Transforming a Traditional Laboratory to an Inquiry-Based Course

Jun 20, 2017 - Laboratory course redesign and effective implementation of an inquiry-based curriculum can be challenging, particularly when teaching ...
0 downloads 0 Views 268KB Size
Download PDF
Article pubs.acs.org/jchemeduc

Transforming a Traditional Laboratory to an Inquiry-Based Course: Importance of Training TAs when Redesigning a Curriculum Lindsay B. Wheeler,*,†,‡ Charles P. Clark,† and Charles M. Grisham† †

Department of Chemistry and ‡Center for Teaching Excellence, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, Virginia 22904, United States S Supporting Information *

ABSTRACT: Laboratory course redesign and effective implementation of an inquiry-based curriculum can be challenging, particularly when teaching assistants (TAs) are responsible for instruction. Our multiyear redesign of a traditional general chemistry laboratory course has included transitioning to a project based guided inquiry (PBGI) curriculum that emphasizes chemical lab techniques, self-driven experiments, and development of scientific writing skills as well as development of an intensive, inquiry-based training for TAs. The purpose of this article is to describe our inquiry-based laboratory curriculum and TA training, discuss the benefits of an immersive week-long training process for both undergraduate TAs (UTAs) and graduate TAs (GTAs), provide evidence of efficacy of our program, and offer suggestions on ways to develop a similar model in other university contexts. By providing extended training for all TAs that covers teaching theory, pedagogy, and practical aspects of lab, this course now allows students to master chemical concepts while learning to think and act like scientists. KEYWORDS: Curriculum, Laboratory Instruction, Inquiry-Based/Discovery Learning, Constructivism, Student-Centered Learning, TA Training/Orientation, First-Year Undergraduate/General

■

INTRODUCTION Undergraduate science laboratory courses almost always require teaching assistants (TAs), making TAs an important component of a quality undergraduate academic experience. At large, research-intensive universities, TAs are typically graduate students (GTAs), while undergraduate students (UTAs) are more often used in smaller, liberal arts universities or to support GTAs. While most institutions provide some training in teaching for their TAs, the majority of training programs constitute less than 1 day of instruction, and this training may not focus on development of long-term teaching goals.1,2 This training is even more imperative when using reform-based teaching methods such as inquiry-based instruction. We firmly believe, and have evidence to support, that a well-organized and aligned inquiry-based laboratory curriculum and the proper training of TAs in teaching are essential for a successful laboratory course that yields positive student outcomes. We present a unique approach to curriculum redesign that embeds the development of a TA training program and provide practical details to help instructors considering an inquiry-based laboratory curriculum to make the transition work in their own contexts. Thus, the purpose of this article is to describe our inquiry-based laboratory curriculum and intensive TA training, discuss the benefits of an immersive week-long training process for both UTAs and GTAs, provide evidence of efficacy of our program, and offer suggestions on ways to develop a similar model in other university contexts.

This limits their ability to think critically about science or be scientifically literate.3−6 However, in 2010, members of the American Chemical Society discussed the importance of general chemistry and the need for reform of the traditional general chemistry curriculum.7 This reform includes revamping laboratory instruction to emulate the approach scientists use in chemical research itself. Inquiry-based instruction, the most commonly used pedagogical method for course redesign, can be defined as “students answering a research question through the analysis of data”.8 There are varying “levels of inquiry” in which the students are provided different amounts of support. In open inquiry, students develop their own question and procedures, and they do not know what results to expect in advance of doing the investigation. However, open inquiry has been criticized for not providing enough structure to allow for student success,9 and undergraduate professors believe incoming students may not be able to handle this type of inquiry.10 A more structured form of inquiry, which holds promise for student success, particularly in introductory lab courses, is guided inquiry. In this approach, students receive a specific research question and develop the procedure for answering the question. Some research has been done to compare inquiry to the traditional laboratory approach, and it demonstrates that guided inquiry improves student affect, perception of learning, and laboratory competence5,6 (see Wheeler for a comprehensive review of the literature11). A number of universities are implementing guided inquiry, typically into upper-level chemistry courses.12,13

■

INQUIRY-BASED LABORATORY INSTRUCTION For decades, the traditional approach to undergraduate general chemistry, students’ first college laboratory experience, has involved a passive experience of performing “tried and true” experiments. The result is that students may not achieve an accurate understanding of how knowledge is gained in science. © XXXX American Chemical Society and Division of Chemical Education, Inc.

Received: October 28, 2016 Revised: May 19, 2017

A

DOI: 10.1021/acs.jchemed.6b00831 J. Chem. Educ. XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX

Journal of Chemical Education

Article

Table 1. Components of PBGI Curriculum Objective

Category

Appropriately choose and utilize various laboratory techniques and laboratory equipment.a

Lab skill

Develop and implement experimental methods.

Lab skill, scientific practices Lab skill, scientific practices Knowledge, scientific practices Scientific practices Knowledge, scientific practices

Gather and analyze data and evaluate these data. Understand underlying chemical principles and apply these principles to explain and evaluate experimental data. Work collaboratively with peers to develop ideas and critically analyze conclusions. Effectively communicate experimental procedures and chemical principles to peers.

Assessment Lab notebook, TA assessment, postlab quizzes. Lab notebook, lab reports. Lab notebook, lab reports, presentations. Lab reports, presentations, postlab quizzes. Peer assessments, lab reports. Presentations.

a

Examples of lab techniques students learn in the course include weighing on a balance, measuring liquid volumes, using a Bunsen burner, creating and diluting stock solutions, performing titrations, and isolating compounds via filtration and evaporation. Nineteen total techniques are required for students to master by the end of the semester.

foundations include the use of learning theory and understanding why to teach to help TAs better understand the teaching and learning process.15,21 Incorporating a variety of pedagogical strategies helps TAs learn how to teach and can be used to model ways to engage students in learning. Some cited strategies include having TAs complete laboratories, modeling, direct instruction, practice teaching with feedback, and small group activities.16,28,29 Covering practical course details such as TA roles, grading, safety, and student expectations ensures TAs are clear on their responsibilities both in and outside of the lab.15,16 Our training program for general chemistry TAs was developed based on the literature by focusing on preparing both UTAs and GTAs to be instructors in a large-enrollment, inquiry-based laboratory course.

Some effort has been made in higher education to reform the general chemistry curriculum,14 and we propose an approach to redesign general chemistry laboratories that use a project based guided inquiry (PBGI) approach. In a project-based approach, students are given a problem with a driving question, which they have to solve over time.15 We combine a project-based curriculum with a guided inquiry framework so that students gain a more authentic science experience in their general chemistry (e.g., project-based). This approach may also provide support for students with different science backgrounds and different degrees of readiness in laboratory science to be successful in inquiry (e.g., guided inquiry). Similar curricula that utilize project-based or cooperative group based inquiry are described in the literature.16 However, little work describes or examines the combination of the curriculum with a robust TA training model.

■

■

LABORATORY CURRICULUM Similar to other institutions, our 1-credit general chemistry laboratory is a two-semester series that pairs with a three credithour chemistry lecture. The lab course was redesigned in 2013 using a backward design approach30 to ensure the alignment of course objectives, assessments, and laboratory activities. The objectives of the course focus on content knowledge, laboratory skills, and scientific practices31 with the overall goal of helping students to better “think like a scientist” (Table 1). Further, a motivational framework32,33 drove the syllabus design to promote student effort in learning through the PBGI curricular approach (see Appendix A in Supporting Information for course syllabus). Using the expectancy-value theory of motivation in the design process helped us create a curriculum that allowed students to see value in the laboratory course and to feel they could be successful in the course. For example, rather than dictate a plagiarism policy for report writing, we framed plagiarism within the context of scientific discovery, indicating the importance of a scientists’ trustworthiness in their own work, to help students appreciate the importance of producing their own work (e.g., value component of motivation). We also provided students “Tips for Being Successful” section in the syllabus to help them understand what is expected of them before, during, and after lab to allow students to feel like they can be successful in the course (e.g., expectancy component of motivation). Small changes in the language of the course syllabus, along with the larger curriculum shift to inquiry-based instruction, have been well received by students and may be able to improve student motivation.34

LITERATURE ON TA TRAINING In a large-scale laboratory course, the teaching assistants (TAs) are primarily responsible for implementing the instruction. It is therefore essential to provide substantial training for TAs for a reform-based curriculum such as the PBGI approach to be successful.17 Given that teachers typically teach the way they were taught, TAs, who have little experience with inquiry-based instruction as a student, can struggle with teaching in an inquiry-based context. Research from San Diego State University found that even when GTAs understand fully the course material for a lab, they are not always able to transfer that to the students. The implication is that our TAs must be trained on how to teach and why to teach rather than just what to teach.18,19 There exists a plethora of research describing TA training models for GTAs in traditional laboratory contexts20,21 but only a handful of studies explaining TA training for GTAs within an inquiry-based laboratory context.2,22−24 There are some programs developed to support GTAs in teaching courses,25,26 and the present TA training described in this article seeks to bring some of these advanced techniques into a week-long TA training program to support effective implementation of inquiry-based instruction. There also exists a large body of literature that describes methods to support undergraduates as peer leaders,27 yet few studies explore TA training for both UTAs and GTAs.24 In this literature, there exist many similar components of TA training, which we have grouped into three main categories: (1) theoretical foundations, (2) pedagogical strategies, and (3) practical course details. Theoretical B

DOI: 10.1021/acs.jchemed.6b00831 J. Chem. Educ. XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX

Journal of Chemical Education

Article

on at the molecular level when you add the volatile liquid to the enclosed flask?’. Again, the TA signs off on students’ experimental data and laboratory summary to ensure the appropriate, not necessarily “correct”, amount of data has been collected and preliminarily analyzed. On the culminating day of the project, students present their findings and limitations for the project. The TA then leads a whole-class discussion focused on comparing and contrasting student project approaches, connecting the experiment back to the project context and other relevant contexts, and evaluating approaches to future work. The TA also helps students make connections between the experiment and chemical concepts (see Table 3 for details on how TAs are trained to lead whole-class discussions). As one example of a PBGI project, students are tasked with investigating the relationship between molar mass, temperature, and vapor pressure of volatile liquids to make a recommendation to the CEO of a perfume company on transporting nhexanol used in the perfume manufacturing process (see Appendix C in Supporting Information for full project description). During day 1 planning, students develop a method for examining the relationship between molar mass and vapor pressure for various provided volatile liquids. For example, students must identify how they are going to measure vapor pressure and what these data will tell them about the relationship between molar mass and volatile liquid. During this time, they practice using the vapor pressure sensor equipment and troubleshoot any issues that might affect their experiment. The following week, student groups measure the vapor pressure of various volatile liquids, record their data, and write a summary reporting their preliminary analyses of their data. Student groups then plan for the subsequent experimental day by developing a method for understanding the relationship between temperature and vapor pressure. For example, students can choose to use one volatile liquid and measure temperature at various points or measure temperature at 2−3 points for multiple volatile liquids. During the experimental day, students gather their vapor pressure and temperature data and write a summary on the day’s findings. Finally, students present their project approaches and conclusions, and the TA leads a whole-class discussion to make connections between vapor pressure, molar mass, temperature, and intermolecular forces and encourages students to discuss their recommendations to the CEO on n-hexanol by extrapolating from their experimental data. Through multiple iterations of the course, we have found three structures help make our PBGI curriculum successful. First, each student in a team has different roles with equivalent responsibility throughout a project, and these roles rotate each project. This allows all students to engage in the inquiry process without one student dominating. TAs are tasked with ensuring that all students participate in the group and helping students to manage their group dynamics. Second, students are provided videos created at our university and directions on specific lab techniques and are required to practice one lab technique of their choosing during the first planning day of each project. This ensures that students are learning proper lab techniques, such as weighing on a balance or completing a titration, while still providing students the opportunity to develop their own experimental methods. The TA’s role is to help students decide on an appropriate technique to try and to provide students feedback on their implementation of that technique, and others, during the experimentation time.

We utilized a variety of formative and summative assessments to measure how well students were meeting the objectives of the course. Formative assessments included laboratory notebook work and informal assessment by TAs during student− TA interactions in lab. Summative assessments included peer and TA assessments, quizzes, lab reports, and presentations. Rubrics for peer assessments, lab reports, and presentations were developed using TA and student feedback over the course of multiple years to improve student expectancy component of motivation by helping them feel they can be successful by understanding the expectations for summative assessments. These rubrics also helped TAs gauge student performance on these assignments (see Appendix B in Supporting Information for rubrics). Finally, the primary laboratory activities students engaged in were developed within the PBGI curriculum structure, where students worked collaboratively to develop experiments and draw evidence-based conclusions to solve a real-world problem. Each semester of lab contains four distinct PBGI projects, each with a planning day, 2−3 experimental days, and a presentation day (Table 2). Planning days occur the week Table 2. Semester Schedule Week 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

Lab Project Plan project 1 Project 1, plan project 2-day Project 2-day 1, plan project Project 2-day 2, plan project Project 2-day 3 Project 2 presentations, plan Project 3-day 1, plan project Project 3-day 2 Project 3 presentations, plan Project 4-day 1, plan project Project 4-day 2 Thanksgiving week: no lab Project 4 presentations

1 2-day 2 2-day 3 project 3-day 1 3-day 2 project 4-day 1 4-day 2

before experimental days, and students work in their teams of four to develop a detailed plan using guiding questions. During planning, TAs encourage students to work together in their team, do online research, and develop a detailed plan they can execute the following week. TAs provide students feedback on their developed methods, not necessarily checking for a “correct” method, but ensuring that students have enough detail to execute their method. After deciding on a procedure, students practice a laboratory technique, of their choosing, that they will use in the actual experimental day the following week. Only when the TAs decide students have a detailed enough plan for the following lab period and they have successfully practiced a relevant laboratory technique do they sign off in students’ laboratory notebook, which permits students to leave lab. During the experimental days, students execute their proposed plan, utilize appropriate laboratory techniques, determine what data to gather and how to record the data, and write a one-page summary of the day’s work. TAs interact with students to provide feedback on laboratory techniques and ask questions to prompt students to analyze and evaluate their data. TAs may ask students questions such as ‘When making a stock solution, how might going over the fill line in your volumetric flask impact your titration data?’ or ‘What is going C

DOI: 10.1021/acs.jchemed.6b00831 J. Chem. Educ. XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX

Journal of Chemical Education

Article

and believe that they can perform well, they put forth the effort to learn.

Third, the assessment of students focuses on the process and the connection to accurate concepts rather than a “correct” answer or getting “good data” in lab. When students know they are not being penalized for not getting an expected answer, they are more likely to take risks and try out new ideas. This cultural shift in the laboratory curricula to the process rather than the product encourages students to act more like scientists (e.g., revise and improve experimental procedures, evaluate data, explain how/why data may not align with expected results, discuss errors and limitations in work) and helps meet the overall goal of the course. TAs encourage divergent thinking and ensure that students fully understand the importance of understanding and explaining their experimental work over trying to get a right answer. TAs also encourage students to consider ways to revise their experimental procedures and improve their laboratory techniques as a way to mitigate erroneous results. With such significant responsibilities on each TA, and particularly teaching within PBGI curriculum, we provide TAs various support throughout the semester. This includes TA training and weekly meetings, discussed in further detail below.

■

Pedagogy

In addition to studying theory, TAs learn various pedagogical strategies such as questioning techniques, using a model of conceptual change, and creating an inclusive learning environment in their classrooms. During the weekly TA meetings, TAs also have an opportunity to practice their pedagogy by running content-based discussions. TAs learn various questioning techniques that can help engage students throughout the planning, experimentation, summarizing, and presenting processes. These strategies encourage TAs to facilitate student learning by using questions rather than disseminating information to students. For example, TAs engage in a “jigsaw” activity to learn about one type of questioning strategy and then share their technique with others in a small group. New TAs then watch videos of former TAs in lab and identify the type of questioning strategy they used. During training, TAs also learn about a model of conceptual change that uses cognitive dissonance to help modify or replace student conceptions that may not align with scientific concepts. By helping TAs develop effective but respectful ways to challenge students’ previously held ideas, students are forced to ask new questions and reevaluate what they thought they knew. For example, TAs learn about identifying the misconception that when a metal plate feels colder than a rubber plate, the metal plate has a lower temperature (the accurate conception being they are the same temperature). Then TAs are asked to consider what misconceptions their students will bring into lab and how they can use conceptual change to address these ideas. Addressing diversity in science can be a difficult topic, but it is important to emphasize early to both TAs and students that a diverse classroom promotes a healthier learning environment. We help TAs understand the importance of creating an inclusive learning environment by discussing implicit bias and stereotype threat. Setting up ground rules is essential to ensure the room is a safe environment for everyone to share their ideas. For example, TAs engage in a “think, pair, share” on when they may have felt stereotyped by others in the classroom. TAs then watch a video on implicit bias and share their ideas on what implicit bias and stereotype threat mean. TAs then connect these ideas back to the idea of diversity in science and discuss ways to mitigate implicit bias as a teacher. Finally, TAs work in small groups by comparing characteristics of inclusive classrooms to the PBGI curriculum. They then reflect on these ideas and how they impact students and also themselves in their own learning. TA-led content-based discussions during the weekly TA meetings provide opportunities for TAs to practice some of the pedagogical strategies they learned about during TA training. For each PBGI project, a group of TAs leads a discussion on the related chemical concepts and comes up with scenarios that TAs may run into during lab. The expectation for these discussions is that TAs do not lecture but model how to run small group or whole group discussions around the topics.

TA TRAINING

The training program for general chemistry TAs begins the week prior to the beginning of the semester, ∼25 h, with weekly follow-up meetings throughout each semester, ∼30 h/ semester. The three main components of TA training, theory, pedagogy, and practical, are used to describe our TA training model. We then describe various methods used to teach TAs about theory, pedagogy, and practical. Theory

If the goal of a course is to facilitate students’ construction of knowledge and skills, then it is imperative that the instructor understand the learning process. Further, the concept of inquiry-based teaching is intimidating to TAs at first and challenges ideas that are often deeply rooted about the way courses should be taught. Understanding the learning process helps break down the barriers to teaching in an inquiry-based context. The theory portion of our preparation focuses on two theories: how people learn and expectancy-value theory of motivation. In our training, TAs learn how a course curriculum using an inquiry-based approach helps long-term retention of information. TAs are taught how to make an environment conducive to learning by understanding how people learn, that identifying prior knowledge, engaging students in active learning, and helping students make connections between concepts and ideas fosters deep learning.35 For example, TAs preread an article on “How People Learn”36 and then engage in a whole-class discussion defining inquiry and inquiry levels. We debrief on the whole-class activity to map on how aspects of How People Learn were addressed in the activity. We also educate TAs on the expectancy-value model of motivation used in the development of the course curriculum, which states that for an individual to be motivated for an activity, they must both value the importance of the activity and expect a certain level of success.32,33,37 After direct instruction on the expectancy-value model, TAs work in small groups to identify aspects of the PBGI curriculum that map onto the value and expectancy components. TAs reflect on how motivation relates to their own learning and discover that when individuals find an assignment valuable for their learning,

Practical

While theory and pedagogy support TAs in why and how to teach, logistics of the course are also important. The logistics of each lab course may vary between universities, but central aspects like TA expectations, consistency in assessing student work, and dealing with student distress need to be emphasized during training. Helping TAs understand expectations is vital D

DOI: 10.1021/acs.jchemed.6b00831 J. Chem. Educ. XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX

Journal of Chemical Education

Article

Table 3. Components of TA Training Objective Theory How people learn; constructivism and inquiry Expectancy-value theory of motivation Reflection through writing Pedagogy Creating cognitive dissonance Questioning and discourse Addressing diversity

Concept Mapping Practical TA expectations

Technology in the laboratory Assessing student work Dealing with distressed students

Category (Tasks Undertaken by Individuals or Small or Large Groups)

Assessment Resources

TAs inductively derive the definition of inquiry and define scenarios as different levels of inquiry (structured, guided, open).a (small group)

“How People Learn”b

TAs learn about motivation and explore how the course and PBGI projects align with different aspects of motivation theory. (large group)

Course syllabusc; “ExpectancyValue Theory of Motivation”d TA activities handoute

At the end of the training week, TAs write a paragraph reflecting on what they have learned about teaching and themselves as a learner. (individual) TAs watch video and compare and contrast steps of conceptual change with the video (whole group discussion) and develop scripts to identify and address common student misconceptions. (small group) TAs complete a “jigsaw” on various questioning strategies to encourage discourse in the laboratory. (small group)

“Conceptual Change” video on temperaturef TA activities handoute

Videos and discussions about implicit bias, stereotypes, and diversity are conducted as a large group, where openness and honesty are encouraged. (large group)

“What does my headscarf mean to you?’ video on implicit biasg “Diversity in Science”h TA concept maps

TAs are asked to “draw a scientist” and then consider why they chose to represent certain traits. (individual) TAs create a concept map that expresses what they think they should take away from training. (small group) TAs watch short videos of previous instructors interacting with students in lab. They are asked to categorize the interactions as either “Examples” or “Non-examples” of how a TA should work with their students. (large group, individual reflection) TAs use course resources to find the answers to logistical questions such as “Where are office hours held?” and “Whose responsibility is it to get materials from the stockroom?” (small group) TAs grade sections of sample lab reports, and compare comments with their peers. (individual, small group)

Instructor created videose

Lab manual, TA activities handoute Sample lab reports, rubricse

Guest speaker from campus psychological services discusses student distress and what TAs can do to support students (large group)

a

These levels of inquiry represent increasingly challenging models, where students investigate a problem or question using a procedure developed together or independently. See ref 5. bSee ref 38. cSee Supporting Information. dSee ref 32. eE-mail corresponding author for materials. fSee ref 41. g See ref 42. hSee ref 43.

for the success of an inquiry-based laboratory course. These expectations include knowing pitfalls and strategies for completing each of the laboratories and understanding the course structure. For example, TAs spend time in lab before the semester starts completing each of the PBGI projects by going through the planning and experimental procedures. This ensures the TAs have first-hand experience with the laboratories and projects before they are required to guide students through the same experiments. In each of these project training sessions, the head TA and returning TAs model proper behavior for the new TAs, who are treated as students. This provides an excellent opportunity to see the questioning techniques covered earlier in training implemented in lab. TAs should also have a strong grasp of the course structure to be able to answer student logistical questions (e.g., what is due when, how are assignments turned in, where are office hours located). In small groups, we have TAs complete a “scavenger hunt” of the course syllabus, laboratory manual, and TA expectations documents so they begin to learn the answers to common student questions and feel comfortable navigating the course materials. We continue to revisit these expectations during weekly TA meetings. Perhaps the principal challenge of such a large enrollment course is to maintain consistency in assessments and grading across multiple TAs and hundreds of students: in our case, 30 TAs with 64 sections and over 1400 students. Significant time should be spent during training to go over the rubrics for each assignment, and allow each TA to grade sample lab reports and prelab assignments. For example, TAs are provided example assignments and grade these assignments using the rubrics. For smaller assignments such as plans and summaries, TAs discuss

grading as a whole group to come to a consensus. For large lab reports, TAs share their comments with small groups and reach a consensus on the appropriate score. In addition, the entire group goes over examples and nonexamples of how to give feedback. Each TA is asked to provide constructive feedback for a lab report passage that contains several errors and then to score it appropriately. By comparing their feedback with that of their peers, TAs can evaluate which types of comments will most help the students understand and correct their mistakes. Proper feedback for scientific writing should not solely dock points without explanation, nor should the TA fill in the correct answer for all misconceptions. Rather, the feedback should be designed to illustrate the problem in the writing while encouraging the student to think about how it could be improved or made more accurate. During the semester, after grading each lab report, TAs discuss any questions they have that came up and any concerns. These internal checks between TAs as the semester progresses help to ensure consistency across TAs. Every university faces campus-wide challenges each semester, and with high-enrollment courses, several students will face emotional or psychological obstacles that can interfere with their learning. Often their TAs are the first to notice unusual behavior and will need to deal with emotionally distressed students. Thus, it is paramount for TAs to be able to recognize indicators of a serious problem and know how to proceed with sensitivity and compassion. Throughout the training week, we repeatedly emphasize the importance of TAs connecting with their students, and we ultimately bring in a representative from the center for Counseling and Psychological Services (CAPS) to provide greater detail on how to identify students who are E

DOI: 10.1021/acs.jchemed.6b00831 J. Chem. Educ. XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX

Journal of Chemical Education

Article

examines how TA training affects both UTAs and GTAs and ultimately students within the PBGI curriculum. Overall, our model shows positive results for both TAs and students. What we have found so far includes: • TAs perceive modeling throughout TA training as extremely helpful in supporting teaching.24 • TA training should address TAs’ graduate school context to help TAs see the importance of teaching beyond their TA assignments.24 • TAs enter into TA training with low chemistry content knowledge but significantly improve their content knowledge following TA training and a semester of teaching.39,40 • TAs’ beliefs about teaching may change to better align with inquiry-based instruction following TA training.40 • TAs enter into TA training with high confidence in teaching, which does not change following training or a semester of teaching.39 • There exist no differences in UTA and GTA perceptions of training, content knowledge, beliefs, or confidence.24,39,40 • Students make significant learning gains in content knowledge, regardless of enrollment in the associated lecture course, across the semester of a PBGI curriculum.39 • No differences exist in student content knowledge gains in GTA or UTA sections.32 • Students’ self-reports of learning include outcomes that span all curricular learning objectives including improved laboratory skills, collaboration, communication, time management, and how scientific knowledge is gained.11 • Students’ prior chemistry knowledge, gender, and ethnicity were significant predictors of student content knowledge scores at the end of the semester.39 • Students had more positive perceptions of male and noninternational TAs.39 It is clear that our PBGI curriculum facilitates student learning and that our TA training helps support both UTAs and GTAs in teaching. Further, multiple studies we have conducted demonstrate that UTAs and GTAs in the PBGI context with the proper support have comparable student learning gains. While our model has been successful, we still have much to learn about the impact of TAs on student outcomes in inquirybased laboratories. Quantitatively examining varied student outcomes along the spectrum of laboratory skills, scientific writing, and scientific practices will help understand the impact of TAs on deep student learning. Given the importance of gender and ethnicity on student outcomes and student perceptions of their TA, more time can be devoted to diversity and inclusive teaching as well as discussions on differentiation in teaching based on readiness.

emotionally distressed. The CAPS center offers support to all students and faculty, and the session with our TAs focuses on what difficult scenarios they may encounter and how to deal with emotionally distressed students. One of the culminating activities of TA training is having TAs work in groups to discuss how they might deal with difficult situations such as ‘What happens if a parent e-mails you?’ or ‘How should you address an issue of possible plagiarism?’ to help TAs understand university policies and connect ideas from the CAPS session to address students issues without triggering emotional distress.

■

IMPLEMENTATION OF TA TRAINING Keeping in mind that ‘we teach how we were taught’, we feel it is of utmost importance to use teaching strategies that align with inquiry-based instruction and provide TAs opportunities to see how nonlecture activities can be used to support their own learning. We use a variety of strategies such as modeling, reflection, small group activities, whole group instruction, integration of technology, and guest speakers/panels. We further provide general descriptions of these strategies, and examples of how we used these activities in TA training can be found in Table 3. Modeling

Modeling can be described as the teacher demonstrating a new technique or concept, and the students learn by observing. Modeling can be used effectively in practical lab scenarios and for demonstrating different questioning techniques. Reflection

Reflection requires the TAs to think about their own learning experience during training and is helpful for being metacognitive (i.e., an awareness of learning). This is effective throughout training, particularly at the end of major activities, and can improve retention of ideas. Small Group Activities

Working in pairs or small groups allows students to share ideas with their peers. This promotes active involvement from everybody and is effective for jigsaw techniques and “think− pair−share” activities. Whole Group Discussion

Concluding smaller activities with a large group discussion is a great way to ensure that the overall message resonates with each learner. Large discussions have the potential to get out of hand if ground rules are not set early, but they can be very effective for sharing different viewpoints on controversial topics. Guest Speakers/Panel

Bringing in external figures to speak about topics offers a new perspective for the trainees, and in the case of psychological counseling, it is important that the information come from an expert. This is also effective when using previous students or TAs to offer testimonials about their experience with the course.

■

DEVELOPING AN INQUIRY-BASED CURRICULUM AND TA TRAINING PROGRAM It can be a daunting task to consider redesigning a curriculum and developing a training program for TAs, particularly for a large enrollment courses. We provide some suggestions for ways to make changes in your courses that will help make the transition successful.

■

EFFICACY OF PBGI CURRICULUM AND TA TRAINING A plethora of prior work examines differences in student outcomes when comparing traditional laboratories to guidedinquiry laboratories, and it consistently demonstrates that students learn more content knowledge, laboratory skills, and scientific practices in inquiry than in traditional laboratories.9,38 Our research of this redesign takes a different approach and

Begin with Pilot Programs

Particularly where large courses are concerned, incremental change is almost always more effective and less fraught with F

DOI: 10.1021/acs.jchemed.6b00831 J. Chem. Educ. XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX

Journal of Chemical Education

■

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS We would like to acknowledge Michelle Driessen, Professor at the University of Minnesota, who provided us support in our initial discussions in redesigning our curriculum. We also visited the University of Minnesota to observe the guided inquiry laboratories and understand some of the practical aspects of implementing inquiry-based laboratories in a large enrollment course.

problems. In conversion of a traditional lab to a PBGI lab, try one PBGI project in an otherwise traditional semester, assess the successes and failures, and if that pilot project is successful, you can imagine a total transition to PBGI. Consider implementing a TA training program incrementally, building training modules one at a time, testing, collecting data, and assessing results. Do Not Reinvent the Wheel

■

Enlist the advice and support of colleagues who have transitioned from traditional laboratories to PBGI laboratories, and review the literature on TA training best practices before building your own program. For example, our own transition to PBGI laboratory was informed thoroughly by other universities’ work, and we visited and observed their inquiry-based laboratories to understand what the new curriculum would look like in practice. A successful university-level science program is an interdependent collection of working parts. Share your ideas for transition with colleagues, build consensus, and look for ways in which your new course and your TA training program can support and enhance other department teaching activities. Your colleagues will buy in to your course changes if they have been part of the solution. Utilize Students and TAs in the Process of Curriculum Development

The clients that will use your product can be some of the most valuable sources of ideas and evaluations. Invite groups of students and TAs to brainstorm and explore course transitions, and engage them in evaluation of new approaches. The reactions of students and TAs to your new initiatives and demonstration activities will tell you if you are on the right track and raise warning flags that are worth your attention. Seek Help When Needed

If your institution has a teaching resource center or a graduate education program, invite their participation in development of your new initiatives and your transitional activities. Reach out to colleagues at other institutions, especially those that have developed PBGI laboratories or TA training programs. Consider whether their innovations will work in your own environment, and describe your own special circumstances with these knowledgeable and experienced colleagues. They may well bring valuable insights to your own setting and your course redevelopment activities.

ASSOCIATED CONTENT

S Supporting Information *

The Supporting Information is available on the ACS Publications website at DOI: 10.1021/acs.jchemed.6b00831. Syllabus, grading rubrics, detailed project description for one experiment (PDF, DOCX)

■

REFERENCES

(1) Shannon, D. M.; Twale, D. J.; Moore, M. S. TA teaching effectiveness. J. Higher Educ. 1998, 69, 440−466. (2) Sandi-Urena, S.; Cooper, M. M.; Gatlin, T. a. Graduate teaching assistants’ epistemological and metacognitive development. Chem. Educ. Res. Pract. 2011, 12 (1), 92−100. (3) Domin, D. S. A review of laboratory instruction styles. J. Chem. Educ. 1999, 76, 543−547. (4) Germann, P. J.; Haskins, S.; Auls, S. Analysis of nine high school laboratory manuals: Promoting science inquiry. J. Res. Sci. Teach. 1996, 33, 475−499. (5) Chatterjee, S.; Williamson, V. M.; McCann, K.; Peck, M. L. Surveying student attitudes and perceptions towards guided-inquiry and open-inquiry laboratories. J. Chem. Educ. 2009, 86, 1427−1432. (6) Suits, J. P. Assessing investigative skill development in inquirybased and traditional college science laboratory courses. Sch. Sci. Math. 2004, 104, 248−257. (7) Cooper, M. M. The case for reform of the undergraduate general chemistry curriculum. J. Chem. Educ. 2010, 87, 231−232. (8) Bell, R. L.; Smetana, L.; Binns, I. Simplifying inquiry instruction. Science Teacher 2005, 72 (7), 30−33. (9) Kirschner, P. A.; Sweller, J.; Clark, R. E. Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work: An analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-based, experiential, and inquirybased teaching. Educational Psychologist 2006, 41, 75−86. (10) Brown, P. L.; Abell, S. K.; Demir, A.; Schmidt, F. J. College science teachers’ views of classroom inquiry. Sci. Educ. 2006, 90, 784− 802. (11) Wheeler, L. B. Professional Development for General Chemistry Laboratory Teaching Assistants: Impact on Teaching Assistant Beliefs, Practices, and Student Outcomes. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA, 2015. (12) Deckert, A.; Nestor, L.; DiLullo, D. An example of a guidedinquiry, collaborative physical chemistry laboratory course. J. Chem. Educ. 1998, 75 (7), 860−863. (13) Schoffstall, A.; Gaddis, B. Incorporating guided inquiry learning into the organic chemistry laboratory. J. Chem. Educ. 2007, 84, 848− 851. (14) Rickard, L. Reforms in the general chemistry curriculum. J. Chem. Educ. 1992, 69 (3), 175−177. (15) Hmelo-Silver, C. E. Problem-based learning: What and how do students learn? Educational Psychology Review 2004, 16, 235−266. (16) Bullard, L.; Felder, R. A student-centered approach to teaching material and energy balances. Chem. Engr. Education 2007, 41 (3), 167−176. (17) Luft, J. A.; Kurdziel, J. P.; Roehrig, G. H.; Turner, J. Growing a garden without water: Graduate teaching assistants in introductory science laboratories at a doctoral/research university. J. Res. Sci. Teach. 2004, 41, 211−233. (18) Kurdziel, J. P.; Turner, J. A.; Luft, J. A.; Roehrig, G. H. Graduate teaching assistants and inquiry-based instruction: Implications for graduate teaching assistant training. J. Chem. Educ. 2003, 80, 1206− 1210. (19) Sandi-Urena, S.; Gatlin, T. Factors contributing to the development of graduate teaching assistant self-image. J. Chem. Educ. 2013, 90, 1303−1309. (20) Herrington, D.; Nakhleh, M. What defines effective chemistry laboratory instruction? Teaching assistant and student perspectives. J. Chem. Educ. 2003, 80 (10), 1197−1205.

Get Your Department on Board

■

Article

AUTHOR INFORMATION

Corresponding Author

*E-mail: [email protected]. ORCID

Lindsay B. Wheeler: 0000-0003-2794-0345 Notes

The authors declare no competing financial interest. G

DOI: 10.1021/acs.jchemed.6b00831 J. Chem. Educ. XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX

Journal of Chemical Education

Article

(42) What does my headscarf mean to you?; YouTube, 2015. https:// www.youtube.com/watch?v=18zvlz5CxPE (accessed May 10, 2017). (43) Handelsman, J.; Miller, C.; Pfund, C. Diversity. Scientific Teaching; Freeman and Company: New York, 2007, 65−82.

(21) Dragisich, V.; Keller, V.; Zhao, M. An intensive training program for effective teaching assistants in chemistry. J. Chem. Educ. 2016, 93 (7), 1204−1210. (22) Burke, K. A.; Hand, B.; Poock, J.; Greenbowe, T. Using the science writing heuristic: training chemistry teaching assistants. Journal of College Science Teaching 2005, 35, 36−42. (23) French, D.; Russell, C. Do graduate teaching assistants benefit from teaching inquiry-based laboratories? BioScience 2002, 52, 1036− 1041. (24) Wheeler, L. B.; Maeng, J. L.; Whitworth, B. A. Teaching assistants perception of a training to support an inquiry-based general chemistry laboratory course. Chem. Educ. Res. Pract. 2015, 16, 824− 842. (25) Marbach-Ad, G.; Schaefer, K. L.; Kumi, B. C.; Friedman, L. A.; Thompson, K. V.; Doyle, M. P. Development and evaluation of a prep course for chemistry graduate teaching assistants at a research university. J. Chem. Educ. 2012, 89, 865−872. (26) Dragisich, V.; Keller, V.; Black, R.; Heaps, C. W.; Kamm, J. M.; Olechnowicz, F.; Raybin, J.; Rombola, M.; Zhao, M. Development of an Advanced Training Course for Teachers and Researchers in Chemistry. J. Chem. Educ. 2016, 93 (7), 1211−1216. (27) Romm, I.; Gordon-Messer, S.; Kosinski-Collins, M. Education young educators: A pedagogical internship for undergraduate teaching assistants. CBE Life Science Educators 2010, 9 (2), 80−86. (28) Blanchard, M. R.; Southerland, S. A.; Osborne, J. W.; Sampson, V. D.; Annetta, L. A.; Granger, E. M. Is inquiry possible in light of accountability?: A quantitative comparison of the relative effectiveness of guided inquiry and verification laboratory instruction. Sci. Educ. 2010, 94, 577−616. (29) Sharpe, R. A framework for training teaching assistants. Teacher Development 2000, 4, 131−142. (30) Wiggins, G.; McTighe, J. The Understanding by Design Guide To Creating High-Quality Units, 2nd ed.; ASCD: Arlington, VA, 2011; pp 1−12. (31) NGSS Lead States. Next Generation Science Standards: For States, by States; National Academies Press: Washington, D.C., 2013. (32) Wigfield, A.; Eccles, J. S. Expectancy − Value Theory of Achievement Motivation. Contemporary Educational Psychology 2000, 25 (1), 68−81. (33) Palmer, D. A Motivational View of Constructivist-informed Teaching. International Journal of Science Education 2005, 27 (15), 1853−1881. (34) Palmer, M. S.; Wheeler, L. B.; Aneece, I.; Wheeler, L. B. Does the Document Matter? The Evolving Role of Syllabi in Higher Education. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning 2016, 48 (4), 36. (35) Tschannen-Moran, M.; Barr, M. Fostering student learning: The relationship of collective teacher efficacy and student achievement. Leadership and Policy in Schools 2004, 3, 189−209. (36) National Research Council. Learning: From Speculation to Science. In How People Learn: Brain, Mind, Experience, and School; National Academies Press: Washington, D.C., 2000; pp 3−27. https:// www.nap.edu/catalog/9853/how-people-learn-brain-mind-experienceand-school-expanded-edition (accessed October 2016). (37) Behling, O.; Starke, F. The postulates of expectancy theory. Academy of Management Journal 1973, 16 (3), 373−388. (38) Lord, T.; Orkwiszewski, T. Moving from didactic to inquirybased instruction in a science laboratory. American Biology Teacher 2006, 68, 342−345. (39) Wheeler, L. B.; Maeng, J. L.; Chiu, J. L.; Bell, R. L. Do teaching assistants matter? Investigating relationships between teaching assistants and student outcomes in undergraduate science laboratory classes. J. Res. Sci. Teach. 2017, 54 (4), 463−492. (40) Wheeler, L. B.; Maeng, J. L.; Whitworth, B. A. Characterizing Teaching Assistants’ Knowledge and Beliefs Following Professional Development Activities within an Inquiry-Based General Chemistry Context. J. Chem. Educ. 2017, 94, 19−28. (41) Misconceptions about Temperature; YouTube, 2012. https:// www.youtube.com/watch?v=vqDbMEdLiCs&index=2&list= PL772556F1EFC4D01C (accessed May 10, 2017). H

DOI: 10.1021/acs.jchemed.6b00831 J. Chem. Educ. XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX