COMMENTARY pubs.acs.org/jchemeduc
What Can Be Learned from Laboratory Activities? Revisiting 32 Years of Research Michael R. Abraham* Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry, University of Oklahoma, Norman, Oklahoma 73019-0370, United States ABSTRACT: This paper is a modification of the award address for the 2010 ACS Award for Achievement in Research for the Teaching and Learning of Chemistry. The address re-visited selected research from the last 32 years and focused on the general question, “What can be learned from laboratory activities?” Several issues were explored, including: what categories of learning are possible in laboratory; what different instructional strategies are used in laboratory instruction; what role laboratory plays in an overall instructional strategy; what outcomes of laboratory instruction are preferred by instructors; what characteristics of laboratory instruction do students identify; and what laboratory-based instructional strategies are most effective. KEYWORDS: First-Year Undergraduate/General, High School/Introductory Chemistry, Chemical Education Research, Laboratory Instruction, Inquiry-Based/ Discovery Learning, Constructivism, Learning Theories, Student-Centered Learning FEATURE: Award Address
I
am grateful to the many mentors and collaborators that I have had during my career because they have been instrumental in my being honored as the 2010 recipient of the ACS Award for Achievement in Research for the Teaching and Learning of Chemistry.1 At times like this, there is a tendency to look back, a tendency that I do not intend to resist. I am going to not resist by taking a personal journey into one area of research with which I have been associated. What I would like to do is assemble some research to tell the story that addresses the question, “What can be learned from laboratory activities?” Doing this allows me to revisit 32 years of research looking back at my first arrival at the University of Oklahoma when I met Mike Pavelich and we began the development of the Inquiries into Chemistry Laboratory Manual2 that was first published in 1979. I have always liked to try to assemble research studies to look at the story they tell us.
research has shown that an inquiry or questioning approach is more effective for learning concepts, theoretical principles, or ideas. Processes are best developed through practice. Skills are best taught by more directive instructional techniques, by informing and demonstrating. Factual information is best learned through observation in the context that the facts are used, not through memorization. Finally, attitudes are learned by example. So the tactic that one uses for instruction depends on what one is trying to accomplish.
’ GOALS OF LABORATORY INSTRUCTION Relatively how important are these categories of learning to teachers as the goals of laboratory activities? We asked 203 general chemistry instructors to rank order these categories of learning as the goals of laboratory instruction.5 We asked, [O]f the possible outcomes of your laboratory program which one is the most important, second, third, fourth, least of developing concepts, developing scientific processes, developing laboratory skills, learning factual information, or developing positive attitudes towards chemistry?
’ CATEGORIES OF LEARNING In a sense, Table 1 already answers the question:3 “What can be learned from laboratory activities?” What can be learned from laboratory activities are the categories of learning: concepts, processes, skills, facts, and attitudes. Perhaps the question should be reframed to ask not what can be learned but what is learned from laboratory activities. However, what is learned, in part, depends on how one teaches.4 Research has shown that some instructional tactics are more effective than others for learning these different categories of learning. The effectiveness of an instructional tactic depends on what category of learning one is focused on. For example, Copyright r 2011 American Chemical Society and Division of Chemical Education, Inc.
The results are summarized5 in Figure 1. Processes and concepts are considered most important by these instructors, with lab skills a close third. I do feel a little bad about the ranking of the attitudes category; but I guess that is the way things are. Published: June 15, 2011 1020
dx.doi.org/10.1021/ed100774d | J. Chem. Educ. 2011, 88, 1020–1025
Journal of Chemical Education
COMMENTARY
Table 1. Effective Instructional Tacticsa Category of Learning
a
Definition
Example
Instructional Tactic
Concepts
Generalization, principle, or theory
Conservation of mass
Inquiry, questioning
Processes
Method
Separation and control of variables
Practice
Skills: Laboratory, mathematical
Ability
Using a balance; Curve Fitting
Informing or demonstrating
Facts
Observation; Definition
Cu2þ(aq) is blue; Ag is silver
Observing; Informed in context
Attitudes
Beliefs or feelings
Chemistry is fun
Example
Note: This material is adapted with permission from ref 3.
Table 2. Comparing Two Instructional Strategies Traditional
Inquiry
I: Inform V: Verify
E: Explore I: Invent a Concept
P: Practice
A: Apply
Figure 2. Comparing the learning activities in two instructional strategies, traditional (IVP) and inquiry (EIA).
Figure 1. Least important and most important goals of laboratory instruction (see ref 5).
The interesting thing about this is that the research history that has investigated traditional laboratory has come to the conclusion that there is very little evidence that traditional laboratory does anything very much except develop laboratory skills and teach factual information.6,7 And yet, the goal of most general chemistry instructors seems to be otherwise.
’ LABORATORY TYPES Because teaching concepts is thought to be important, what is the role of laboratory in teaching concepts? Two possibilities can be examined by contrasting laboratory types, what are called verification laboratory types versus inquiry laboratory types. Verification laboratories are usually designed to confirm concepts (hence the term verification), whereas inquiry laboratories are usually designed to introduce concepts. Verification laboratories provide evidence for chemical concepts, whereas inquiry laboratories are used to invent or create concepts. Another way of looking at this is to examine the role that data plays in instruction. In verification laboratories, you go from a concept to data, a deductive process. In inquiry laboratories, you start with data and generate a concept from it, an inductive process. Table 2 illustrates the sequence of instructional phases of two instructional strategies.8 The one on the left is a traditional strategy where what usually happens is that students are informed of a particular conceptional idea, they then verify it, usually by going into a laboratory or observing a demonstration
that provides evidence that confirms the concept. Students then practice with the concept, often by using it in answering questions. In an inquiry approach, students start by exploring the concept, usually in a laboratory activity, by collecting data that can be used to invent a concept. A concept can then be derived or invented from the data collected during the exploration phase. Then, students are asked to apply the concept to a new set of circumstances. So the question becomes, where does laboratory fit in? Figure 2 illustrates how laboratory and other instructional activities can be arranged in the sequence of phases of instruction of these two instructional strategies.9 The laboratory in the traditional approach comes after the concept is initially presented to the students. In the inquiry approach, the laboratory usually is a first phase of instruction used to generate the data supporting the invention of a concept. Discussion of the concept is different in the sequence of the three phases of instruction for the two approaches. Readings also are used slightly differently whereas problem sets are found as the last phase in either one of the approaches. So one significant difference between a traditional and an inquiry instructional strategy is the placement of the laboratory in the sequence of phases of instruction. In the case of the traditional laboratory it comes second after the presentation of the concept, whereas in the inquiry laboratory it begins the instruction. As the most effective instructional tactic for learning concepts is inquiry based, the placement of laboratory in an instructional strategy would seem to be important. We asked the same 203 general chemistry instructors what was the relationship or sequence between the laboratory and the lecture component of their course.5 Our purpose was to gauge the extent of the inquiry approach in actual practice. Looking at the data in Figure 3 reveals that for most general chemistry 1021
dx.doi.org/10.1021/ed100774d |J. Chem. Educ. 2011, 88, 1020–1025
Journal of Chemical Education
COMMENTARY
Table 3. Comparison of Laboratory Types by Stepwise Discriminant Analysis Statement
Figure 3. Graphed responses of general chemistry instructors (N = 203) concerning discussionlaboratory relationships (see ref 5).
instructors, the instructional phases start with a discussion followed by the laboratory, which is consistent with the traditional approach; whereas the lesser used is the approach that starts with the laboratory followed by the discussion, which is consistent with inquiry approaches. In spite of professed interest in the goals of concept learning by these 203 general chemistry instructors, most laboratory approaches do not use the most effective approach to learning concepts, that is, using inquiry.
’ STUDENT PERCEPTIONS OF LABORATORY But does this really matter? Are students really aware of difference approaches? Are these differences translated to actual practice? We decided to ask the students. Students exposed to different laboratory types were asked to use the 25 statements shown in Box 1 to help them describe their laboratory experience.10 The statements were printed on separate cards and the students were asked to rank these statements from descriptive to not descriptive of the laboratory they experienced by sorting the cards. These statements were then used by the researchers to describe the three different laboratory types that were experienced by the students: verification, guided-inquiry, or openinquiry laboratories.
The sorted statements were analyzed three ways. First, the top-rated statement (and bottom-rated statements) as ranked by
Verification
O/G Inquiry
Group Rank
Group Rank
Step
Number
Coefficient
1 2
7 4
0.31 0.37
25 24
16 21
3
16
0.18
15
2
4
20
0.13
20
9
5
15
0.22
5
11 10
6
8
0.2
2
7
13
0.11
14
8
6
0.12
9
24
9 10
24 11
0.14 0.12
10.5 4
23 6
11
3
8
15
12
2
6
1
0.11 0.1
3.5
the students can be used as an operational description of the laboratory they experienced.11 Second, a correlation and comparison of the rankings of individual statements points out the differences between different laboratory types.1012 Finally, a stepwise discriminant analysis can identify the best set of statements that define the difference between laboratory types.10 Table 3 summarizes the set of statements that defines the difference between verification laboratory and the open-inquiryguided-inquiry laboratory type reflected by the lab manual that Mike Pavelich and I wrote.2 In this particular case, the analysis went through 12 steps and identified 12 of those 25 statements that were on the cards as having some sort of discriminating ability between the verification group and the open-inquiryguided-inquiry group. For example, the first statement, statement number 7, is “Students are asked to design their own experiments.” This was listed as the 25th statement on the verification laboratory and 16th in the inquiry laboratory; the inquiry group ranked this statement higher. The second statement, number 4, is, “Students are allowed to go beyond regular laboratory exercises and do experiments on their own.” It was ranked higher by the openinquiryguided-inquiry group than it was by the verification group. If you examine these 12 statements, you’ll see that most of the statements ranked higher by the inquiry group are concerned with processes and that most of the statements ranked higher by the verification group are concerned with skills. Processes and skills were the second- and third-most important goals of laboratory instruction identified by the general chemistry instructors in the survey research cited earlier.5 Students are able to identify differences between these laboratory types.
’ LABORATORY AND CONCEPT LEARNING But do these differences really matter as far as learning concepts is concerned? Let us look at one characteristic difference, the position (sequence) of the laboratory in three instructional strategies. Figure 4 shows the nature of these three instructional strategies and summarizes the achievement scores of the students who were taught by these instructional strategies.9,13,14 In the first strategy, the laboratory is placed after the concept has been presented to the students and is used to verify the concept. This is consistent with traditional instruction. In the second strategy, the laboratory is used to introduce the concept 1022
dx.doi.org/10.1021/ed100774d |J. Chem. Educ. 2011, 88, 1020–1025
Journal of Chemical Education
COMMENTARY
Figure 4. Comparison of learning in three instructional strategies: Traditional instruction (Inform/Verify/Practice); Inquiry instruction (Explore/ Invent/Apply); and Discovery instruction (Explore/Apply/Invent). Note that significant differences in scores from the pretest and tests following each phase of instruction are represented by differences in the level of the dots; the dots are at the same level if no significant differences exist.
and is followed by the invention of the concept in a class discussion. This is consistent with inquiry. In the third strategy, the students did numerous activities for a long period of time and then finally, later, at the end, the concept was discussed. I will call this a discovery activity. One of the characteristic differences, then, between these instructional strategies is the placement of the lab in the sequence of phases. Five times during the lesson, we asked the students to answer some questions about the material that was being taught. They were tested before the lesson, after the first phase, after the second phase, after the third phase, and then as a retention test several weeks later. The tables in Figure 4 record the average scores on these tests and the statistical differences between phases. To illustrate the statistical differences, a graphical representation is shown to the right of each instructional strategy. Each dot represents the score on each of the five tests. After each test, an instructional activity is represented by a letter indicating the nature of the activity. Significant differences are represented by differences in the level of the dots. If there are no significant differences, the dots are at the same level. In the first table of Figure 4, representing traditional instruction, the pretest is followed by a presentation of the concept. The subsequent test shows a significant increase in knowledge. Then, students are given a verification laboratory that does not increase their knowledge, followed by a practice activity that also shows no increase in knowledge. Finally, no increase in knowledge is found after a period of time. In the second table of Figure 4, representing inquiry instruction, the gain in knowledge shows a
pattern of an increased understanding as the activity progresses from beginning to end. The third table of Figure 4, representing discovery instruction, shows a pattern of confusion. Apparently the exploration, with a delayed concept invention, did not give the learners the support they needed. A comparison of the effect of the sequence of instruction on these three instructional strategies is shown in Figure 5. The sequence represented by circles in Figure 5 is the inquiry strategy. This strategy shows an increase in knowledge over time. Although the differences between the three strategies for each of the five tests are not significant for the first two tests, they are for posttest 2, posttest 3, and the retention test. My conclusion is, inquiry works. Students gain significantly from inquiry instruction. But why? Let me offer one possibility. It works because the sequence of instruction in inquiry is consistent with how students learn according to a constructivist model of learning, like Piaget’s functioning model.3,15 The exploration phase of instruction, the laboratory activity, allows students to assimilate information from their environment. The discussion that occurs during the concept invention phase helps students generate a concept from the data that allows them to accommodate that information into their existing mental structures. Finally, the application phase allows students to organize the knowledge they have just gained with other knowledge that resides in existing mental structures. Table 4 summarizes the relationship between the phases of instruction in an inquiry strategy and the functioning model of Piaget’s theory of intellectual development. 1023
dx.doi.org/10.1021/ed100774d |J. Chem. Educ. 2011, 88, 1020–1025
Journal of Chemical Education
COMMENTARY
Table 5. Attitudes toward Lessons Where Laboratory Was Used Positive
Negative
Positive
Negative
Total
Lab
Lab
Total
Total
Statements
2 3
53 11
5 0
80 19
47 7
128 26
4
48
1
61
28
90a
5
22
1
31
12
43
6
43
3
85
47
132
Experiment
7 Total a
26
0
30
17
47
203
10
306
158
466
Some of the statements for experiment 4 were judged to be neutral.
Table 6. Attitudes toward Lessons Where Laboratory Was Not Used Positive
Negative
No
Total
Total
Total
Laba
Statements
3
20
22
14
56
4
16
16
1
33
5 7
31 24
25 13
19 6
75 43
Total
91
76
40
207
Experiment
Figure 5. Comparing the sequence of three instructional strategies. Circles indicate EIA strategies associated with inquiry instruction (Explore/Invent/Apply); Squares represent strategies associated with traditional instruction (Inform/Verify/Practice); Triangles designate EAI strategies associated with discovery instruction (Explore/Apply/ Invent). a
Table 4. Relationship between Inquiry and Constructivism Inquiry Instruction
Constructivism
Exploration
Assimilation
Concept Invention Application
Accommodation Organization
’ LABORATORY AND ATTITUDES I still feel bad about attitudes, but it turns out maybe that attitudes take care of themselves. Tables 5 and 6 report data collected from a high school group that experienced a number of different activities for which laboratory was either part of the lesson or not part of the lesson.14 We eliminated the laboratory to see what the effect of having a laboratory versus not having a laboratory in an activity would be. We asked the students to write what they liked and what they did not like about the lesson after the lesson was over. We then made a judgment about whether the statements that were made were positive, negative, or neutral. It turns out that almost no one makes a neutral statement. Table 5 summarizes the attitudes of students who attended lessons that had laboratory activities included. The ratio of positive to negative statements was about 2:1. When only statements concerning laboratory were considered, the ratio was about 20:1. Table 6 summarizes the attitudes of students who attended lessons that did not include laboratory activities. The number of positive and negative statements was about the same. However, there were a number of statements that indicated recognition that there were no laboratory activities in the lesson. It is conceivable that these might be included as negative statements. If so, negative statements would outnumber positive statements for lessons that did not include a laboratory activity. In summary, it seems that students’ attitude toward lessons were more positive if they included laboratory activities.
These statements were treated as a separate category, but should probably be included as negative comments concerning the lessons.
’ CONCLUSIONS I began this look back on 32 years of research with the goal of summarizing what is known about the value of laboratory instruction. Several issues were explored, including: what categories of learning are possible in laboratory; what different instructional strategies are used in laboratory instruction; what role laboratory plays in an overall instructional strategy; what outcomes of laboratory instruction are preferred by instructors; what characteristics of laboratory instruction do students identify; and what laboratory based instructional strategies are most effective. The key findings of this research are: general chemistry instructors identify concepts as the most important outcome of laboratory instruction, but do not use instructional strategies that are most effective for teaching concepts; students can identify important differences between inquiry and verification laboratory types, including the emphasis on laboratory skills and scientific processes; and inquiry laboratory types are more effective than traditional laboratory types in teaching concepts and engendering positive attitudes in students.
’ AUTHOR INFORMATION Corresponding Author
*E-mail:
[email protected].
’ ACKNOWLEDGMENT I have been fortunate in my career in having intelligent, hardworking students, generous mentors, and inspiring collaborators. As a consequence, I have a lot of people to thank for this honor, including Pearson Education who sponsored the award. 1024
dx.doi.org/10.1021/ed100774d |J. Chem. Educ. 2011, 88, 1020–1025
Journal of Chemical Education
COMMENTARY
’ REFERENCES (1) Michael Abraham, David Ross Boyd Professor of Chemistry and Biochemistry at the University of Oklahoma, received the 2010 American Chemical Society Award for Achievement in Research for the Teaching and Learning of Chemistry on March 23, 2010, in San Francisco, CA. This paper is adapted from his award address. For more information, see http://webapps.acs.org/findawards/detail. jsp?ContentId=CTP_004484 (accessed Jun 2011). (2) Abraham, M. R.; Pavelich, M. J. Inquiries into Chemistry, 3rd ed.; Waveland Press: Prospect Heights, IL, 1999. (3) Abraham, M. R. Inquiry and the Learning Cycle Approach. In Chemists’ Guide to Effective Teaching, Pienta, N. J., Cooper, M. M., Greenbowe, T. J., Eds.; Prentice Hall: Upper Saddle River, NJ, 2005; pp 4152. (4) Gagne, R. M. The Conditions of Learning and Theory of Instruction; Holt: New York, 1985. (5) Abraham, M. R.; Cracolice, M. S.; Graves, A. P.; Aldahmash, A. H.; Kihega, J. G.; Palma Gil, J. G.; Varghese, V. J. Chem. Educ. 1997, 74, 591–594. (6) Hofstein, A.; Lunetta, V. Rev. Educ Res. 2008, 52, 201–217. (7) Blosser, P. A Critical Review of the Role of the Laboratory in Science Teaching; ERIC Clearinghouse for Science, Mathematics, and Environmental Education: Columbus, OH, 1980. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 206 445). (8) Renner, J. W. Sci. Educ. 1982, 66, 709–716. (9) Abraham, M. R. J. Coll. Sci. Teach. 1988/198918, 185187 ff. (10) Abraham, M. R. J. Res. Sci. Teach. 1982, 19, 155–165. (11) Pavelich, M. J.; Abraham, M. R. J. Coll. Sci. Teach. 1977, 7, 23–26. (12) Pavelich, M. J.; Abraham, M. R. J. Chem. Educ. 1979, 56, 100–103. (13) Abraham, M. R.; Renner, J. W. J. Res. Sci. Teach. 1986, 23, 121–143. (14) Abraham, M. R.; Renner, J. W. Sequencing Language and Activities in Teaching High School Chemistry: A Report to the National Science Foundation; Science Education Center, University of Oklahoma: Norman, OK, 1983. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 241 267). (15) Piaget, J. The Origins of Intelligence in Children; International Universities Press, Inc.: New York, 1952.
1025
dx.doi.org/10.1021/ed100774d |J. Chem. Educ. 2011, 88, 1020–1025
