proficiency (63%), and admission to departmental graduate program or a chemistry undergraduate major (both 60%). Seventy-three percent indicate that reappointment of teaching assistants is dependent on good standing as a student and 38% said it is dependent on student evaluation. Twenty-six to twenty-nine percent of the schools surveyed do not use teaching assistants. Only 6-10%
of this group are large schools.
Section 7. Laboratory Assessment Several questions concerning laboratory assessment were addressed in this section of the survey. Returns showed that in most institutions laboratory reports are the major contributor to the laboratory grade. Seventy-one percent also use prelab quizzes to account for up to 25% of the laboratory grade. The grades on these reports are mainly based on consistency between data and conclusions (60% of institutions). Laboratory and lecture grades are kept separate in 38% of the responding institutions. When the laboratory grade contributes to the overall course grade, it most often accounts for between 20 and 35% of that grade. Laboratory quizzes or exams stress knowledge about concepts or principles in 89% of those institutions that have them. Fifty-five percent of those institutions stress knowledge of scientific terms. These data are consistent with the data in section 2 that show concepts as the most important goal and learning facts as the least important goal of a laboratory program.
Section 8. Laboratory Equipment and Instrumentation Although uses for computers have expanded exponentially in our society during the last decade, computers are being used very little in general chemistry labs at colleges and universities in the United States. This survey revealed that little of the available technology is used in first course general chemistry labs. We found that only 26% of the colleges and universities use computers at all to do any laboratory activities. Furthermore, only 12% of the total schools, slightly less than half of the schools that use computers, use them for two or more laboratory activities. A larger number (46%) provide access to computers, but use them mostly for graphing and computations. Interestingly, it seems to be the small and medium schools that are more likely to be using computers in lab, while large universities lag behind. The survey also polled schools to find out what other kinds of technology are being used in chemistry laboratory. Twelve percent of the responding schools are using an IR spectrophotometer in general chemistry lab and 4% are using an NMR spectrometer. It appears that more than half of the schools that use these instruments allow students to run the instruments with some supervision. Use of this technology is more prevalent in the small and medium colleges than in large universities. Most schools are now using some forms of lower technology in lab. For instance, most responding schools are now using electronic balances and about 71% are using UVvis spectrophotometers and pH meters. However, we find that only one fifth of the schools train students in the theory of how pH meters measure pH, and only slightly more than a third teach the theory of how a UV-vis spectrophotometer functions. This shows that a majority of schools are content to use these instruments solely for gathering data. Discussion There are inherent weaknesses in gathering information through a survey. These include the danger that respondents will provide inaccurate information. This may happen for a number of reasons including a misinterpretation of the questions or the perception of the answer through an unconscious personal bias. For example, what can account for the possible difference between the instructor’s perception that the most important goal for laboratory work is concept development and students’ per-
Vol. 74 No. 5 May 1997 • Journal of Chemical Education
593
Research: Science & Education ception that factual knowledge is more heavily stressed? Nevertheless, survey information can call attention to issues and concerns that need further consideration. With the exception of items associated with the use of teaching assistants and graduate students and several other items highlighted in the discussion, the size of the institution had remarkably little effect on the pattern of responses (see for example Fig. 1 and 2). As some of our more alert respondents noticed, we inadvertently duplicated a question (50 and 53). Fortunately, the responses to these two questions were similar enough to serve as evidence for the internal consistency and reliability of the survey. As mentioned before, there was no attempt to be comprehensive in our discussion. We focused on issues that were of interest to us; others may focus on issues in the survey not discussed. We welcome comments and observations from those whose interpretation may differ from ours. Acknowledgments We would like to thank the large number of our colleagues who took the time to respond to our questionnaire. This survey was supported by funds from the University of Oklahoma Research Council. Note 1. Because respondents might select more than one answer, percentages were calculated by eliminating the actual number of institutions not involved and then calculating the proportion of institutions in each subcategory. Therefore, on item 24, 37% of 199 institutions had no formal training. This means 125 institutions do provide training. Thirty-seven percent of 199 institutions (or 74)
594
used an experienced instructor to provide informal individualized training. This is 74/125 or 59% of institutions that do have training programs.
Literature Cited 1. Abraham, M. R. J. Coll. Sci. Teach. 1988–89, 18, 185–187, 200. 2. Abraham, M. R. In Research Matters…to the Science Teacher, Monogr. No. 5; Lawrenz, F.; Cochran, K.; Krajcik, J.; Simpson, P., Eds.; National Association for Research in Science Teaching: Kansas State University, Manhattan, 1992; pp 41–50. 3. Jackman, L. E.; Moellenberg, W. P.; Brabson, G. D. J. Chem. Educ. 1987, 64, 794–796. 4. Mellon, E. K. J. Chem. Educ. 1977, 54, 115–118. 5. Mellon, E. K. J. Chem. Educ. 1978, 55, 517–518. 6. Lloyd, B. W. J. Chem. Educ. 1992, 69, 866–869. 7. Rund, J. V.; Keller, P. C.; Brown, S. L. J. Chem. Educ. 1989, 66, 161–164. 8. Abraham, M. R. J. Res. Sci. Teach. 1982, 19, 155–165. 9. ACS. Safety in Academic Chemistry Laboratories; 5th ed.; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 1990. 10. Zuckerman, J. J. J. Chem. Educ. 1986, 63, 829–833. 11. Hudson, M. J. Chem. Educ. 1980, 57, 770–772. 12. Gorman, M. J. Chem. Educ. 1983, 60, 214–216. 13. Whisnant, D. M. J. Chem. Educ. 1982, 59, 792–794. 14. Basolo, F.; Parry, R. W. J. Chem. Educ. 1980, 57, 772–777. 15. Ryan, M. A.; Robinson, D.; Carmichael, J. W., Jr. J. Chem. Educ. 1980, 57, 642–645. 16. Whisnant, D. M. J. Coll. Sci. Teach. 1983, 12, 434–435. 17. Pavelich, M. J.; Abraham, M. R. J. Chem. Educ. 1979, 56, 100– 103. 18. Allen, J. B.; Barker, L. N.; Ramsden, J. H. J. Chem. Educ. 1986, 63, 533–534. 19. New Directions for General Chemistry: A Resource for Curricular Change from the Task Force on the General Chemistry Curriculum; Lloyd, B. W., Ed.; Division of Chemical Education of the American Chemical Society: Department of Chemistry, Franklin and Marshall College, Lancaster, PA, 1994. 20. Trifone, J. D. Am. Biol. Teacher 1991, 53, 330–333. 21. Zollman, D. The Physics Teacher 1990, 28, 20–25. 22. Lawson, A. E. Am. Biol. Teacher 1988, 50, 266–289.
Journal of Chemical Education • Vol. 74 No. 5 May 1997
