an evaluation and redevelopment of current laboratory ... · an evaluation and redevelopment of...

AnEvaluationandRedevelopmentofCurrentLaboratoryPractices:AnIn-depthStudyintotheDifferencesBetweenLearningandTeachingStyles

by

ReynePullen,BSc(Hons)

SchoolofPhysicalSciences-Chemistry

AthesissubmittedinpartialfulfilmentoftherequirementsforthedegreeofDoctorof

PhilosophyattheUniversityofTasmania

UniversityofTasmania

March2016

DeclarationandStatements

i

StatementsandDeclarations

DeclarationofOriginality

Thisthesiscontainsnomaterialwhichhasbeenacceptedforadegreeordiplomabythe

Universityoranyotherinstitution,exceptbywayofbackgroundinformationandduly

acknowledgedinthethesis,andtothebestofmyknowledgeandbeliefnomaterialpreviously

publishedorwrittenbyanotherpersonexceptwheredueacknowledgementismadeinthe

textofthethesis,nordoesthethesiscontainanymaterialthatinfringescopyright.

AuthorityofAccess

Thisthesismaybemadeavailableforloanandlimitedcopyingandcommunicationin

accordancewiththeCopyrightAct1968.

StatementofEthicalConduct

TheresearchassociatedwiththisthesisabidesbytheinternationalandAustraliancodeson

humanandanimalexperimentation,theguidelinesbytheAustralianGovernment'sOfficeof

theGeneTechnologyRegulatorandtherulingsoftheSafety,EthicsandInstitutionalBiosafety

CommitteesoftheUniversity.

_____________________

ReynePullen(2016)

Acknowledgements

ii

Acknowledgements

IwouldliketoexpressmydeepgratitudetoProfessorBrianYates,AssociateProfessorGreg

Dicinoski,ProfessorNatalieBrown,andAssociateProfessorJasonSmith,myresearch

supervisors,fortheircontinuedsupportthroughoutthisproject.Withouttheirguidance,

encouragement,andconstructivefeedback,thisresearchwouldnothavereachedthestageit

did.

IwouldalsoliketothanktheDisciplineofChemistry,SchoolofPhysicalSciencesforproviding

thelaboratoryresourcesnecessaryforthisstudy.Inparticular,thisprojectwouldnothave

beenpossiblewithoutthepeoplewhocontributedtothisstudy.Thisincludesthelarge

numberofstudentparticipantswhoundertookthelaboratory,theacademicstaffwho

providedfeedbackonthedevelopmentofthelaboratories,thelaboratorytechnicianswho

kepteverythingrunningsmoothly,andfinallythedemonstratorswhowerethefrontline

teachersinthelaboratory.IwouldliketoparticularlythankMrBrendonSchollumandDrRuth

Amosfortheirassistance.

FinallyIwouldliketoextendmythankstothoseclosesttome,myfamilyandfriends.Their

supportandencouragementmadethisexperienceanenjoyableone.WhileIcannotname

everyone,IwouldliketoespeciallythankJames,Tom,Beau,Roderick,andEmer.Andmy

partner,Bernadette,whonotonlywithstoodmyhighsandlowsbutalsokeptmesane.

Abstract

iii

Abstract

Thestudydescribedwithinthisthesisencompassedaseriesofcross-sectionalcasestudies

thatwerecompletedoveranumberofchemistryunitsofferedattheUniversityofTasmania,

Australia.Thisinvestigationaimedtocomparethreeteachingapproachesappliedwithinthe

chemistry-teachinglaboratory;theteachingapproacheschosenbeingExpository,Guided

Inquiry,andProblemSolving.Priortothisinvestigation,theprevalentlaboratoryteaching

approachattheUniversityofTasmaniamostcloselyresembledtheExpositoryapproach.

Throughcomparisonoftheseteachingapproachesitwasintendedtoexploretheadvantages

and/ordisadvantageswithrespecttothelevelofchemistryandthetypeofexperiments

considered.Abroadvarietyofexperimentswereselectedfromunitsofferedwithin

foundation,first,second,andthirdyearlevelchemistryunits.Throughmodificationofthese

pre-existingexperiments,arepresentativeversionoftheselectedexperimentsforeach

teachingapproachwasproduced.

Toanalysethesedifferentteachingmethods,threeperspectiveswereconsidered.Firstly,a

studentanddemonstratorcompletedsurvey.Secondly,apost-experimentalquiztargetingthe

students'understandingoftheconceptsandtechniqueswithinthelaboratory.Finally,a

demonstratorassignedgradeofthestudents’performanceandunderstandingthroughoutthe

laboratorywassupplied.Alldatacollectedwasde-identifiedandvoluntary,aspertheethics

approval(H0012564)procedure,uponcompletionofeachexperiment.Statisticalanalysisof

quantitativedatawascompletedusingaone-waybetweengroupsANOVAwithpost-hocs

testsusingSPSS.Qualitativedatawasanalysedthroughcommonthemesanalysis.

Abstract

iv

Theintendedaimsofthisprojectcanbeseparatedintolocalandglobalaims.Atthelocallevel

itwasintendedtoimprovethestudentexperienceofthechemistrylaboratoriesforboth

thosestudentsundertakingchemistryastheirfocusofstudyandthoseundertakingchemistry

asanelectiveorprerequisite.Themeasuresofthisimprovementwouldbeanincreaseinthe

engagementandenjoymentofstudents,greaterdevelopmentofchemistryspecificknowledge,

andthedevelopmentofabroaderskillsetincludingproblem-solvingskillsandcriticalthinking.

Fortheglobalimplicationsofthisstudy,twooutcomesareintended.Firstly,the

methodologiesandoutcomesobservedfromthispracticalcouldbeutilisedbyotherinstitutes.

Secondly,thecomparisonoftheseteachingapproachesprovidesinsightintotheinteractions

betweenalternativeteachingapproachesandtheexperimentscommonlyusedwithin

chemistryteachinglaboratories.

Analysisofthedatacollectedthroughoutthesestudyindicatedthatstatisticallysignificant

differencesweremostlylimitedtotheperceptionsofstudentsprovidedthroughthestudent-

completedsurveys.Ofinterestwasthefindingthatatthefoundationchemistrylevel,those

studentswhohavenotundertakenchemistrybeforeuniversity,agradualincreaseofthe

studentownershipoverthecourseofthesemesterwasofmostbenefit.Theresultsforthe

firstyearchemistrycomparisonindicatedhowever,thattheteachingapproacheswere

independentlysuitedtodifferentexperimentswithnopatternobserved.Thesecondandthird

yearunitsdidnotresultinanydefinitiveoutcomes.Ofmostvaluefromthisprojectarethe

methodologiesused,inadditiontothebenefitsobservedforthelocaldevelopmentofthe

laboratoriesattheUniversityofTasmania.

TableofContents

v

StatementsandDeclarations.............................................................................................i

Acknowledgements..............................................................................................................ii

Abstract...................................................................................................................................iii

ListofAbbreviations........................................................................................................viii

ListofFigures........................................................................................................................ix

ListofTables...........................................................................................................................1

Chapter1–Introduction....................................................................................................1

1.1HistoricalApproachestoEducation.................................................................................2

1.2EducationResearch................................................................................................................4

1.3LaboratoryEducation............................................................................................................6

1.4SystematicReview..................................................................................................................9

1.5ResearchAims........................................................................................................................16

Chapter2–TeachingMethods.......................................................................................19

2.1StudyDesign............................................................................................................................21

2.2ExpositoryStyle.....................................................................................................................21

2.3GuidedInquiryStyle.............................................................................................................23

2.4ProblemSolvingStyle..........................................................................................................26

2.5TeachingMethodsSummary.............................................................................................31

Chapter3–MethodologiesPart1:Logistics..............................................................32

3.1ResearchMethodology........................................................................................................32

3.2ResearchQuestions..............................................................................................................33

3.3ExperimentTypes.................................................................................................................34

3.4ChemistryattheUniversityofTasmania......................................................................36

TableofContents

vi

3.5Ethics.........................................................................................................................................37

3.6DataCollectionMethods.....................................................................................................38

3.6.1Survey..................................................................................................................................................39

3.6.2Quiz.......................................................................................................................................................41

3.6.3GradeforStudentLaboratoryPerformance.......................................................................42

3.7SampleGroups.......................................................................................................................46

3.8AnalysisofData......................................................................................................................47

3.8.1Quantitative.......................................................................................................................................47

3.8.2Qualitative..........................................................................................................................................48

3.9ParticipationbyDemonstratorsandStaff....................................................................49

3.10Safety.......................................................................................................................................51

Chapter4–MethodologiesPart2:ExperimentDesign.........................................52

4.1KRA001andKRA113...........................................................................................................56

4.2KRA223.....................................................................................................................................58

4.3KRA342.....................................................................................................................................59

Chapter5–Results:FoundationChemistry...............................................................61

5.1IntroductionaboutFoundationChemistry..................................................................61

5.2Results.......................................................................................................................................65

5.2.1TheAnalysisofaSolutionbyMeasurementofitsDensity...........................................65

5.2.2DistillationasaSeparationTechnique..................................................................................81

5.2.3IdentificationofaCarboxylicAcid..........................................................................................95

5.2.4PropertiesofSolutionsofAcidsandBases.......................................................................102

5.3FinalThoughts.....................................................................................................................115

Chapter6–Results:FirstYearChemistry...............................................................118

6.1IntroductiontoFirstYearChemistry..........................................................................118

TableofContents

vii

6.2Results....................................................................................................................................121

6.2.1OxidationofBenzylAlcohol:SynthesisofBenzoicAcid..............................................122

6.2.2OrganicFunctionalGroups.......................................................................................................145

6.2.3Thermochemistry:EnthalpyofNeutralisation................................................................164

6.2.4DeterminationoftheFreezing-PointDepressionConstantforCyclohexane.....184

6.3FinalThoughts.....................................................................................................................201

6.3.1ConcludingThoughts..................................................................................................................203

Chapter7–Results:SecondandThirdYearChemistry.....................................205

7.1KRA223ChemicalAnalysis.............................................................................................205

7.1.1UnitObjectives...............................................................................................................................205

7.1.2UnitOperation................................................................................................................................206

7.1.3LaboratoryExperimentDetails..............................................................................................206

7.1.4Results...............................................................................................................................................207

7.2KRA342CatalysisandReactionProcesses................................................................213

7.2.1UnitObjectives...............................................................................................................................213

7.2.2UnitOperation................................................................................................................................213

7.2.3LaboratoryExperimentDetails..............................................................................................213

7.2.4Results...............................................................................................................................................214

7.3FinalThoughts.....................................................................................................................215

Chapter8–Conclusions.................................................................................................217

References..........................................................................................................................223

SystematicReviewReferences.............................................................................................223

GeneralReferences...................................................................................................................227

ListofAbbreviations

viii

ListofAbbreviations

AERA=AmericanEducationResearchAssociation

C=Concepts

D=Data

T=Teacher

S=Student

EX=Expository

GI=GuidedInquiry

PS=ProblemSolving

µ=Mean

σ=StandardDeviation

AAS=AtomicAbsorptionSpectroscopy

UV/visible=Ultraviolet/visible

IC=IonChromatography

LC=LiquidChromatography

GC=GasChromatography

ListofFigures

ix

ListofFigures

Figure1.Numberofpublicationsineachyearfromwithinthesampleofpapersselectedfor

thissystematicreview................................................................................................................11

Figure2.Thedistributionofthe40papersincludedwithinthesystematicreviewofthepast15

yearsofChemistryLaboratoryEducationresearch...................................................................14

Figure3.Anillustrationofthealignmentbetweenthedatacollectioninstrumentsandthe

researchaimsofthisproject......................................................................................................38

Figure4.Anillustrationofthealignmentofthecriteriaoftherubricwiththelearning

objectivesofthelaboratory.......................................................................................................45

Figure5.TotaldistributionoftypesofsurveycommentsforTheAnalysisofaSolutionby

MeasurementofitsDensityexperiment(Expository,N=108;GuidedInquiry,N=35;Problem

Solving,N=19)...........................................................................................................................68

Figure6.Theproportionofpositiveversusnegativecommentsfortheoverarchingthemesin

theExpository(N=108)versionofTheAnalysisofaSolutionbyMeasurementofitsDensity

experiment.................................................................................................................................69


theGuidedInquiry(N=35)versionofTheAnalysisofaSolutionbyMeasurementofitsDensity

experiment.................................................................................................................................71


theProblemSolving(N=19)versionofTheAnalysisofaSolutionbyMeasurementofits

Densityexperiment....................................................................................................................73

Figure9.ComparisonofgradesbetweenteachingmethodsforTheAnalysisofaSolutionby

MeasurementofitsDensityexperimentinKRA001.Truevalues:Criterion1-20,Criteria2and

3-40scaledtopercentagewithpercentageerrorrepresentedaserrorbars.........................75

ListofFigures

x

Figure11.TotaldistributionoftypesofsurveycommentsfortheDistillationasaSeparation

Techniqueexperiment(Expository,N=56,GuidedInquiry,N=49;ProblemSolving,N=58). 83


theExpository(N=56)versionoftheDistillationasaSeparationTechniqueexperiment.......84


theGuidedInquiry(N=49)versionoftheDistillationasaSeparationTechniqueexperiment.85


theProblemSolving(N=58)versionoftheDistillationasaSeparationTechniqueexperiment.

....................................................................................................................................................87

Figure15.ComparisonofgradesbetweenteachingmethodsfortheDistillationasaSeparation

TechniqueexperimentinKRA001.Truevalues:Criterion1-20,Criteria2and3-40scaledto

percentagewithpercentageerrorrepresentedaserrorbars...................................................89

Figure16.Percentageofcorrect(blue)andpartiallycorrect(red)responsestoquestions

containedwithinthepost-experimentquizfortheDistillationasaSeparationTechnique

experiment(Expository,N=79;GuidedInquiry,N=29;ProblemSolving,N=68)...................91

Figure17.ComparisonofgradesbetweenteachingmethodsfortheIdentificationofa

CarboxylicAcidexperimentinKRA001.Truevalues:Criterion1-20,Criteria2and3-40scaled

topercentagewithpercentageerrorrepresentedaserrorbars...............................................97


containedwithinthepost-experimentquizfortheIdentificationofaCarboxylicAcid

experiment(Expository,N=80;GuidedInquiry,N=21;ProblemSolving,N=33).................100

Figure19.TotaldistributionoftypesofsurveycommentsforthePropertiesofSolutionsof

AcidsandBasesexperiment(Expository,N=39;GuidedInquiry,N=28;ProblemSolving,N=

23).............................................................................................................................................103

ListofFigures

xi


theExpository(N=39)versionofthePropertiesofSolutionsofAcidsandBasesexperiment104


theGuidedInquiry(N=28)versionofthePropertiesofSolutionsofAcidsandBases

experiment...............................................................................................................................106


theProblemSolving(N=23)versionofthePropertiesofSolutionsofAcidsandBases

experiment...............................................................................................................................108

Figure23.ComparisonofgradesbetweenteachingmethodsforthePropertiesofSolutionsof

AcidsandBasesexperimentinKRA001.Truevalues:Criterion1-20,Criteria2and3-40

scaledtopercentagewithpercentageerrorrepresentedaserrorbars..................................110


containedwithinthepost-experimentquizforthePropertiesofSolutionsofAcidsandBases

experiment(Expository,N=50;GuidedInquiry,N=27;ProblemSolving,N=78).................113

Figure25.TotaldistributionoftypesofsurveycommentsfortheOxidationofBenzylAlcohol:

SynthesisofBenzoicAcidexperiment(Expository,N=215;GuidedInquiry,N=211;Problem

Solving,N=131).......................................................................................................................126


theExpository(N=215)versionoftheOxidationofBenzylAlcohol:SynthesisofBenzoicAcid

experiment...............................................................................................................................127


theGuidedInquiry(N=211)versionoftheOxidationofBenzylAlcohol:SynthesisofBenzoic

Acidexperiment.......................................................................................................................131

ListofFigures

xii


theProblemSolving(N=131)versionoftheOxidationofBenzylAlcohol:SynthesisofBenzoic

Acidexperiment.......................................................................................................................134

Figure29.ComparisonofgradesbetweenteachingmethodsfortheOxidationofBenzyl

Alcohol:SynthesisofBenzoicAcidexperimentinKRA001.Truevalues:Criterion1-20,Criteria

2and3-40scaledtopercentagewithpercentageerrorrepresentedaserrorbars..............136

Figure31.TotaldistributionoftypesofsurveycommentsfortheOrganicFunctionalGroups

experiment(Expository,N=144;GuidedInquiry,N=141;ProblemSolving,N=96).............149


theExpository(N=144)versionoftheOrganicFunctionalGroupsexperiment.....................151


theGuidedInquiry(N=141)versionoftheOrganicFunctionalGroupsexperiment..............153


theProblemSolving(N=96)versionoftheOrganicFunctionalGroupsexperiment..............155

Figure35.ComparisonofgradesbetweenteachingmethodsfortheOrganicFunctionalGroups

experimentinKRA113.Truevalues:Criterion1-20,Criteria2and3-40scaledtopercentage

withpercentageerrorrepresentedaserrorbars....................................................................158


containedwithinthepost-experimentquizfortheOrganicFunctionalGroupsexperiment

(Expository,N=118;GuidedInquiry,N=210;ProblemSolving,N=74)................................160

Figure37.TotaldistributionoftypesofsurveycommentsfortheThermochemistry:Enthalpyof

Neutralisationexperiment(Expository,N=71;GuidedInquiry,N=65;ProblemSolving,N=69).

..................................................................................................................................................166

ListofFigures

xiii


theExpository(N=71)versionoftheThermochemistry:EnthalpyofNeutralisationexperiment.

..................................................................................................................................................167


theGuidedInquiry(N=65)versionoftheThermochemistry:EnthalpyofNeutralisation

experiment...............................................................................................................................171


theProblemSolving(N=69)versionoftheThermochemistry:EnthalpyofNeutralisation

experiment...............................................................................................................................174

Figure41.ComparisonofgradesbetweenteachingmethodsfortheThermochemistry:

EnthalpyofNeutralisationexperimentinKRA113.Truevalues:Criterion1-20,Criteria2and3

-40scaledtopercentagewithpercentageerrorrepresentedaserrorbars...........................176


containedwithinthepost-experimentquizfortheThermochemistry:Enthalpyof

Neutralisationexperiment(Expository,N=87;GuidedInquiry,N=185;ProblemSolving,N=

52).............................................................................................................................................178

Figure43.TotaldistributionoftypesofsurveycommentsfortheDeterminationofthe

Freezing-PointDepressionConstantforCyclohexaneexperiment(Expository,N=114;Guided

Inquiry,N=76;ProblemSolving,N=78).................................................................................186


theExpository(N=114)versionoftheDeterminationoftheFreezing-PointDepression

ConstantforCyclohexaneexperiment.....................................................................................187


theGuidedInquiry(N=76)versionoftheDeterminationoftheFreezing-PointDepressionof

Cyclohexaneexperiment..........................................................................................................189

ListofFigures

xiv


theProblemSolving(N=78)versionoftheDeterminationoftheFreezing-PointDepression

ConstantforCyclohexaneexperiment.....................................................................................193

Figure47.ComparisonofgradesbetweenteachingmethodsfortheDeterminationofthe

Freezing-PointDepressionConstantforCyclohexaneexperiment.Truevalues:Criterion1-20,

Criteria2and3-40scaledtopercentagewithpercentageerrorrepresentedaserrorbars. 195


containedwithinthepost-experimentquizfortheDeterminationoftheFreezing-Point

DepressionConstantforCyclohexaneexperiment(Expository,N=99;GuidedInquiry,N=206;

ProblemSolving,N=73)..........................................................................................................197

ListofTables

1

ListofTables

Table1.DescriptionsoftheLaboratoryInstructionStyles*.........................................................9

Table2.ComparisonoforiginalandmodifiedquestionsfromKennelley'sgradinginstrument12

Table3.CharacteristicsofLaboratoryTypes*............................................................................19

Table4.Levelsofinquiryacrossundergraduatechemistrylaboratoryexperiments................20

Table5.ExperimentTypologyDescriptions...............................................................................35

Table6.Variationsinlaboratorystructureacrosschemistryunitsstudied...............................36

Table7.SummaryofexperimentsconsideredwithinthefoundationalKRA001unit...............53

Table8.SummaryofexperimentsconsideredwithinthefirstyearKRA113unit......................54

Table9.SummaryofexperimentsconsideredwithintheKRA223andKRA342units*.............55

Table10.ThevarietyofformatsKRA001isofferedas...............................................................62

Table11.KRA001LaboratorycourseofferedatUniversityofTasmaniawithdetailsofall

experiments................................................................................................................................64

Table12.Sub-themesobservedfortheExpositoryversionofTheAnalysisofaSolutionby

MeasurementofitsDensityexperiment....................................................................................70

Table13.Sub-themesobservedfortheGuided-InquiryversionofTheAnalysisofaSolutionby


Table14.Sub-themesobservedfortheProblemSolvingversionofTheAnalysisofaSolutionby


Table16.Sub-themesobservedfortheExpositoryversionoftheDistillationasaSeparation

Techniqueexperiment................................................................................................................85

Table17.Sub-themesobservedfortheGuidedInquiryoftheDistillationasaSeparation

Techniqueexperiment................................................................................................................86

ListofTables

2

Table18.Sub-themesobservedfortheProblemSolvingversionoftheDistillationasa

SeparationTechniqueexperiment.............................................................................................88

Table19.Post-hocoutputofcomparisonsofstudents'overallgradeyieldingsignificant

differencesata95%confidenceintervalfortheDistillationasaSeparationTechnique

experiment.................................................................................................................................90

Table20.Post-hocoutputofcomparisonsofstudents'overallgradeyieldingsignificant

differencesata95%confidenceintervalfortheIdentificationofaCarboxylicAcidexperiment

....................................................................................................................................................98

Table21.Sub-themesobservedfortheExpositoryversionofthePropertiesofSolutionsof

AcidsandBasesexperiment.....................................................................................................105

Table22.Sub-themesobservedfortheGuidedInquiryversionofthePropertiesofSolutionsof

AcidsandBasesexperiment.....................................................................................................107

Table23.Sub-themesobservedfortheProblemSolvingversionofthePropertiesofSolutions

ofAcidsandBasesexperiment.................................................................................................109

Table24.Post-hocoutputofcomparisonsofstudents'overallgradeyieldingstatistically

significantdifferencesata95%confidenceintervalforthePropertiesofSolutionsofAcidsand

Basesexperiment.....................................................................................................................111

Table25.AsummaryoftherecommendedteachingapproachforeachexperimentinKRA001.

..................................................................................................................................................115

Table26.Thefulllaboratorycoursecompletedaspartofthefirstyearchemistryunit,KRA113,

indicatingwhichexperimentshavebeenmodifiedforthisstudy...........................................120

Table27.Post-hocoutputofcomparisonsofstudents'surveyresponsesyieldingstatistically

significantdifferencesata95%confidenceintervalfortheOxidationofBenzylAlcohol:

SynthesisofBenzoicAcidexperiment......................................................................................124

ListofTables

3

Table28.Sub-themesobservedfortheExpositoryversionoftheOxidationofBenzylAlcohol:


Table29.Sub-themesobservedfortheGuidedInquiryversionoftheOxidationofBenzyl

Alcohol:SynthesisofBenzoicAcidexperiment.........................................................................133

Table30.Sub-themesobservedfortheProblemSolvingversionoftheOxidationofBenzyl

Alcohol:SynthesisofBenzoicAcidexperiment.........................................................................135


significantdifferencesata95%confidenceintervalfortheOxidationofBenzylAlcohol:



significantdifferencesata95%confidenceintervalfortheOrganicFunctionalGroups

experiment...............................................................................................................................148

Table33.Sub-themesobservedfortheExpositoryversionoftheOrganicFunctionalGroups

experiment...............................................................................................................................152

Table34.Sub-themesobservedfortheGuidedInquiryversionoftheOrganicFunctional

Groupsexperiment...................................................................................................................154

Table35.Sub-themesobservedfortheProblemSolvingversionoftheOrganicFunctional

Groupsexperiment...................................................................................................................156


significantdifferencesata95%confidenceintervalfortheOrganicFunctionalGroups

experiment...............................................................................................................................159


significantdifferencesata95%confidenceintervalfortheThermochemistry:Enthalpyof

Neutralisationexperiment.......................................................................................................165

ListofTables

4

Table38.Sub-themesobservedfortheExpositoryversionoftheThermochemistry:Enthalpyof


Table39.Sub-themesobservedfortheGuidedInquiryversionoftheThermochemistry:

EnthalpyofNeutralisationexperiment....................................................................................172

Table40.Sub-themesobservedfortheProblemSolvingversionoftheThermochemistry:

EnthalpyofNeutralisationexperiment....................................................................................175


significantdifferencesata95%confidenceintervalfortheThermochemistry:Enthalpyof



significantdifferencesata95%confidenceintervalfortheDeterminationoftheFreezing-Point

DepressionConstantforCyclohexaneexperiment...................................................................185

Table43.Sub-themesobservedfortheExpositoryversionoftheDeterminationofthe

Freezing-PointConstantforCyclohexaneexperiment.............................................................188

Table44.Sub-themesobservedfortheGuidedInquiryversionoftheDeterminationofthe

Freezing-PointDepressionConstantforCyclohexaneexperiment...........................................191

Table45.Sub-themesobservedfortheProblemSolvingversionoftheDeterminationofthe

Freezing-PointDepressionConstantforCyclohexaneexperiment...........................................194


significantdifferencesata95%confidenceintervalfortheDeterminationoftheFreezing-Point

DepressionConstantforCyclohexaneexperiment...................................................................196


..................................................................................................................................................202

Chapter1–Introduction

1


Thestudypresentedwithinthisdissertationwasinresponsetoanincreasinglyloudercall,

bothlocallyandglobally.Thiscallistomorecloselyinspectthecurrentteachingpracticesused

withinuniversitieswhenteachingchemistry,andtoredevelopthesepracticeswhere

appropriate.(Gabel,1999;Anderson&Mitchener,1993;O'Toole&Rice,2010).Onearea

oftenraisedforredevelopmentistheteachinglaboratories,wherebothteachingstaffand

studentsfeeltheexperienceneedsimprovement(Garnett&Garnett,1995;Johnstone&Al-

Shuaili,2001;Bopegedera,2011).

ThisPhDstudyaimedtocomparativelyinvestigatetheadvantagesanddisadvantagesof

applyingalternativeteachingapproachesoverabroadvarietyofpre-existingexperiments

withinthechemistryprogramofferedattheUniversityofTasmania.Thisstudyusedamixed

methodsapproach,employingquantitativeandqualitativedatacollectionandanalysis,to

ensurearobuststatisticalfoundation.Theoverallintendedoutcomesofthisstudycanbe

describedasto:

i. broadentheunderstandingoftheinteractionbetweenalterativeteachingapproaches

withavarietyofexperimenttypes;and

ii. developanoptimisedlaboratorycourseincorporatingthefirstintendedoutcome.

ThestructureofthisstudyisdetailedinChapters3and4.Thefoundations,bothhistoricaland

current,uponwhichthisstudywasbasedwillbedetailedthroughChapters1and2.


2

1.1HistoricalApproachestoEducation

Throughouthistorytherehavebeennumerousmodelsprescribedforexplainingtheprocessof

learninganddevelopingknowledge.Astimehaspassed,ourunderstandingofhowpeople

learnhasaccelerated.Thisaccelerationhasresultedinanumberofrapidchangesofthought

onhowwedevelopourunderstandingoftheworldaroundus.Perkinson(1984)providesa

summaryofhowtheperceptionofthestudentlearningenvironmenthasshiftedoverthe

years.ThreephasesareproposedbyPerkinson:

1. Theinitiationmetaphor.FirstappearinginancientGreece,thismodelwas

perpetuateduntilthenineteenthcentury.Theinitiationmetaphorreliesupon

acontent-centriceducationwherethecontentofferedtolearnersisofthe

mostimportance.

2. Thetransmissionmetaphor.Transformingtheformerphase,thetransmission

metaphorusheredinthepopularityofateacher-centricenvironment.

Teacherswereconsideredtheholdersofknowledgeandwouldtransmitor

transfertherequiredknowledgeorskillstostudents.

3. Thegrowthmetaphor.Thethirdandfinalmetaphorproposed,shiftsthe

perceptiononcemoretoastudent-centriclearningenvironment,amodelthat

iscurrentlyinfavour.Thegrowthmetaphorproposesthatstudentsconstruct

theirownknowledgebasedontheirpastknowledgeandexperiences.

(AdaptedfromPerkinson,1984,pp.163-167)

Encapsulatedwithineachofthesemetaphorsareanumberofidentifiedlearningapproaches.

Contentionovertheappropriatelearningmodelinapracticalteachingenvironmentisongoing

(Tobin,Tippins,&Gallard,1994).Alearningapproachidentifiedfromwithinthetransmission

metaphorisBehaviourism,firstcoinedbyJ.B.Watson(McInerney,&McInerney,2010,pp.


3

163).KolesnikstatesthattheBehaviourismclassroom"...isbasedontheassumptionthat

teachersandschooladministratorsareabletoidentify'minimumessentials'ofknowledge

andintellectualskillswhichallstudentsshouldacquire..."(1975,pp.110).Kolesnik(1975)

admitsthatwhilesomefewgiftedstudentsmaylearntheseskillswithoutinstruction,the

majorityofastudentcohortwouldstruggleornotacquiretheseskillsontheirown.Amajor

changeforthismodelistherecognitionofstudents'priorlearning,understandingthat

studentsdonotallenteraclassroomatthesamelevelandthattheireducationmayneedto

betailoredforthatbackgroundknowledge.Themorewidelyacceptedmodelincurrenttimes

isConstructivism,whichisencapsulatedwithinPerkinsons(1984)growthmetaphor.Inthis

modelknowledgeisconstructedbystudents,basedonwhatlearnersalreadyknowand

understand.AnelegantdiscussionofConstructivismhasbeengivenbySaveryandDuffy

(2001).Ratherthantheteacherfosteringlearninginpassivestudents,thestudentsactively

engagewiththelearningenvironment.Thisengagementtakesintoaccountnotonlytheir

priorlearningbutalsotheirculturalorpersonalviewsandexperiencestodate.Inthisfashion,

theclassroomdynamicshiftssuchthatthestudentbecomesthecentreofthelearningprocess

andtheteachers'roleistofacilitatethatenvironment.SluntandGiancarlo(2004)presentan

exampleofthisstudent-centricteachingenvironmentinadditiontoanumberofstudiesinto

thisrealm.

InrecognitionofthestrengthsofConstructivismdiscussedaboveandtheknowndiversityof

studentsundertakingchemistryunitsatthetertiarylevel,thislearningframeworkwaschosen

tounderpinthisstudy.Thisallowedthefocustobeplacedupondevelopingarich

environmentforstudentstoengagewithin.Thisfollowsthetenetsof

Constructivism(constructionofknowledge,process,notproduct,multipleperspectives,

situatedcognition,reflexivecognition,cognitiveapprenticeship,andprocess-based


4

evaluation).Throughthese,studentsareenabledinconstructingnewknowledgefromthe

learningexperienceofferedinconjunctionwiththeirpastexperiencesandstoredknowledge.

Whenlookingatexperiencesstudentsundertakethroughabachelorsdegreeinchemistry,

Read(1941)suggesteditpossibletodividetheexperiencesintothreebroadareas:thetime

spenthavinginteractionwithalecturerlearningcontent,thetimespentstudyingand/or

researchingoutsideofuniversitycontacthours,andlearningwithinalaboratoryenvironment.

Reviewisofwebsitesfromuniversitiesatthecurrenttimereflectthatthisclassification,ata

meta-level,isstillrelevant(ImperialCollegeLondon,2015;UniversityofSydney,2015).To

simplyimprovealloftheseaspectswithinchemistryeducationwouldbetoconsideraproject

scopetoolargebyfarforasingleresearchproject,andinvolvesconsiderationofcurriculum,

pedagogyandleadership(Bedgoodetal.2010).Toconsideroneaspecthoweverisan

achievablegoaltoenablegrowthinthechemistryeducationfield.

1.2EducationResearch

Inapproachingresearchofanykind,itisimportanttounderstandandclearlyidentifyhowyou

intendtoconductastudy.Educationresearchitselfisatermthatmustbedefinedpriorto

engagingwithresearchofthatnature.TheAmericanEducationResearchAssociation(AERA)

defineeducationresearchas:

"Educationresearchisthescientificfieldofstudythatexamineseducationand

learningprocessesandthehumanattributes,interactions,organizations,and

institutionsthatshapeeducationaloutcomes.Scholarshipinthefieldseeksto

describe,understand,andexplainhowlearningtakesplacethroughoutaperson’slife

andhowformalandinformalcontextsofeducationaffectallformsoflearning.


5

Educationresearchembracesthefullspectrumofrigorousmethodsappropriatetothe

questionsbeingaskedandalsodrivesthedevelopmentofnewtoolsandmethods."

(AmericanEducationResearchAssociation,2016)

Inhisbook,"FundamentalsofEducationalResearch",Anderson(2004)discussesthedominant

paradigmsthatinfluenceeducationalresearch.Themostprevalentparadigmbeingthe

scientificmethod,formallyknownasthepositivistparadigm.Andersonpresentscriticismsof

thismethodology,asthenatureofthisapproachreliesuponassigningvaluetoobservations

made.Thiscriticismarisesbecausetheobservationstaken,particularlythoseobservations

madeaboutpeopleortheirintentionsandinteractions,canbeinfluencedbyourown

perceptionsormaynotbeobservableatall.Cohen,Manion,andMorrison(2011)describethe

limitationsofpositivismineducationresearchas:

"Wherepositivismislesssuccessful,however,isinitsapplicationtothestudyof

humanbehaviourwheretheimmensecomplexityofhumannatureandtheelusive

andintangiblequalityofsocialphenomenacontraststrikinglywiththeorderand

regularityoftheknownworld."

(Cohenetal.2011,pp.7)

Furthertothis,Firth-CousinsandMcKimm(2012)state:

"Educationalresearchdrawslargelyfromthesocialsciencesinitsapproach,research

methodsandinterpretationofresults,andmayinvolveashiftinperspectivefromthe

seekingofirrefutable'facts'anduniversal'truths',toofferingnewinsights,

acknowledgingthesubjectivityofresearchers,theimpactoftheresearchprocessitself

onsubjectsandoutcomes,andtheagencyofthesubjectsoftheresearch."

(Firth-Cousins&McKimm,2012,pp.3)


6

Inhisbook"IntroductiontoEducationalResearch",Charles(1988)discussedthevarioustypes

ofeducationalresearchconducted.Theseincludedhistorical,descriptive,correlational,causal-

comparative,experimental,andresearchanddevelopment.Whenplacingthiswithinthe

contextofthisstudy,amixedapproachcombiningtwoofthedescribedtypeshasbeen

applied.Specificallytheseareexperimentaland'researchanddevelopment'.Experimental

researchisdefinedasbeingfocuseduponcause-effectrelationshipsinsituationswhere

manipulationofoneormorevariablesispossible(Charles,1988,pp.11-12).Thisisachieved

inthisresearchthroughmanipulationoftheteachingapproachusedforeachlaboratory

exercise.Theeffectsofthesechangeshavebeenexaminedinanumberofareasofinterest,

includingstudentperceptions,studentunderstanding,andstudentperformance.Inthis

manner,theoverallcomparativestudywouldfallwithinanexperimentalresearchtype.

Consideringeachteachingapproachimplementationindividuallyhowever,itispossibletosee

alignmentwiththeresearchanddevelopmenttype.Charles(1988)describesthenatureofthe

researchanddevelopmenttypeasbeingonewheretheoutcomeofastudyleadstothe

generationofaneworimprovedproduct.InthisPhDproject,eachlaboratoryexercise

underwentadevelopmentphasetomodifyorbuildanewexperimenttostudy.Followingthis,

anevaluationofthischangewasundertakenusinginstrumentstomeasurethevalueofeach

teachingapproachanditstransferabilitytooutsideenvironments.

1.3LaboratoryEducation

Laboratoryeducationisoneofthefoundingpillarsofchemistryteachingatuniversities

(GarnettandGarnett,1995).However,ithasbeencontinuallyevolvingovertheyears

(Pickering,1993).Oneoftheearliestexamplesofeducationtakingplace,specificallyina

laboratory,isLiebig'slaboratorydatingbackto1820(Pickering1993).Intheyearssince


7

Liebig'slaboratoryhowever,therehasbeenanincreasingamountofattentionontheteaching

laboratoryanditsrelevance,orlackthereof,totheoveralleducationofastudent(Wellington,

1989).AreviewbyGarnettandGarnett(1995)extensivelydetailstheconcernsofanumberof

studiesonthechemistryteachinglaboratory.

Researchintotheteachinglaboratoryhasbeenanongoingtopicofinterestforaconsiderable

partofthe20thcentury.Forexample,Hunt(1935)discussestheuseofdemonstrationstoa

classasopposedtolaboratoryexercises.Theoutcomeofthisstudyindicatedthatthegreatest

benefitforthischangeliesineconomicalsavingsforbothcostandtime,withnoobservable

changesforthequalityoflearning.AreviewbyReidandShah(2006)detailssomecontrasting

studiesarguingthebenefitsofincludinglaboratorycourseswithinchemistryprograms.Reid

andShahconcludedfromthisreviewthatthebenefitsofincludinganefficientandeffective

laboratorycourseoutweighedthecosts.Hofstein(2004)publishedfindingsfrom30yearsof

researchintothechemistryteachinglaboratory.Withinthesefindingsitbecomesapparentas

towhythereissomuchdiscourseonthistopic.Theresearchuncoversadiverserangeof

variablesinvolvedinteachingwithinalaboratory.Furthermore,bothcommonlyknownand

lesswell-knownteachingpracticesthatcanbeimplementedareidentified.Dependingonthe

approachtakentodevelopthelaboratory,considerableshiftsintheeconomicalfactors

involvedcanoccur.Inanidealworld,time,costandresourceswouldnotbeanissuewith

whichtodeal.Realisticallyhowever,whetherduetoinstitutionalpressuresorsimplythe

limitationsoftheenvironmentbeingworkedin,laboratorycoursescanbecompromisedfor

theirteachingqualitytoaccommodatethis(Lagowski2002).Giventhebroadnatureof

laboratoryeducation,therearemanyavenuesthroughwhichresearchcouldbedirectedto

improveoraltertheexperience.Someoftheseinclude,butarecertainlynotlimitedto:


8

• Changingtheexperimentcontentitself;

• Changingthefocusoftheexperiment;

• Shiftingthelaboratorytobemoreaccessibletodistanceordisadvantaged

studentsthroughuseofremotelaboratories;

• Alteringtheteachingapproachframeworkwithinwhichtheexperimentis

placed;and

• Mimicryofanauthenticorrealworldresearchenvironment.

AreviewpublishedbyDomin(1999)lookedatthemostcommonlyobservedteaching

approachesdocumentedinchemistryeducationresearchtothatdate.Oftheresearch

consideredwithinthisreview,fouroverarchingteachingapproacheswereidentified:

Expository,Inquiry,Discovery,andProblemBased.Dominnotesoneofthereasonsbehindthis

reviewwastocounteracttherisingvolumeofcritiquesleveledtowardstheExpository

teachingapproach.Toclarify,Expositoryismorecolloquiallyreferredtoas'recipe-style

teaching'(Hunter,Wardell,&Wilkins2000;Seery,McDonnell,&O'Connor,2007)or'spoon-

feeding'(Ellis&Allan2010)laboratories,bothofwhichhaveassociatednegativeconnotations.

Lagowski(1990,pp.541)discussestheevolutionofthisparticularteachingapproachasa

meansto"consumeminimalresourceswhetherthesebetime,space,equipment,or

personnel".ThroughoutDomins'reviewoneofthekeythemeswastheimportanceof

recognisingthatallteachingapproacheshaveadvantagesanddisadvantages.Forexample,as

Lagowski(1990)discussed,Expositoryasateachingapproachisbeneficialintermsofworking

withinlimitedresources,asopposedtoanopen-endedexperiencethatmayrequire

considerableeconomicalandlogisticalsupport.IncontrastHutchings(2006)givesweightto

thestrengthofexploratoryteachingapproachessuchasinquiryorproblem-basedlearning


9

whendevelopingcreativeandcriticalthinkingskills.Table1belowoutlinesthedescriptors

separatingthefourteachingapproachesDomin(1999)classified.

Table1.DescriptionsoftheLaboratoryInstructionStyles*

Style DescriptorOutcome Approach Procedure

Expository Predetermined Deductive GivenInquiry Undetermined Inductive StudentgeneratedDiscovery Predetermined Inductive GivenProblem-based Predetermined Deductive Studentgenerated

*Domin(1999,pp.543)

ConsideringthedescriptorsDominprovides,itcanbeseenthatExpository,whereinallthree

areastheteachergeneratesthestructure,couldbemostcloselylinkedwithearliermodelsof

learningtheorysuchasbehaviourism.Thisfocusontheteacherbeingthesoleconstructor

simplifiesthevolumeofworkrequiredofstudents,andaspreviouslymentioned,minimises

theresourcesrequired.AsweprogressthroughTable1wecanseeagradualshifthowever,

fromtheteachergeneratingtheframeworktoajointeffortbetweenteacherandstudentto

solvebothpre-andundeterminedoutcomes.Amorein-depthdiscussionoftheseadvantages

anddisadvantagescanbefoundinChapter2.

1.4SystematicReview

UsingthereviewpublishedbyDomin(1999)asafoundation,asystematicreviewwas

undertakenaspartofthisdoctorate.Firth-CousinsandMcKimm(2012)provideaconcise

descriptionofthepurposeofasystematicreview:

"Systemic[Systematic]literaturereviewsareanothereducationalresearchactivity.

Thesemaybecarriedoutaspartofongoingresearchtoinformtheresearchprocess


10

orasadiscreteactivitytoprovideinformationtoaspecificaudienceaboutthecurrent

findingsfrompublishedliterature."

(Firth-Cousins,&McKimm,2012,pp.3)

Thesystematicreviewconductedwithinthisthesisaimedtoreviewthechemistrylaboratory

educationresearchthathasbeenpublishedinthe15yearssinceDomin'sreview.The

outcomesfrommyreviewwereutilisedfortwopurposes:thefirstbeingtocontributeanew

perspectiveofonthequalityofresearchconductedintothechemistryteachinglaboratory.

Thesecondwastofocustheresearchaimsofthisthesiswhilstensuringthemethodological

foundationswererigorous.Discussionoftheseoutcomesaregiventhroughoutthissection.

Atotalof40paperswereselectedfromthebodyofresearchpublishedbetween1999(post

Domin1999)and2014.Theconditionsthateachpapermustabidebydescribeastudywhere

researchhadbeenconducteduponachemistryteachinglaboratory.Theselectionofpapers

encompassedanumberofjournalsincludingbutnotlimitedto:JournalofChemicalEducation;

ChemistryEducationResearchandPractice;InternationalJournalofScienceEducation;and

StudiesinHigherEducation;andregionalareasoftheUnitedStatesofAmerica;Ireland;

France;Australia;Taiwan;Germany;Sweden;andCanada.Theselectionofpaperstoincludein

thissystematicreviewwasundertakenbyselectingabroadrangeofjournals(bothprolificand

otherwise)beforesearchingforkeywords.Thesekeywordsincluded:teachingmethods,

laboratory,problemsolving,guidedinquiry,expository,recipe,andexperiments.Paperswere

thenselectediftheconditionsaboveweremet.

ThedistributionofpublicationdatesfortheselectedpapersisdisplayedwithinFigure1.

Exceptingtheyear2001,therewererepresentationsfromall15yearswithacomparable

numberofpublications.Theyear2007wasanexceptiontothiswithalargenumber,11in


11

total,ofpublicationsincomparisontootheryears,responsibleforover25%ofthesample

group.Noclearexplanationforthisincreaseinpublicationswasfoundandwasattributedto

coincidence.

Figure1.Numberofpublicationsineachyearfromwithinthesampleofpapersselectedforthissystematicreview

Afocusforthereviewoftheselectedpaperswasonthequalityofthemethodology,findings,

andconclusions.Thisrequiredtheadoptionordevelopmentofamethodofevaluationthat

hadthehighestdegreeofobjectivityandrepeatability.Assuch,itwasdecidedtoadaptthe

gradinginstrumentusedwithinKennelley(2010)giventhealignmentbetweenthe

instrumentsintendedoutcomesandthedesiredoutcomeshere.Thisinstrumentwas

developedtomeasurethequalityandevidenceofqualitative/quantitative/mixed-methods

studiesinasimilarsystematicreview.Aspartofthisstudy,severalofKennelley'squestions

weremodifiedtoshiftthefocustogiveinsightintothequalityofthemethodology,regardless

ofwhetherthedatacollectedwasquantitative,qualitative,oramixed-methodsapproach.

Kennelley'sinstrumentwasdesignedtoprovideanevaluationofqualityandevidenceof

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

Num

berofPapersPublished

YearPublished


12

qualitativestudiesspecifically.Forthepurposeofthereviewinthisthesis,thequestionswere

modifiedtoincorporatestudiesthatwerequantitativeormixedmethods,aswellas

qualitative.Table2detailsthespecificquestionsthatweremodifiedfromtheoriginalgrading

instrument.

Table2.ComparisonoforiginalandmodifiedquestionsfromKennelley'sgradinginstrument

OriginalQuestion ModifiedVersion

Qualitativemethodsofinquiryare

appropriateforthestudyaims.(Theresearch

soughttounderstand,illuminate,orexplain

thesubjectiveexperienceorviewsofthose

beingresearchedinadefinedcontextor

setting.)

Methodsofinquiryareappropriateforthe

studyaims.(Theresearchsoughtto

understand,illuminate,orexplainthe

subjectiveexperienceorviewsofthosebeing

researchedinadefinedcontextorsetting.)

Theauthorsdiscussedwhytheydecidedto

usequalitativemethods.

Theauthorsdiscussedwhytheydecidedto

usethechosenmethods.

Triangulationproducedconvergent

conclusions.

•If“no,”wasthisadequatelyexplained?

Thestudyincludedtriangulation(namely,

comparisonofdifferentsourcesofdatare:

thesameissue).

•If“yes”,Triangulationproducedconvergent

conclusions(orifdivergent,theywere

discussedandjustified).

•If"no",wasthisadequatelyexplained?

Studyfindingsweregeneratedbymorethan

oneanalyst.

Studyfindingsweregeneratedbymorethan

oneanalystand/orwereanalysedwith


13

referencetoworkinsimilarpublishedstudies.

Potentialresearcherbiasesaretakeninto

account.

Potentialresearcherbiasesaretakeninto

account(forexampleparticipationofauthor

instudy).

Theauthorsidentifiednewresearchareas.

Theauthorsidentifiednewresearch

questionsordirectionstobeinvestigated

Themodificationsmadeabovefellintotwocategoriesofchange.Thefirstwasthe

replacementofallspecificreferencestoqualitativemethodswithabroadertermsuchas

methodsofinquiry.Oralternatively,listingqualitative,quantitative,andmixedmethods.The

secondcategoryofchangeswereminortweakstoprovideanarrowerfocusinsomequestions.

ThefinalgradinginstrumentusedforthissystematicreviewmaybefoundinAppendixI.The

instrumentgivesflexibilityforeachstudytomeet,approachornotmeetanumberofaspects

deemedimportanttothequalityofaresearchpaperinthisarea.Theseincluded:

• ResearchDesign

• Sampling

• DataCollection

• DataAnalysis

• Findings/Results

• ResearchValue

Tominimisebias,eachstudywasscoredagainsttheadaptedinstrumentbytheprimaryauthor

ofthisthesisandoneofthesupervisoryteambeforeanaveragewastaken.Intheeventthata


14

largedisparityexistedbetweentheauthorandsupervisor,adiscussiontookplacetojustify

eachscoringuntilacompromisedscorewasaccepted.Uponcompletionofthegradingfor

eachofthe40publications,Figure2belowwasconstructedtoconveythedistributionof

publicationsintofivelevels,withthemaximumscorepossibleat50.

Figure2.Thedistributionofthe40papersincludedwithinthesystematicreviewofthepast15yearsofChemistryLaboratoryEducationresearch

Tofirstconsidersomeofthosepapersthatscoredwithinthelowestbracket,0-10(Long,

2012;Mohrig,Hammond,&Colby,2007;Wilczek-Vera&Salin,2011;Yang,2007),acommon

themeinthelimitationsofthesepublishedstudieswasobserved.Eachofthesesucceededin

describinganexperimentorexperiencethatcouldbeinstalledwithinalaboratorycourseand

sufficientinformationisprovidedtoallowreproducibilityoftheseconditions.Inadditionto

this,theresearchaimswereoutlinedtoimprovethequalityofthelearningexperiencewithin

thechemistryteachinglaboratory.Whenconsideringthemethodologiesemployedto

investigatethepedagogicalvalueoftheseexperiences,littletonodiscussionwasprovided.

9

7

4

13

7

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

50-41 40-31 30-21 20-11 10-0

NumberofpublicaOons

Scoreawardedbyadaptedinstrument


15

Specifically,whilstthechemistryexperimentalproceduresareclearlydetailed,theeducation

researchmethodsincludingsampleselections,datacollectionandanalysis,pedagogical

findings,andthecorrespondingcontributionstothescienceeducationfieldwerenotpresent.

Thosepapersattheotherendofthespectrumwithscoresbetween41and50(Berg,

Bergendahl,Lundberg,&Tibell,2003;Domin,2007;Kable&Read,2007;Kampourakis&

Tsaparlis,2003;Kelly&Finlayson,2009;Newton,Tracy,&Prudenté,2006;Seery,McDonnell,

&O'Connor,2007;Sandi-Urena,Cooper,Gatlin,&Bhattacharyya2011;Tomasik,Cottone,

Heethius,&Mueller2013)exemplifythosequalitiestheadaptedinstrumentassesses.Allof

thesepublicationsweretransparentandrigorousintheirexplanationanddiscussionofthe

researchaims,methodologies,datacollectionandanalysis,andhowtheirfindingscontribute

tothewidercommunity.

Thereareofcourse,alargenumberofstudiesthatachievemixedsuccesswithrespecttothe

qualitiessoughtafterinthissystematicreview.Twopapers,bothscoring17againstthe

adaptedinstrument(Byrd&O'Donnell,2003;Walker,Sampson,&Zimmerman,2011),are

exampleswheresomediscussionwasdedicatedtothefindingsoftheirrespectivestudiesand

theimplicationsforthewidercommunity.Themethodologiesemployedforthesestudies,

includingthesampleselectionandsize,datacollection,andanalysis,werenotbeendetailed.

Therefore,whilethechemistryexperimentsdetailedinthesepublicationsareeasilyreplicable

withtheprovidedinformation,toreplicatethepedagogicalinvestigationandresultswouldnot

befeasible.

AstudyconductedbyHopkinsandSamide(2013),scoring24.5againsttheadaptedinstrument,

providesawell-roundedexamplewhereallareascoveredinthissystematicreviewwere


16

partiallyaddressed.HopkinsandSamide(2013)investigatedtheuseofathematiclaboratory-

centredcurriculumforgeneralchemistryunits,andisperhapsmostlimitedbyalackofclarity

whendetailingtheirresearchmethodologiesandfindings.Blonder,Mamlok-Naaman,and

Hofstein(2008)provideanexampleofsimilarquality(scoring30)wheredespitethestrength

oftheirresearchframework,discussionofthefindingsandwheretheyhaveoriginatedfromis

limitedindetail.

Itisclearfromthisreviewthatthereisarangeofquality,asdefinedbytheadapted

instrumentusedhere,withinstudiesundertakeninthechemistryteachinglaboratoryspace.

Movingforward,thequalityofstudiesinthisfieldmustevolvetoreachthosehighstandards

tovalidatetheresultsobtained.Assuch,thosequalitiesthathavebeenhighlightedfromthe

publicationsscoredabove40wereconsideredafocusforthisstudy.Specifically,arigorous

methodologythatalignswiththeresearchaimswasdevelopedwheretriangulationofseveral

datacollectionandanalysisapproacheswasusedtostrengthenanyfindingsobserved.

1.5ResearchAims

Takingintoconsiderationtheinsightgainedfromthesystematicreviewdiscussedwithin

Section1.4,thisstudysoughttomeetanumberofresearchaims.Thefouraimsofthis

doctoratestudyare:

1. Thedevelopmentofan'optimised'laboratorycourseattheUniversityofTasmania;

2. Thedevelopmentofarigorousmethodologyfortheinvestigationandvalidationof

laboratoryteachingpractices;

3. Toexploretheadvantagesanddisadvantagesofalternativeteachingapproachesin

comparisontooneanother;and


17

4. Toinvestigatetherelationshipbetweenteachingapproachesandthetypesof

experimentsundertaken.

Theseaimscanbedividedintotwobroadcategories:thefirstaim,"Thedevelopmentofan

'optimised'laboratorycourseattheUniversityofTasmania",canbeconsideredasbeing

primarilyfocusedatthelocallevel.An'optimised'laboratorycourse,orpartsof,mayhave

applicabilityinotherinstitutions.However,thecoreintentionforthisaimistheimprovement

ofteachingpracticeslocally.Theseimprovementswouldbeseeninanumberofways:an

improvementintheengagementandenjoymentofstudents,greaterdevelopmentof

chemistryspecificknowledgeandskills,andthedevelopmentofabroaderskillsetincluding

problem-solvingskillsandcriticalthinking.

Thesecond,third,andfourthresearchaimsareallconsideredasglobalaimswithimplications

forbothpedagogicalqualityattheUniversityofTasmania,butmoreimportantlycontributing

tothecurrentbodyofliteratureforresearchintothechemistryteachinglaboratory.The

secondaim,"Thedevelopmentofarigorousmethodologyfortheinvestigationandvalidation

oflaboratoryteachingpractices",isdesignedtodirectlyaddresssomeofthelimitations

observedfromthesystematicreviewconductedinSection1.4.Thestrengthofthe

methodologiesemployedaddsconsiderableweighttothefindingsandoutcomesobserved

fromthisstudy.Furthermore,thisaimwasintendedtoprovideaframeworkfromwhichthe

widercommunitycoulddrawupontopotentiallystrengthentheircorrespondingstudies.

Thethird,"Toexploretheadvantagesanddisadvantagesofalternativeteachingapproaches

incomparisontooneanother",andfourth,"Toinvestigatetherelationshipbetweenteaching

approachesandthetypesofexperimentsundertaken",aimsareintrinsicallylinkedin


18

outcomes.Toclarify,thethirdaim,whendiscussingtheadvantagesordisadvantagesobserved,

thecontextlieswithinfindingwhichteachingmethodprovidestheoptimallaboratory

experience.Aligningthisoutcomewithregardtothetypeofexperimentundertaken,leads

intothefourthaim.Thetypeofexperiment,meanstheskillassociatedwithcompletionofthis

experimentratherthanthespecificbranchofchemistryitmaybeconnectedto.Forexample,

thedifferencebetweenanobservationorinterpretationexperimenttothatofahands-on

skillsfocusedsynthesis.

Anyfindingsfortheselattertwoaimswillcontributetothegrowingliteratureoneffective

teachingandlearningmethodsinchemistryeducation,specificallylaboratoryteaching

practices.Theuseofarigorousmethodologyenablesthefindingsofthisstudytohavesome

transferabilitytootherinstitutions.

Chapter2–TeachingMethods

19


EarlierinChapter1,Domin's1999reviewofimplementedlaboratoryteachingstyleswas

discussedwithregardstodistinguishingthemostcommonlyusedteachingapproaches.

Anotherexplorationofthedifferencesbetweensomeoftheseteachingapproacheswas

providedbyPavelichandAbraham(1979)sometwentyyearspriortoDomin'sreview.Pavelich

andAbrahamdiscussthreeteachingapproaches,Verification(otherwiseknownasExpository),

GuidedInquiry,andOpenInquiry,withrespecttothecharacteristicsofeachasseenbelowin

Table3(Pavelich&Abraham,1979,pp.100).

Table3.CharacteristicsofLaboratoryTypes*

Verifi-cation

Guided-Inquiry

Open-Inquiry

Order CàD DàC DàCChoiceofExperiment T T SExperimentDesign T T SDataAnalysis T S SDataExplanation T S S

*C:ConceptsD:DataT:TeacherS:Student

Pavelich&Abraham(1979,pp.100)

InthedefinitionpresentedbyPavelichandAbraham,therearedifferenceswithregardstothe

componentsofalaboratoryexperimentbeingconsideredwhencomparedtothatofDomin

(1999).However,onceagainthesamethemeisapparent.Themorerigorouslystructured

approach,Verification,isidentifiedasteachercentric.Aseachteachingapproachisconsidered

fromlefttorightinTable3,agradualshiftoccurswithanincreasingfocusonstudentinput

intotheexperimentprocessuntilOpenInquiryisreachedwheretheexperimentiscentred


20

uponthestudent.InOpenInquirytheteacher’sroleshiftstobecomingafacilitatorora

resourceforthestudentratherthanbeingaguide.

FurtherexamplescanbeseenwithintheliteraturewithastudybyFay,Grove,Towns,and

Bretz(2007)wherearubricwasdesignedtoaidinidentifyingthelevelofinquirybeingusedin

alaboratoryactivity(Table4).

Table4.Levelsofinquiryacrossundergraduatechemistrylaboratoryexperiments

Level Problem/Question Procedure/Method Solution0 Providedtostudent Providedtostudent Providedtostudent1 Providedtostudent Providedtostudent Constructedbystudent2 Providedtostudent Constructedbystudent Constructedbystudent3 Constructedbystudent Constructedbystudent Constructedbystudent

Fay,Grove,Towns,&Bretz(2007,pp.216)

Thesignificanceofthisstudylieswithinthesimilaritiesobservedbetweenthevaryinglevelsof

inquiryposedbyFay,Grove,Towns,andBretz(2007),andthelaboratoryinstructionstyles

proposedinTable1(Domin,1999,pp.543)andthelaboratorytypesinTable3(Pavelich&

Abraham,1979,pp.100).Forexample,toconsidertheLevel0withinTable4;the

Problem/Question,Procedure/Method,andSolutionhaveallbeendesignedorprovidedby

theteacher.TheclassificationsforTable1andTable3woulddesignatetheseconditionsasan

ExpositorylaboratoryinstructionstyleandaVerificationlaboratorytyperespectively.This

trendisobservedwhencomparinghigherlevelsofinquiryasdefinedbyFay,Grove,Towns,

andBretz(2007).


21

2.1StudyDesign

Theinitialstepintheprocesswastodecideonsuitableteachingapproachesthatwouldgive

variedresultswhileremainingfeasiblegiventheenvironmentprovidedatTheUniversityof

Tasmania.Afterextensiveconsiderationoftheliteratureitwasdecidedtoconsiderthree

differentteachingapproaches,Expository,GuidedInquiry,andProblemSolving.Eachofthese

arediscussedingreaterdetailbelow.Incomparingtheseteachingapproaches,itmustbe

acknowledgedthateachwillhavespecificlearningoutcomesuniquetothatapproach.Theaim

ofthisstudyfocusesuponthecoreexperiment-specificoutcomesthatremainthesame

regardlessoftheteachingapproachused.TheExpositoryapproachwaschosenasitrelates

mostcloselytothecurrentlaboratorymethodsused.Problem-based,ontheotherhand,was

asfarremovedfromtheExpositoryapproachaspossible,allowingacomparisonbetweentwo

approachesatoppositeendsofthespectrum.GuidedInquirywastreatedasanintermediate

betweenthesetwoapproaches,combiningelementsofbothinastructuredmanner.

2.2ExpositoryStyle

TheExpositorystyleofteachinghaslongbeenusedasthetraditionalformofteaching,

particularlywithinlaboratoryenvironments(Domin,1999).Itischaracterisedbyarigorous

frameworkandstrictinstructionstocreateanenvironmentwherethestudentundertakesa

specifiedpathwaytoachieveapredeterminedresult.Toplacethiswithinthetaxonomies

definedearlierinTables3and4,PavelichandAbraham(1979)wouldclassifythisasbeinga

Verificationstylelaboratoryduetotheconceptsinformingthedatatobecollectedandall

aspectsofthelaboratorybeingdesignedbytheteacher.Similarly,Fayetal.(2007)would

classifythisstyleasaLevel0InquiryexperienceastheProblem/Question,Procedure/Method,

andSolutionareallprovidedforthestudent.AstudybyMontesandRockley(2002)


22

investigatedtheperceptionsteachersholdwithregardtotheadvantagesanddisadvantages

ofExpository,orVerification,teachingexperiments.Theoutcomesofthisstudyindicatedthe

advantagesofExpositoryasateachingapproachfellintotwolargercategories:Firstly,the

traditionalnatureofthisapproachprovidesteachersasenseofcomfortandfamiliarity.

Secondly,theperceivededucationaloutcomesofwhichrelatetochemistrycontent

knowledgeratherthanpracticallaboratoryexperience.

Thediversityoflearningpreferenceforstudentsisbroadandassuch,arigorouslystructured

approachenablesonlyoneacceptedmethodtocompletethelaboratory(Monteyne&

Cracolice,2004).Incomparisontootherteachingapproaches,thislimitationcanseverely

disadvantagestudentswhomaynotengagewellwiththisapproach.Studieshave

demonstratedthebenefitforstudentlearninggainsinaligningteachingstyleswithindividual

students'learningstyles(Allinson&Hayes,1996;Felder&Brent,2005)

Giventhelonghistoryofthisteachingapproach,littletonoresearchhasbeenundertaken

withproposingExpositoryasanovelapproachtolaboratoryeducation.However,thereare

examplesintheliterature,suchasastudybyGreen,ElliottandCummins(2004),inwhichthey

comparedanExpositoryteachingapproachtoaPromptedInquiry-Basedapproach.Inthis

study,aPromptedInquiry-basedgroupprojectwasruninconjunctionwithmoretraditional

scriptedlaboratoriesforcomparison.Greenetal.(2004)anecdotallydeterminedthatdespite

thepromisedpotentialofInquiry,theExpositorywaspreferredbyeducatorsforits

effectivenessatlinkingtheorywithexperience.Thiswasnotedtobeparticularlyimportantat

theintroductoryandfirstyearcoursesinordertocementunderstandingoffundamental

concepts.


23

2.3GuidedInquiryStyle

Ashasbeenpreviouslydiscussed,GuidedInquiryisjustoneexamplethatfitsbeneaththe

umbrellaofInquiryasateachingapproach.ThisparticularformofInquiryischaracterisedbya

blendedapproachutilisingaframeworktoallowstudentssomeconstrictionswhilstgiving

spaceforstudentstoexpandorpersonalisetheirexperience(Gaddis&Schoffstall,2007).The

intermediatenatureofthisteachingapproachwasselectedasitprovidesamediumbetween

theExpositoryandProblemSolvingapproachesbeinginvestigatedinthisstudy.Thisaligns

withtheGuidedInquirydefinitionsgiveninTables3and4.PavelichandAbraham(1979)

describeGuidedInquiryasanexperiencewhereboththeDataAnalysisandDataExplanation

sectionsoftheexperiencearestudentdriven,whilsttheChoiceofExperimentandExperiment

Designcomponentsareprovidedbytheteacher.Furthermore,studentsutilisethedatato

discoverconceptsandexplainthese.Fayetal.(2007)provideananalogousclassification,

definingGuidedInquiryasaLevel1InquiryexperiencewhereboththeProblem/Questionand

Procedure/MethodareprovidedtothestudentsandtheygeneratetheSolutionthemselves.

GiventheflexibilityofInquiryasateachingapproach,alargevolumeofresearchhasbeen

publishedonvaryingapproachestoincorporatingInquiryintotheteachinglaboratory.Mohrig

etal.(2007)reportedonanumberofexamplesofGuidedInquiryandcontinuedtospecify

someofthemostimportantfactorstotakeintoconsiderationwhendesigningasuccessful

Inquirylearningenvironment.Thesefactorsincluded:

• Conveyingthegoalsandmethodstoallconcerned

• Positivefacultyparticipation

• AppropriateTeachingAssistant(TA)training

• Providingtimeforpreandpostlaboratorydiscussions

• Availabilityofmoderninstrumentation


24

• Availabilityofwrittenbackgroundmaterials

Inanidealworld,controlofalltheseaspectswouldbereadilyavailableandthelimitationsof

fundingandresourceswouldnothindertheimplementationofalternativelearning

experiences.Byrecognisingthesefactorshowever,effortcanbemadewherepossibleto

ensuretheimplementedInquiryapproachhasthehighestchanceofsuccess.

ApotentialoptionfortheincorporationofInquiry-Basedlearningintoalaboratoryframework

wasproposedbyGreenetal.(2004).Withinthisstudy,acomparisonwasmadebetweenthe

moretraditionalExpositoryteachingapproachandanInquiry-Basedapproach.Greenetal.

highlightthestrengthofInquiryindevelopingtheprocessofscientificinquiry,askillnot

associatedwiththeExpositorystyle.Theconclusionsfromthisstudyindicatedthatthe

optimalapproachwouldbetomaintaintherigorousstructurepreviouslyusedwithin

ExpositoryandcombineelementsofInquiry-Basedlearningfortheearlyyearsoftertiary

chemistryeducation.Contrastingtothisinvestigation,therearestudiesinwhichthe

conclusionsdrawnarefarmoreblackandwhite.RicciandDitzler(1991)advocatethe

replacementofalltraditionallaboratorieswithGuidedInquiryexperiences.Thecruxoftheir

argumentliesinthedesiretobringlaboratoriestothecentreofchemistrylearningandthus

uselecturesasareinforcementinstrumentafterconceptshavebeenintroducedinthe

laboratory.Positivefeedbackwasreportedfrombothstaffandstudentsinvolvedinthisstudy.

Thestudentsspecifiedthatthecollaborativeanddiscoverynatureofthisexperiencewerethe

highlights,theinstructorsontheotherhandcommentedonthepotentialformergingtheir

rolesasteacherandscientist.


25

ExamplesofInquiry-Basedimplementationhavealsobeenpublishedinhigheryearsofstudy.

HopkinsandSamide(2013)implementedtwothematiclaboratorymodulesatButler

University,wherethefocuswastobringrealworkenvironmentalissuesintoasecondyear

chemistrylaboratory.Anaspectofparticularinteresttothisstudywasthelengthofeach

modulebeingfiveweeksand,furthermore,integratedintothelecturecourseasthey

progressedthroughtheunit.Outcomesweredeterminedthroughanalysisofthespecific

chemistryknowledgelearninggains,ratherthaninvestigatingthefullstudentexperienceor

laboratoryspecificskills.AtMcGillUniversityastudycompletedbyWilczek-VeraandSalin

(2011)describedthedevelopmentofaGuidedInquiryexperimentforanadvancedanalytical

chemistryunit.Thisexperimentisdescribedasinitiallybeingframedasastep-by-stepprocess

leadingintostudentownershipoftheexperiment.Anaspectofthislaboratorythatwas

highlightedwastheuseofdiscussionquestionsorpointsposedduringtheproceduretoguide

studentstowardsdevelopingtheirunderstandingthroughouttheprocess.

AnexpansionoftheInquiry-Basedlearningenvironmentistoincorporaterealworldelements

intotheresearchbeingconductedinateachinglaboratory.Furthermore,thereareexamples

wherestudentsperformtheirownliteraturestudiesbeforedesigningandimplementinga

researchprojectoftheirchoice(Iimoto&Frederick,2011;Vyvyan,Pavia,Lampman,&Kriz,

2002).Oftenreportedhowever,arethelimitationsonthenumberofstudentswhocan

undertaketheseresearchmodulesastheresourcesrequiredcanbeextensiveandtime

consumingforbothstudentsandteachers.

Anapproachthathasbeenusedseveraltimeswiththeintentofenhancingthelaboratory

experienceusingInquiry-Basedlearningistheredevelopmentofpre-existinglaboratoriesto

incorporateorexemplifyinquiryqualities.Twosucharticles(Barker,Allen,&Ramsden,1986;


26

Byrd&O'Donnell,2003)discussthemodificationofelementsoflaboratoriestoincorporate

inquiryintotheirlaboratories.Bothreportedpositivefeedbackfromthestudentsundertaking

theselaboratoriesinpreferencetoexperimentspreviouslycompletedintheirdegrees.Gaddis

andSchoffstall(2007)addfurtherweighttothisapproachandadditionallysuggesttheuseof

publishedlaboratoriesratherthannewdevelopmentateveryinstitute.Therangeofinquiry

approachesavailabledemonstratestheflexibilitywhenadoptingtheseapproachesintothe

laboratoryenvironment.

2.4ProblemSolvingStyle

ProblemSolvingwhenutilisedasateachingapproachcouldbebestdescribedastheopposite

endofthespectrumtotheExpositorystyle.TrueProblemSolvingplacestheresponsibilityof

theexperimentsquarelyuponthestudent,withmethods,problem,analysis,andoutcomes

undetermined(Lyle&Robinson,2001;Domin,1999).Someauthorsdescribethistypeof

approachasopen-inquiry(Fay,Grove,Towns,&Bretz,2007),howevertheterminologyinthe

literatureissomewhatconfusing.Forexample,Domin(1999)definesbothInquiryInstruction

(specifyingthealternativenameofopen-inquiry)andProblem-BasedInstruction(otherwise

knownasProblemSolving)asseparateapproaches.ThedefinitionprovidedbyFayand

coworkersisfurthercontrastedbythedefinitionprovidedbyPavelichandAbraham(1979)in

Table3.ClosesimilaritiescanbeobservedbetweenProblemSolvingandtheOpenInquiry

classificationprovidedasallaspectsofthelaboratoryexperiencearestudentgeneratedand

datacollectedinformstheconceptsunderstood.


27

ProblemSolvingwithinthisstudyhasbeenimplementedusingthemoreflexibledefinitionsof

ProblemSolvingdiscussedbyAshmore,FrazerandCasey(1979).Ashmore,FrazerandCasey

(2007,pp377)highlightthedifferentdefinitionsas:

• "problemsolvingisbridgingagapbetweenaproblemstateandasolutionstate"

• "problemsolving[occurs]asaresultofassemblingrules,alreadyknown,tocreatea

new(tothesolver)superiorrulewhichislearnedandwhichallowssolutiontothe

problem"

• "aformofdiscoverylearning,bridgingagapbetweenthelearner'sexistingknowledge

andthesolutiontotheproblem"

Kirschner,Sweller,andClark(2006)suggesthowever,thattheopen-endednatureoftrue

ProblemSolvingisnotnecessarilyabeneficialexperience.TheProblemSolvingenvironment

cancauseanoverloadforalearner'sworkingmemoryleadingtolesseffectivelearning

(Kirschner,Sweller,andClark,2006).Basedonthesedefinitions,alargepoolofstudieshave

beencompletedutilisingvariousProblemSolvinglearningenvironments(Taconis,Ferguson-

Hessler,&Broekkamp,2000).

OneofthedrivingfactorsbehindtheimplementationofProblemBasedLearning

environmentsovertraditionalapproachesistoenhancethequalityofscientistsgraduating

fromuniversities.Gallet(1998)detailedconcernsovertheproductionofgraduateswhocould

onlyfollowrecipesratherthanutilisingthescientificapproach.Inanefforttorectifythis,

Gallet(1998)deviseda4-weekresearchprojectwasundertakenbystudentswiththe

intentionthatthefullscientificresearchexperiencewouldbecompletedincludingresearch

anddesign,implementation,anddissemination.Despitereportedinitialdifficultiesingetting

studentsunderway,themajorityofstudentsagreedthisapproachenhancedtheirabilityto


28

undertakeanexperimentandwouldpreferfutureimplementationofthisapproach.The

developmentoftheseskillsoutsideofscience-specificcontentknowledgewashighlightedbya

projectinitiatedwithinAustralia,ledbyJones,Yates,andKelder(2011),todevelopthreshold

learningoutcomes(TLOs)forsciencedegreeswithinAustralia.OfthefivebroadTLOs

proposedbyJonesetal.(2011,pp.11),onlyone,TLO2,specificallydetailscontentknowledge

forscienceasadiscipline.Theremainingfourencompassskillsincluding:anunderstandingof

thescientificmethod;inquiryandproblemsolving;communicationskills;andasenseof

personalandprofessionalresponsibility.Itshouldbenotedhowever,thatproblemsolvingin

thecontextgivenwithintheTLOsisrelatedbutnotthesameastheproblemsolving

laboratoryapproachdefinedwithinthisthesis.

Laredo(2013)discussesthisapproachindepthwiththedevelopmentoflaboratorymanualsto

representProblemSolvinglaboratorieswiththeintenttodevelopthesehigherorderthinking

skills.Someofthekeyfeaturesofthisstudywereaheavyemphasisuponstudentpreparation

beforearrivingatthelaboratoryandrecognitionoftheworthofexperimentaldesignand

scientificinquiry.NotedthroughoutthestudycompletedbyLaredo(2013),studentswhoare

wellversedinmoretraditionallearningapproachesmaystrugglewiththesealternative

experiments,but,asfamiliarityincreases,thepreferenceforProblemSolvingactivities

increasescomparably.Anotherexampleofthistypeofinvestigationisdescribedinthework

byZollerandPushkin(2007)withanemphasisonthedevelopmentofhigherordercognitive

skillsinafirstyearorganicchemistryunitisexamined.Inadditiontotheproblem-based

laboratory,anintegratedhomeworkapproachwasusedtocomplementthisdevelopment

throughthesemester.


29

ExamplesofpositivelyreceivedProblemSolvingimplementationshavebeenobservedwithin

theliteraturefromseveralinstitutes.BrowneandBlackburn(1999)attheUniversityofAlberta

implementedalaboratorycentricchemistryunitinresponsetothecallsforredevelopmentof

chemistryeducation.Initiallythechangesmadetothechemistryunitandlaboratorieswere

foundtobeataleveltoohighforthemajorityofstudents.Throughmoderationandreduction

oftheworkloadexpectations,acompromisewasreachedinwhichbothstaffandstudents

foundtheexperiencetobeengagingandeffective.KellyandFinlayson(2007)published

anotherexampleofasuccessfullyimplementedproblem-basedlaboratory.Aninteresting

outcomeofthisstudywastheobservationthatasstudentshadtimetoacclimatisetothe

laboratoryapproachbeingutilised,thenumberofstudentspreferringProblemBased

laboratoriessteadilyincreased.Furthertothis,atthetimeofdissemination,thelaboratories

hadbeenrunningforafurthertwoyearswithnoadversesideeffectsorfeedback.

OneofthelimitingfactorsasdiscussedforProblemSolvingteachingenvironmentsisthe

volumeofresourcesrequiredforafullexperience.Inararecase,Tomasiketal.(2013)

describeastudywhereaseriesofProblem-Basedlaboratorieswereimplementedwithalarge

cohortofstudents.Somestructurewasprovidedintheformofguidingstudentsintheir

designingoftheexperimentanddataanalysistechniques.Feedbackwascollectedfrom

studentstoinvestigatethelearninggainsinadditiontotheirperceptionsofthelaboratory

experience.Conversely,nosignificantdifferenceswerefoundbetweentheProblem-Based

laboratoriesandthetraditionallaboratoriesotherthananinterestinundertakingfuture

researchactivities.

VocationalworkexperienceisanavenuethathasbeenproposedasapotentialProblem

Solvingactivitytodevelopthoseskillssoughtafterinalternativeteachingapproaches.Astudy


30

completedbyBenett(1993)attheUniversityofHuddersfieldinvestigatedtheperceptionsof

studentsforvocationalworkexperience.Benett(1993)posedwhetherthismaybean

alternativetobepursuedinlaboratorycoursesgoingsofarastosuggestthatitmaybe

countedascredittowardsadegree.

PresentinmanyProblemBasedlaboratories,theapproachofcreatingsmallgroupsor

collaborativeexperienceswhentacklingproblemsiscommon.Sandi-Urenaetal.(2011)

designedacooperativeProblemBasedlaboratorywhereemphasiswasplacedontheuseof

teamworktocollectdataandinterpretresults.Aninterestingfeatureoftheselaboratories

wasthelackoffocusondeterminingaconcretequantitativeoutcome.Rather,manyofthe

resultsreportedbystudentswerequalitativeinnatureanddetailedtheirexperiencein

approachingtheproblemitself.Thisemphasisedtheimportanceoftheprocessofscientific

inquiryandencouragedreflectionuponthemethodsusedintacklingtheirrespective

laboratoryproblems.Whenqueriedabouttheirenjoymentofthelaboratory,students

respondedthatwhiletheydidnotnecessarilyenjoytheexperience,theyrecognisedthat

significantdevelopmentoftheircriticalthinkingskillshadbeenachieved.Seeryetal.(2007)at

theDublinInstituteofTechnologyimplementedasimilarapproachutilisingrealworld

problemswithinminiprojectstobetackledbysmallgroups.Thisimplementationwaslimited

toasecondyearunitwithstudentfeedbackindicatingapreferenceforthisapproach.This

preferencestemmedfromanstudent-reportedincreaseinenjoyment,engagement,and

moralewhenundertakingthesemini-projects.


31

2.5TeachingMethodsSummary

Onekeyobservationtobemadefromthisdiscussionthusfaristheprevalenceofsingle

teachingapproachcomparisons,whereanalternativeapproachisproposedinplaceofthe

pre-existingortraditionalapproachpreviouslyused.Oneexceptiontothiscanbeseenina

studycompletedbyPavelichandAbraham(1979)wherethreeteachingapproacheswere

comparedinthechemistryteachinglaboratory.Verification,GuidedInquiry,andOpenInquiry

werecomparedinanefforttoimprovethelaboratoryexperience,withspecificresearchaims

to:

1. Acquaintthestudentwithfundamentallaboratorytechniquesandprocedures.

2. Givethestudentexperiencewithaspectsofscientificinquiry.

3. Enhancethestudent'sthinkingabilitytowardmoreabstractthinkingprocesses.

(AdaptedfromPavelich&Abraham,1979,pp.100)

HowthestudypresentedwithinthisdissertationdifferstothatofPavelichandAbraham(1979)

istheintentionoftheresearchaims.WherePavelichandAbraham(1979)offeran

investigationintothedevelopmentofstudentsspecifically,mystudyaimstoprobethe

interactionofthesealternativeteachingapproacheswiththetypesofexperimentsbeing

conductedusingstudentperceptionsandlearninggainstomeasureanydifferences.

TakingintoaccountthefindingsfromthesystematicreviewinChapter1andtherangeof

studiesdetailedwithinChapter2,mystudyaimstocompleteacomparativeinvestigationinto

theapplicabilityofmultipleteachingapproacheswithinthechemistryteachinglaboratory.

SimilarinnaturetothestudybyPavelichandAbraham(1979),theaimsofthestudywithin

thisdissertationfollowadifferentpathway.Theseresearchaimswillbediscussedwithin

Chapter3,MethodologiesPart1:Logistics.

Chapter3–MethodologiesPart1:Logistics

32


Thisthesisdescribesthemethodologyoftheresearchacrosstwochapters.Thefirst,Chapter3,

focusesuponthemethodologicalframeworkwithinwhichthisstudyliesandlogistical

considerations.Thelogisticalconsiderationsincludethedemographicsofthecohorts,data

collectionandanalysismethods,ethicsconsiderations,andsafetymeasures.Thesecond,

Chapter4,specificallydetailsthecreationoftheexperimentproceduresusedinthisresearch.

3.1ResearchMethodology

Thisstudyisbasedwithinapragmatistframework(Creswell,2003).Pragmatismwithin

educationalresearchimpliesthatthroughenactingactionsuponanenvironment,progresscan

bemade(Goldkuhl,2012).Thisframeworkwaschosenastheresearchquestionalignswith

thisdefinitionasitcentreson‘whatworks?’inareallifesetting,inthiscasethechemistry

teachinglaboratory.Thechemistryteachinglaboratoryisanopportuneenvironmentfor

enactingchangeswithanumberofmeasurablevariables.Thepragmatistparadigmisfounded

onworkofotherresearchers,includingconceptsdiscussedbyDewey(1938)inwhichresearch

iscompletedbyinitiatingactionstocauseeffectswithintheenvironmentsbeingstudied

(Goldkuhl,2012).Themethodschosenwereconsistentwithpragmatismresearch.Amixed-

methodsapproachwasadopted(Cohenetal.,2011)thatallowedaninvestigationinbotha

broadandin-depthsense.Thedesigncentredonaseriesofcross-sectionalcasestudies

completedoverfouryearsinareal-lifesetting.Across-sectionalstudyreferstothestudyof

differentsamplesatdifferentinstancesoftime(Cohenetal.,2011,pp.267).Casestudieshave

beendescribedandwidelyacceptedineducationresearchforsometime(Freebody,2003;Yin,

2006;Cohen,etal.2011).Thecasesinquestionforthisdoctoratestudywereboundedwithin


33

singlesemesterinstancesoverthecourseofthreeyears.Thenatureofthisapproachrelies

upontheassumptionthateachteachingapproachmaybestudiedinisolationwithout

significantlyvariedresponsesfromcohorts.AstudypreviouslycompletedbyPullen,Yates,and

Dicinoski(2014)implementedasimilarsmall-scalestudy.Thisstudyhassincebeencontinued

withlargerstudentgroupstoinvestigatetheconsistencyofthoseoutcomesdeterminedinthe

initialstudy.Currentlyunpublished,preliminarydatasupportstheassumptionthatfromyear

toyearthefirstyearchemistrycohortattheUniversityofTasmaniaarelargelysimilarandas

such,comparable.

3.2ResearchQuestions

1. Whataretheadvantagesanddisadvantagesofimplementingalternativeteaching

approacheswithinthechemistryteachinglaboratory?

2. Doteachingapproachesaligndifferentlywiththetypeofexperimentsbeing

undertaken(wheretypereferstothenatureofthatexperimentbeing,forexample,

observationalorinterpretationbased)?

3. Willacombinationofteachingapproachesbemoreeffectivethanasingleteaching

approachinthedevelopmentofachemistrylaboratorycourse?

Tounpacktheseresearchquestionswithsomefurtherdepth,thefirstquestionposedforthis

study,"Whataretheadvantagesanddisadvantagesofimplementingalternativeteaching

approacheswithinthechemistryteachinglaboratory?"wasdesignedtoaddressthelackof

studieswithintheliteratureinthisarea.Giventhewealthofresearchintoimplementing

individualteachingapproachesinfavourofensconcedtraditionalpractices,itishypothesised

thatallteachingapproacheshavetheirplaceinthedevelopmentofscientists.Thislinks


34

directlyintothethirdresearchquestion,"Willacombinationofteachingapproachesbemore

effectivethanasingleapproachinthedevelopmentofachemistryteachinglaboratory

course?".Giventhehypothesisthatallteachingapproacheswillhavevalueofsomekindfor

theeducationofstudents,itisfurtherhypothesisedthatacombinationoftheseapproaches

throughoutatertiarydegreewouldprovideanoptimalblendoflearningoutcomes.

Thesecondresearchquestion,"Doteachingapproachesaligndifferentlywiththetypeof

experimentsbeingundertaken?"isaimedtoinvestigatehowtheseteachingapproachesalign

withtheexperimenttype.Asalludedtointhequestionitself,theexperimenttypediscussed

hererelatestothenatureoftheexperiment,ratherthanthetopicofchemistryandshallbe

furtherexplainedinSection3.3.Toprovideanin-depthexample,anorganicsynthesisof

aspirinisusedprimarilytodevelopthosehands-onskillsrequiredwhenundertakingsyntheses.

Whereasanexperimentfocusedupontheinvestigationoforganicfunctionalgroupsandtests

toidentifythesegroupsaimstodevelopobservationalandinterpretationskills.

3.3ExperimentTypes

Todetermineaprimaryandsecondarytypeforeachexperimentincludedwithinthisstudy,a

typologywasdeterminedthroughdiscussionwiththeteachingstaff.Thisincludedtopic-

specificlecturers,thelaboratorycoordinator,andtheunitcoordinator.Thisyieldedfour

elementsthatwerefocusedontovaryingdegreeswithintheexperimentalprogram.


35

Table5.ExperimentTypologyDescriptions

ExperimentType Descriptionofskillsassociated

Observational Anexperimentofthistypefocusesupontheuseofobservationalskillsto

identifyandrecognisearangeofscientificoutcomes.Thismayinclude

changesintemperature,colouration,opaqueness,formationor

dissolutionofsolids,andevolutionofgases.

Interpretation Anexperimentofthistyperequiresstudentstoutiliseobservationsand

resultsintheformationofreasonableconclusionsandassumptions.This

includes,butisnotlimitedto,theidentificationofreactionsand/or

products,determinationoftheorderofareaction,thepresenceof

functionalgroups,andcollectingevidencetosupportknownchemical

theorems.

Hands-On Anexperimentofthistypefocusesontheuseoflaboratoryspecifichands-

onskills.Someexamplesincludeperformingaccurateandprecise

titrations,thepreparationofstandardsolutions,theuseofdistillation

equipment,andoperationoflaboratoryinstrumentssuchas

spectrophotometers.

Calculations Anexperimentofthistyperequiresstudentstomanipulatedatacollected

duringanexperimenttodemonstrateknowledgeofandapplying

appropriateformulaetosolvearangeofchemicalequations.Outcomesof

thesecalculationsinclude,butarenotlimitedto,percentageyields,

standardisationofsolutions,andapplicationofBeer'sLawandHess'sLaw.


36

Thistypologywasthenusedasareferencefordeterminingexperimenttypeforeachofthe

laboratoryexperimentsselectedwithinthisstudy.Chapter4providesadetailedsummaryof

eachexperimentandtheassociatedprimaryandsecondarytype.

3.4ChemistryattheUniversityofTasmania

Thisstudywasundertakenbyinvestigatingmultipleunits(orsubjects)offeredwithinthe

disciplineofchemistryattheUniversityofTasmania.Theseunitsincludedthefoundation

chemistryunit,KRA001;thefirstyearunit,KRA113Chemistry1A;thesecondyearunit,

KRA223ChemicalAnalysis;andthethirdyearunit,KRA342CatalysisandReactionProcesses.A

summaryofeachunit’sdescription,intendedlearningoutcomes,andassociatedassessment

taskscanbefoundwithinChapters5,6,and7(KRA001,KRA113,KRA223andKRA342

respectively)orintheunitoutlines(UniversityofTasmania,2015a,2015b,2015c,2015d).

Table6.Variationsinlaboratorystructureacrosschemistryunitsstudied

Unit CohortSize* Demographics Laboratorytime

perexperiment

No.oflabs

KRA001 50 Verydiverse 3hours 6

KRA113 200 Verydiverse 3hours 8

KRA223 40 Chemistryminorsandmajors 4–8hours 6

KRA342 20 Chemistrymajors 4–8hours 4

*Thecohortsizeislistedastheaveragesizeperyear.Itcanrangebyupto50%.

Dependingontheunitbeingdiscussed,thedemographicsofstudentsundertakingthatunit

variessignificantly.Forexample,thefoundationchemistryunit,KRA001,typicallyattractstwo


37

typesofstudents;studentswhohavejustcompletedpre-tertiaryeducationanddidnot

completeachemistrytopicatthatlevel,andmatureagestudentswhoarereturningto

universityafterasojournwithintheworkforceoralternativeareaofstudy.KRA001typically

attractsbetween40to60studentspersemester.KRA001isofferedasanalternativepathway

intofirstyearchemistryforthosestudentswhohavenotcompletedapre-tertiarychemistry

unit.

Incomparison,oneofthefirstyearchemistryunitsoffered,KRA113,ismostlycomposedof

studentscontinuingeducationfrompre-tertiarysubjectstheyearprior.Thestudentcohortof

KRA113persemesterissignificantlylargerattractingbetween180to250students.Thelarge

sizeofKRA113isduetotherequirementsofmanyspecializeddegreesrequiringfirstyear

chemistryasapre-requisite.ExamplesofdegreesrequiringKRA113include,butarenot

limitedto:theBachelorofPharmacy,BachelorofMedicalResearch,BachelorofMarineand

AntarcticScience,andBachelorofAgriculturalScience.Movingintothesecondandthirdyears

units,KRA223andKRA342,thestudentgroupssufferasignificantdropinnumbersandthe

compositionofthesecohortsbecomemostlycomposedofstudentstakingchemistryasa

minorormajor.

3.5Ethics

Ethicsapprovalwasgrantedin2012bytheUniversityofTasmaniaSocialSciencesHuman

ResearchEthicsCommitteewithintheUniversityofTasmania(EthicsReferenceNumber:

H0012564).TheminimalriskapplicationisdetailedwithinAppendixI.


38

3.6DataCollectionMethods

ConsistentwiththepragmatistframeworkandmixedmethodsapproachdiscussedinSection

3.1,bothquantitativeandqualitativedatawascollected.Thiswastogiveagreaterdepthof

understandingoftheeffectsofanychangesmadetotheteachingapproachused.Data

collectionoccurredthroughthreeprimaryinstruments:astudentcompletedsurveytobe

filledoutuponcompletionoftheexperimentundertaken,astudentcompletedquiztotest

understanding,andademonstratorawardedgradethroughtheuseofobservationanda

rubric.Figure3showsthedatacollectioninstrumentsweredesignedtoaddresstheresearch

questionsdefinedwithinSection3.2.

Figure3.Anillustrationofthealignmentbetweenthedatacollectioninstrumentsandtheresearchaimsofthisproject.

Laterintheproject,theexperimentsconsideredexpandedtoincludeseveralexperiments

froma2ndyearChemistryunit,KRA224,anda3rdyearChemistryunit,KRA342.Astheseunits

weretypicallycomposedofmuchsmallerclasssizes,thedatacollectioninstrumentswere

modifiedtoallowmorequalitativeinformationtobecollected.Thesemodificationsprimarily

focuseduponthesurveyinstrumentwiththeadditionofsecond-tierstyledquestionstothe

pre-existingLikertscalequestions.Thisallowedadegreeofdepthtobecollectedintheareas

ofinterest.ThemodifiedsurveyfortheselateryearsofstudycanbefoundwithinAppendixII.

ResearchQuestion1

ResearchQuestion2

ResearchQuestion3

Survey

Demonstrator

Quiz


39

3.6.1Survey

Theuseofsurveystocollectinformationfromsamplegroupsisawell-establishedpractice,the

benefitsofthisapproachhavebeendetailedbyCohenetal.(2011,pp.256-266).The

student-completedsurveywasdesignedwithtwopurposesinmind:thefirstbeingthe

collectionofquantitativedataforaseriesofquestionsofinterest,andsecondthecollectionof

qualitativefree-formfeedbackfromthestudentsonthestrengthsandweaknessesofthe

teachingmethodwithrespecttothislaboratory.

Asurveywasselectedasoneofthedatacollectionmethodsduetoseveraladvantagesthat

theuseofsurveyswouldbring.Thestrengthofsurveysofthistypehasbeendemonstrated

previouslyinanumberofpublishedstudies(Abrahametal.,1997;Brew&Ginns,2008;Hart,

Mulhall,Berry,Loughran,&Gunstone,2000;Herrington&Nakhleh,2003;Kabel&Read,2007).

Fromalogisticalpointofview,surveysareafamiliardatacollectioninstrumenttobothstaff

andstudents.Universitypoliciesdictatetheuseofunitevaluationsurveysgiventostudents

nearingtheendofeachunit.Inadditiontothefamiliarity,giventhelargenumberofstudents

andtheoftenfulltimetablestheyarecommittedto,surveysallowcollectionofdatafroma

largenumberofstudentswithminimaltimeandcost.Alternativemethodssuchasinterviews

orfocusgroups,thiswouldrequirestudentstovolunteertimeoutsideoftheirlaboratory

classes,whichwouldreducethenumberofsamplesconsiderably.Onepotentiallimitationof

usingsurveyswasthechoiceinusingpaper-basedsurveys.Online-basedsurveysare

advantageousinminimisingthedataprocessingandanalysisforbothstudentandresearcher

convenience(Nulty,2008).Paper-basedsurveyswerechosenastherearenocomputers

availablewithinthelaboratoryforcommonuse,anditavoidedtheneedforstudentstologin

outsideoflaboratoryhours.Furthermore,thepresenceofthesurveyswithinthelaboratory

environmentincreasedtheresponserate.Whilstpaper-basedsurveysgaveimmediate


40

feedbackuponcompletionoftheexperiment,asignificantamountoftimewasrequiredto

sortthroughandtranscribethedataintoaformatcompatiblewiththestatisticalmethods

chosen.Withtheseinmind,itwashopedthatthechoiceofasurveyasadatacollection

methodwouldprovidealargenumberofresponseswithamixtureofqualitativeand

quantitativefeedback.Thequantitativeandqualitativefeedbackcouldthenbeusedtousedin

conjunctionwithoneanothertoprovideanin-depthinvestigationintothekeyareasoffocus.

ApreviousstudybyPullen,YatesandDicinoski(2014)designedandimplementedasurvey-

basedondevelopingquestionsinthekeyareasofinterestforthisstudy.Thisincluded

addressingquestionssuchas:

• Whatisthelevelofengagementwiththeexperimentthatstudentshave?

• Arethelearningobjectivesclearandaretheybeingfulfilled?

• Dotheworkloadexpectationsmatchtheamountofworkcompletedduringthe

experiment?

• Howdothestudentsperceivetheirlevelofunderstandingandhowdoesthatchange

throughcompletionoftheexperiment?

• Dothestudentsenjoycompletingthelaboratory?

Basedontheseareas,sevenquestionsweredevisedforthisdoctoratestudy,withan

additionalquestiontogiveinsightintotheoveralllaboratoryexperience.Noformal

psychometricvalidation(Arjoon,Xu,&Lewis,2013)wasundertakenforthedesigned

instrument.Assistancewassoughtfromoneofthesupervisorsofthisstudy,DrNatalieBrown

(HeadoftheTasmanianInstituteforLearningandTeaching),whoseexpertiseinthisareawas

invaluable.Furthermore,comparisonsweremadewithpublishedsurveyinstrumentswith

similarpurposestoensurethedevelopedinstrumentwasrobust.Forexample,thesurvey


41

instrumentdesignedbytheAdvancingSciencebyEnhancingLearningintheLaboratory

program(ASELL)(Yeungetal,2011),theASELLStudentLearningExperience(ASLE)tool(Barrie

etal,2015),wasdesignedwiththesimilarintentionofdeterminingastudents’perceptionsof

theirlaboratoryexperienceinthekeyareasdiscussedearlier.Whencomparingthestructure

oftheASLEwiththesurveyusedinthisstudy,anumberofsimilaritieswereidentified.Thefull

ASLEsurveycanbefoundwithinAppendixI.Theinclusionofpsychometricvalidationwould

greatlystrengthenthevalidityofsurveyinstrumentsinanyfuturestudies.

3.6.2Quiz

Aquizwaschosenasoneofthedatacollectionmethodstogiveinsightintotheunderstanding

attainedbystudentsuponcompletionofeachexperiment.Thestrengthofquizzes(or

questionnaires)asameasurementinstrumentisthoroughlydescribedbyCohenetal.(2011,

pp.377-408).Anexampleofimplementingapost-experimentalquiztomeasurelearning

gainsofstudentscanbeseenintheworkbyDingandHarskamp(2011).Theuseofquizzesin

thisdoctoratestudywaslimitedtoasingleinstancepost-laboratoryassessment.Assuch,

learninggainswouldbeaninappropriatetermforusehereandinstead,asnapshotofstudent

understandingwasthedesiredoutcome.Oneflawtoaccountforinthisapproachisthe

possibilityofstudentshavingexistingknowledgeoftheconceptsortechniquesusedwithin

theexperiments.Asthisquizwasadministeredtoallmembersofeachstudentcohort,itwas

assumedthatanyminoritywithpre-existingknowledgewouldbepresentineachcohortin

equalnumbers.Thereforeanytrendsobservedwouldbenotbecompromisedbythese

minorities.Thesequizzesweredesignedwiththeintentionthateachteachingmethodwould

deliverthesamelevelofunderstandingofthekeyconceptsandtechniquestothestudents.


42

Thestudentcompletedquizwasuniquetoeachexperimentandcomposedofaseriesof

questionsdesignedtorepresentthekeyconceptsortechniquesusedwithinthatparticular

laboratory.Thesequestionsprovidedinsightintothestudent’sunderstandingofthese

conceptsandtechniques.Eachquizwasdesignedtobebriefandwasmarkedascorrect,

partiallycorrect,incorrect,ordidnotattempt.Thisallowedforbettercomparisonbetween

quizzesandexperimentswithoutthecomplicationsofappropriateweightinganddifferent

quizlengths.

3.6.3GradeforStudentLaboratoryPerformance

Finally,studentsweregivenademonstratorawardedgrade,apracticethathasbeenused

withintheUniversityofTasmaniaforsometime.Thepurposeofthisgradeistogivean

indicationoftheirperformanceduringthelaboratorycoupledwiththeirpresentationofdata

collectedandanycalculationsordiscussionsassociated.Toassistinminimizingvariability

betweendemonstratorsarubricwasdesignedandimplementedtoclarifythemeasuresand

standardsusedinthegradingofstudents'work.Rubrics,orcriterionreferencedassessments,

areaneffectivetoolintheircapabilitytogivedetailedinformationontheprogressorlack

thereofforstudents(McInerney&McInerney,2010).Thedesignedrubricwasfirstdeveloped

aspartofapost-graduateshortcourseonhighereducation.Thedevelopmentofthisrubric

wasguidedbytheexamplesprovidedbyBiggsandTang(2011).Validationofthisrubricwas

completedintwophases:Thefirstwasthroughassessment(thecriteriausedforthiscanbe

foundinAppendixI)byHigherEducationexpertswhoranthiscoursefromtheTasmanian

InstituteofLearningandTeaching(TILT).TILTisadivisionoftheUniversityofTasmania

employedtoassistintheeducationanddevelopmentofhighereducation.Thesecondformof

validationwasthroughconsultationwiththeTeachingLearningCommitteewithinthe


43

disciplineofchemistrypriortoimplementation.TheconsultationwiththeTeachingLearning

Committeeaimedtoaligntherubricwiththehistoricalapproachofassessmentforthe

teachinglaboratoryatthisinstitute.Thekeycriteriaforthisliewithinensuringthatsafety

withinthelaboratory,knowledgeofchemicalconcepts,andlaboratoryperformancewere

included.Furthermore,eachofthesecriteriatotheappropriatestandardexpectedof

chemistrystudents.ThecriteriahavebeendiscussedinfurtherdepthlaterinthisSection.

Rubricscanbedescribedasbeingmadeupofthreecomponents:criteriaclearlystatingthe

assessmentareas;standardstodefinethelevelofattainmentofeachcriteria;anddescriptors

ofeachstandardtoeachcriterion(UniversityofTasmania,2011).Todesignthisrubric,the

outermostframeworkwasconstructedbeforemovingontothedescriptors.Assuch,five

standardswerechosenforuse,tocomplementtheacceptedassessmentstandardsused

withintheUniversityofTasmania.Theseincludedthefollowing:HighDistinction(HD80%),

Distinction(DN70%),Credit(CR60%),Pass(PP50%),andUnsatisfactory(NN<50%).Some

initialdiscussionsraisedthealternativeofusingfourstandards,withtheremovaloftheNN

standard,ratherthanfiveinanefforttosimplifytherubric,butafterconsiderationtheNN

gradewasretained.TheadvantageoftheNNstandardwasthecleardefinitionofwhatwould

constituteagradebelow50%tobothstudentsanddemonstrators.Thisavoidedthe

associatedproblemsofimplyingthatastudents’workhadnotachievedaPPandallowed

demonstratorstomarkstudentstotheirappropriatelevelindicatingwherestudentsmaynot

havemetthePPlevel.

Withthestandardsdetermined,thenextcomponenttoconsiderwerethecriteriatodefine

whatwasbeingassessed.Thedesignedrubricwasintendedtobeagenericrubricappropriate

toallfirst-yearchemistrylaboratories.Itwasimperativethatthecriteriawerebroadenough


44

toencompasstherangeofexperimentsoffered,butspecificenoughtoallowmeaningful

assessment.Somelogisticalconsiderationswerealsorequiredtobeaddressed.Asthe

demonstratorsassessstudentsduringlaboratorytime,itwasimportanttoensurethemarking

processwasefficientandtransparentinnature.Eachlaboratoryonlytargetedafewkey

aspectsfromtheoverarchinglearningobjectivesfurthersupportedthisdecision,asanin-

depthrubricwouldnotbeappropriate.ThedevelopedrubricfortheKRA001andKRA113units

canbefoundwithinAppendixII.

Theuseofcriteria-basedassessmentonthelearningoutcomesofanactivityissupportedby

BiggsandTang(2011)andtheGuidelinesforGoodAssessmentPractices(Universityof

Tasmania,2011),whichstates“Criteriashouldbeclearlybasedonthelearningoutcomesina

unitoutline”.TheunitoutlineforChemistry1A,KRA113(UniversityofTasmania,2015b),

statesthatthelearningobjectivesofthelaboratoryclassesare:

1. Complementthelectureswherepossible.

2. Increaseskillsinthehandlingofchemicalsandequipment.

3. Introduceyoutobasiclaboratorytechniquesofsynthesisandanalysis.

4. Allowyoutogainanappreciationoftheneedtocarryoutexperimentswithregardto

thesafetyofyourselvesandothers.

(UniversityofTasmania,2015b)

Withtheseinmind,itwasdeterminedthatthreecriterionwouldbesufficienttoencompass

theselearningoutcomes.Usingtheselearningoutcomesthefollowingcriteriaweredesigned

withaweightingattachedtoeach,20%,40%,and40%respectively:


45

1. Completionofpre-laboratoryrequirementsandworksafelyandefficientlywithina

laboratory

2. Useofthecorrecttechniquesandcalculations

3. Understandingoftheconceptsandprinciples

Figure4.Anillustrationofthealignmentofthecriteriaoftherubricwiththelearningobjectivesofthelaboratory.

ThesecriteriawerethensubjectedtoscrutinyfromtheUnitCoordinatoratthetime,the

ChemistryTeachingandLearningCommittee,andthesupervisoryteamofthisproject.They

decidedthesecriteriasufficientlyencompassedthelearningoutcomesintendedforthe

laboratoryinadditiontocomplyingwiththeexpectationsimpliedfromtheguidelinesand

exemplarsavailablefromUniversityresources.Toexpandononeoftheseexpectations,this

meantexcludingalluseofquantifiersandqualifiers,andensuringthecriteriarepresented

whatstudentshavetododuringtheassessmenttasktoattainagrade(UniversityofTasmania,

2011).

Criterion1

Criterion2

Criterion3

LearningObjective4

LearningObjective2

LearningObjective3

LearningObjective1


46

Withthestandardsandcriteriadefined,thefocusturnedtothedescriptorsforeachlevelof

eachcriterion.Thepurposeofarubricistoclearlyandsuccinctlydefinetobothstudentsand

demonstratorswhatisbeingassessedandwhatisrequiredateachleveltoachievedifferent

grades.Itwasthereforeimperativethatthedescriptorswrittenwereconsistentnotonly

withineachcriterionbutalsoacrosstherubricitself.Theprocessofwritingeachdescriptor

beganwithconstructingwhatwasexpectedatthe50%Pass(PP)level.Fromthisbaselevel,

descriptorsforthe60%Credit(CR),70%Distinction(DN),and80%HighDistinction(HD)levels

wereconstructed.Thesedescriptorswereconceivedthroughcommunicationwithpastand

presentdemonstrators,students,teachingstaff,andtheChemistryTeachingandLearning

Committee.OnceapprovalhadbeengainedfromtheUnitCoordinator,progressbeganon

eachstandardnotyetaddressed.

3.7SampleGroups

Theconditionsoftheethicsapprovalattainedmeantthatallstudentsmustattendand

completeeachexperimentastheywouldinanormalteachingsemestersothatthekey

elementsoftheexperimentswerelargelyunaffected.Thereforeallstudentswithinanyone

cohortundertookthemodifiedexperimentandwasofferedtheopportunitytovolunteerto

providedataforthisstudy.Datacollectionwasundertakenthrough2013-2015andeachyear,

oreachimplementationofKRA001,wasassignedasingleteachingapproachforallmodified

experiments:TheGuidedInquiryapproachwasrunin2013,theProblemSolvingapproachwas

runin2014,andtheExpositoryapproachwasrunin2015.Forexample,oneKRA113

experimentinvestigatedavarietyoffunctionalorganicgroupsandtheuseofsmall-scaletests

toidentifythesegroups.Nomatterwhichteachingmethodwasused,thestudentswouldstill

befulfillingtheminimumlearningobjectivesandusingthesametechniquesandconceptsto


47

completetheexperiment.Fordatatobecollectedandretainedforthepurposeofanalysis,

studentshadtocompletetheprovidedsurveysandquizzeswiththeirstudentI.Dswrittenon

eachdatacollectioninstrument.Thissignifiedpermissionhadbeengrantedbythestudentfor

theirresponsestobede-identifiedandutilizedinthisstudy.

3.8AnalysisofData

Foralldataanalysis,thenullhypothesiswasusedthatnodifferenceswouldbefoundbetween

thethreeteachingmethodsconsideredforallexperiments.Avarietyofmethodswereusedin

thecomparisonofdatacollectedusingtheinstrumentsdiscussedinSection3.5.

3.8.1Quantitative

Forcomparisonofthequantitativedatacollectedthroughthesurveyinstrumentandthe

demonstratorawardedgrades,aone-waybetween-groupsANOVAwithpost-hoctestswas

completedusingIBMSPSSStatisticsforMacintosh(Version22.0).Thepost-hocanalyses

includedtwotestoptionsavailableforuse:theGames-HowelltestandtheTukeyHSDtest.

Levene'stestforhomogeneityofvarianceswasusedtodeterminewhichofthesetestswere

appropriate.Wherethesignificancevalue(p)wasgreaterthan0.05inLevene'stest,the

homogeneityofvariancesassumptionisabidedbyandtheTukeyHSDtestmaybeused.For

thosecomparisonofvarianceswherepwaslessthan0.05,thehomogeneityofvariances

assumptionhasbeenviolatedandtheGames-Howelltestisused.Foreachcomparisonwhere

significantdifferenceswereidentified,theeffectsize(Cohen,1988,pp.284-287)was

calculated.Effectsizesprovidemoredepthtoanycomparisonmadebymeasuringmagnitude

ofdifferencewherestatisticallysignificantdifferenceshavebeenidentified.Theeffectsizes

withinthisthesishavebeencalculatedasthesumofsquares(betweengroups)dividedbythe


48

sumofsquares(total).Thedatacollectedthroughthestudent-completedquizzeswas

comparedquantitativelyusingastandardcomparisonofmeansusingMicrosoftExcelfor

Macintosh(2011).

3.8.2Qualitative

AsuccinctdefinitionofqualitativeresearchisgivenbyWeimer(2006):

"Qualitativemethodologiesaremultipleanddiverse,buttheyshareacommitmentto

studyphenomenainnaturalisticsettingsandtoanalyzeresultsinterpretively."

(Weimer,2006,pp.43)

Inthecontextofthisstudy,itwasintendedthatthequalitativecomponentofthis

investigationwouldencompassthefree-textsurveyresponsesreceiveddescribingthestudent

perceptionsofanumberofaspectsofthelaboratory.Thespecificqualitativeanalysis

methodologyfollowedwasathematicanalysis,amethodthathasbeenutilisedpreviously

(Miles,&Huberman,1994).Individualresponsesarecodedforthemesanddescriptive

analysesareconducteduponthisdata.Ahierarchalapproachwasusedtofirstidentifybroad

themes,beforenarrowingfocustodeterminesub-themes.Asummaryoftheprocessfollowed

isbelow:

• TranscribealldataintoaWorddocumenttomatchthefree-textentryspacesonthe

surveys;

• Groupthecommentstorepresentcommonthemes;

• Indicateinformationontheproportionofresponsesfromeachteachingmethod;

• Identifyexceptionsorpointsofinterestfromthedatacollected;and


49

• Comparewithquantitativeanalysisoutcomestoidentifyanycorrelationor

contradictions.

Toidentifycommonthemes,studentresponsesweregroupedintobroadareas.Forexample,

allresponsesthatrelatedtotheinformationprovidedwithinthelaboratorymanualwere

placedtogether.Fromhere,sub-themesarederivedsuchas:responsesindicatingalackof

information,clarityofinformationprovided,requestforadditionalresources,andoutdatedor

incorrectinformation.Duringthegroupingstageofthisprocess,particularcarewastakento

checkandrechecktheidentifiedthemesmultipletimeswith,atminimum,tworechecksfor

eachcomparison.

3.9ParticipationbyDemonstratorsandStaff

Giventhebreadthofthisproject,significantinteractionwithboththeteachingstaffofthe

unitsconsideredwithinthisstudyandthedemonstratorsteachinginthelaboratoriesoccurred.

Theteachingstaffprovidedinputandmoderationofthecontenttobecontainedwithineach

laboratoryexperimentconsideredinthisstudy.Demonstrators,alsoknownasteaching

assistants,fillseveralroleswithintheteachinglaboratory.Theserolesvaryandrequirethe

demonstratortobeattentiveofthestudents’needswhilemaintainingaprofessional

relationshipasateacherandassessor.Thedemonstratorsarerecruitedeachyearwitha

mixtureofnewandexperienceddemonstratorsdrawnfromthehonoursandpostgraduate

students,thepostdoctoralresearchfellows,andtheacademicstaffwithintheSchool.

Approximately70%ofthedemonstratorshadpriorexperiencewiththeexperimentstobe

completedineachunit,eitherthroughpreviousexperienceasademonstratorinthatunitor

asapaststudent.Eachclassroomtypicallycontainsoneseniordemonstratorandthree


50

demonstratorsmatchedtoagroupofapproximately50students.Thisallowsaratioofupto

16studentstoeachdemonstrator.Demonstratorsweremadefamiliarwiththeproject

throughseveralmechanisms.Duringthefirstmeetingofthesemester,theleadinvestigator

ledaninformativediscussion,between30to45minuteseachyear,providingabriefingofthe

intentionsbehindthisstudywithdetailsontheroledemonstrators’playandwhatoutcomes

wereexpected.Withinthisdiscussion,anumberofkeypointswerecoveredincluding:

• Abriefexplanationofeachteachingmethod;

• Thedatacollectioninstrumentsthatwouldbeutilised;

• Anexplanationoftheethicsapprovalattainedandtheconditionsofthisapproval;

• Theroleofthedemonstratorwithinthisenvironmentandhowthischangedbetween

teachingapproaches;and

• Anin-depthexplanationofcriterionreferencedassessmentinthecontextoftherubric

designedfortheselaboratoryexperiments.

Ademonstrator-trainingdaywasimplementedwithintheSchoolcoincidingwiththeinitiation

ofthisproject.Thisprovidedadditionaltrainingfordemonstratorswhowerenewor

requestedarefreshercourse.Thedaycoveredgeneralteachingprinciplesandthepractical

applicationofsuchinateachinglaboratory.Weekly30-minutemeetingswereheldthroughout

thesemestertoactasacontinuationofthistrainingdayandtoensurepreparationforthe

followingweek'slaboratoryoccurred.Finally,throughouttheimplementationofthemodified

laboratories,thestudentinvestigatorwaspresentasanobserverandaresourcetothe

demonstrators.


51

3.10Safety

Safetyisparamountinthechemistrylaboratoryandwasthereforeamajorconsiderationin

thedesignofthisproject.Asmodificationswerebeingmadetoeachexperiments’structure,it

wasimperativethatthesemodificationsdidnotrequirestudentstostepoutsideofthebounds

ofsafelaboratoryprocedures.Oneitemofparticularconcernwasthedevelopmentof

problem-solvingversionsoftheexistingexperiments.Acharacteristicofproblem-solving

laboratoryexperiencesistheopportunityforstudentstodeveloptheirownmethodsand

explorealternativeavenuestoachievethelearningoutcomesforthatexperiment.Assomeof

theexperimentsrequiredtheuseofhazardousmaterialsorinstruments,forexamplestrong

acidsorbasesandtheuseofhotplates,thisissuehadtobeconsideredwhenstructuringthe

proceduresforeachteachingmethodvariationofeachexperiment.Theinclusionofalimited

poolofreagentsandequipmentlimitedtheaccessibilityofpotentiallyhazardousand

unrequiredelementstoeachexperiment.Furthertothis,forexperimentswithveryspecific

methods,abasicapproachwasprovidedforstudentstoexpanduponorvarykeyvariables.

Chapter4–MethodologiesPart2:ExperimentDesign

52


Withthedesignoftheexperimentsitisimportanttonotethattheintentionwastotakepre-

existingexperiments,wellestablishedandunderstoodattheUniversityofTasmania,and

modifyeachchosenexperimenttoversionsrepresentingeachofthethreeteachingmethod.

Beforedelvingintothedetailsofexperimentaldesign,itwasimportanttofirstlydecidewhich

experimentswouldbeinvestigatedaspartofthisstudy.Thechoiceoftheseexperiments

wouldhavealargeinfluenceonthemeaningfulnessofanydatacollectedandcompared.For

example,theinitialexperimentswithinastandardchemistrycoursewillhaveafocuson

introductiontothelaboratory.Ananalysisofanexperimentatthatlevelwoulddrawaway

fromtheelementsofteachingchemistryconceptsandtechniques.Anothervariabletobe

waryofwasanoverexposureofsimilarchemistryconceptsortechniques.Preferably,arange

ofexperimentsrepresentingdifferenttypesofexperimentswouldbechosen.Whendiscussing

typesofexperimentsitisimportanttohighlightthatdistinguishingbetweenexperiments

basedontheconceptsortechniquesalonewasnottheintentionofthisstudy.Itisimportant

tonotethatthetypesofexperimentscanbedescribedasbeing,forexample,observationalor

syntheticinnature.Anexperimentcentredaroundtheobservationofmultiplespot-testsis

verydifferentfromahands-onmulti-stepsynthesiswithaparticulartargetinmind.Bothuse

observationalandhands-ontechniquesbutthefocusisverydifferentinnature.Each

experimentwasassignedaprimarytypeandasecondarytype.Theseweredecidedthrough

collaborationwithboththelecturersteachingthecorrespondingmaterialsforeach

experimentandtheTeachingLearningCommittee.Focuswasplaceduponidentifyingthe

specificskillsthatwereintegraltothisexperimentincludingbothassessedskillsandto-be-

learntskills.Withthisinmind,thefollowingexperimentswithinTables7,8,and9were

selected:


53

Table7.SummaryofexperimentsconsideredwithinthefoundationalKRA001unit

Unit Experiment KeyConcepts/Techniques ExperimentType*KRA001 TheAnalysisofaSolutionbyMeasurementofits

Density• Familiarisationwiththemeasurementofvolumeand

mass• Basicglasswareusagewithaccuracyandprecision• Useofappropriatesignificantfigures

Calculation/Hands-on

DistillationasaSeparationTechnique • Becomefamiliarwiththeequipmentandtechniquesusedfordistillation

• Useofionicequationstodescribereactions

Handson/Interpretation

IdentificationofaCarboxylicAcid • Determinationofanunknownsubstance• Equivalentmassofadiproticacid• Accuracyversusprecision• Proficiencywiththeuseofanalyticalglassware

Handson/Calculation

PropertiesofSolutionsofAcidsandBases • FamiliaritywithusevariousmeanstomeasurepHandconductivity

• Interpretationandidentificationofsolutionsofstrongacidsandbasesandtheirsalts

Observation/Interpretation

*Boldedrepresentstheprimaryexperimenttype.


54

Table8.SummaryofexperimentsconsideredwithinthefirstyearKRA113unit

Unit Experiment KeyConcepts/Techniques ExperimentType*KRA113 OxidationofBenzylAlcohol:SynthesisofBenzoic

Acid• Fundamentalsofanoxidationreactioninorganic

synthesis• %Yielddetermination• Vacuumfiltration• Basicsynthesisskills

Hands-on/Observation

OrganicFunctionalGroups • Chemicalreactivityofcertainfunctionalgroups• Applicationofchemicalreactivityknowledgetoidentify

thepresenceoffunctionalgroups• Smallscalefunctionalgrouptests

Observation/Interpretation

Thermochemistry:EnthalpyofNeutralisation • Constructandutiliseacalorimeterforthemeasurementoftheenthalpyofneutralisation

• PerformcalculationsusingexperimentaldatatoinvestigateHess'Law

Calculation/Interpretation

DeterminationoftheFreezing-PointDepressionConstantforCyclohexane

• Understandthedifferencebetweenmolarityandmolality

• Experimentallyconstructcoolingcurves• Methodsforthedeterminationofmolecularmass

Interpretation/Calculation



55

Table9.SummaryofexperimentsconsideredwithintheKRA223andKRA342units*

Unit Experiment KeyConcepts/Techniques ExperimentType*KRA223 DeterminationofCopperandArsenicinTreated

WoodbyAtomicAbsorptionSpectroscopy.GravimetricDeterminationofCalcium

• TheoryofAtomicAbsorptionSpectroscopy• Concentration,conversionbetweendifferentforms,

dilutions• Useofcalibrationcurvesandstandards

Calculation/interpretation

EDTATitrationofCalciumandMagnesiuminNaturalWaters

• Theoryofcomplexometrictitrationsandindicators• Concentration,conversionbetweendifferentforms,

dilutions

Handson/calculation

SpectrophotometricDeterminationofPhosphateinNaturalWaters

• TheoryofUV-Visiblespectroscopy• Useofcalibrationcurvesandstandards

Interpretation/calculation

KRA342 PalladiumCrossCouplingReactions • Establish an order for reactivity for a variety of arylhalidesincludinganystericeffectsthatoccur

• Investigate the effects of electron donor/withdrawingsubstituentsduringtheratedeterminingstep,oxidativeaddition

• Analysis by GC-FID and using this information toestimate%yieldformationofatargetcompound

• Design the procedure to carry out a 5 mmol scaleSuzuki-Miyuarareaction

Handson/interpretation



56

Twoapproachesweretakeninthedevelopmentoftheexperimentsforthisstudy.Thefirst

wasappliedtothetwounits,KRA001andKRA113.Thesecondapproachwasusedforthe

unitsKRA223andKRA342.Thesetwoapproacheswillbediscussedseparately.

4.1KRA001andKRA113

TheexperimentsforunitsKRA001andKRA113weredesignedtobecompletedwithinthree

hours,andpresentedtobeginningundergraduatestudents.Theseexperimentstendtobe

relativelystraightforwardandoftencentredaroundtwotothreecoreconceptsand

techniques.Thefirststageinthedevelopmentofthesemodifiedexperimentswastoidentify

thekeyconceptsandtechniques.Regardlessoftheteachingmethodtobeused,thesekey

conceptsandtechniquesmustbecoveredastheyarelinkedtothelearningoutcomesforeach

experiment.

Uponidentifyingtheconceptsandtechniquesforeachexperiment,theseweresummarized

andcirculatedtotheacademicstaffresponsibleforeachcomponentoftherelevantunit.This

allowedconfirmationthattheappropriateconceptsandtechniqueshadbeenlistedandan

additionalcheckforanythathadbeenmissed.Developmentmovedintothenextstageof

structuringeachexperimentintothreemodifiedexperimentstorepresenteachteaching

method.Theexperimentsintheirtraditionalformatlargelycoincidedwiththeteaching

approachformallyknownasExpository,ormorecommonlyreferredtoasinstruction-basedor

recipe-basedlearning.Withsomesmallexceptionsthiswastheprevalentteachingmethod

acrossallexperimentsforfoundationandfirstyearchemistryattheUniversityofTasmania.

Conversiontothethreeteachingmethodschosen,Expository,GuidedInquiry,andProblem

Solving,beganwithExpositoryasthiswouldbethemoststraightforwardandwouldidentify


57

allaspectsofthelaboratorytobecompleted.Theexperimentalprocedureswereconsidered

andsystematicallyreviewedtoremoveanyelementsofInquiryorProblemSolving.These

elementswerethenadaptedandintegratedintothediscussionandresultscomponentofthe

laboratoryreporttemplate.Theintendedoutcomeofthiswastheproductionofapurely

instruction-basedexperiment,withnopossibilityofstudentsdeviatingfromtheprovided

method.Allcalculations,results,anddiscussionswerecontainedwithinasinglesectionand

treatedasworktobecompleteduponcollectionofalldataforthatexperiment.Thereby

students’wouldbedevelopingtheirunderstandingaftercompletionoftheexperiment.

UsingthemethodspreviouslyusedbyPullenetal.(2014),theExpositoryversionsofeach

experimentwerethentreatedasthefoundationfortheGuidedInquiryandProblemSolving

versionsoftheseexperiments.TheExpositoryversionidentifiedwheretoincorporatemore

complexityintotheexperiment.AsGuidedInquiryhasbeendefinedinthisprojectasan

intermediateapproachbetweenExpositoryandProblemSolving,theconversionfrom

ExpositorytoGuidedInquiryrequiredcarefulconsiderationofwhatstagesoftheexperiment

couldbeadaptedtointegratehurdlesorchallenges.Thesehurdleswouldallowstudentsto

inquireintoelementsoftheexperimentpreviouslyonlyconsidereduponcompletionofthe

ResultsandDiscussionsection.Byidentifyingthesestages,inquirystyledquestionsand

discussionswereinterspersedthroughouttheexperimenttobreaktheperceivedmonotonyof

followingpureinstructions.Thisencouragedthedevelopmentandconsiderationofastudents’

understandingwhilsttheexperimentwascompleted,ratherthanafterwardsasexpectedin

theExpositoryteachingmethod.Finally,toconstructaProblemSolvingactivity,the

experimentwasbrokendownintobroadsections.Eachsectionwasintendedtobepresented

asaprobleminitselforafacetoftheexperiencethatstudentscoulddesignandengagewith.


58

4.2KRA223

Withinthetimeframeplannedforthisproject,onlytwoiterationsofKRA223wouldrun.

Thereforeonlytwoteachingmethodscouldbeusedandcompared.Thenatureofthese

experimentsledtothedecisionthatmodifyingtheseexperimentstoaProblemSolving

alternativewouldnotbefeasibleastheconceptsortechniquesbeinglearntdidnotlend

themselvesthefreedomtoexploreandinvestigateasrequired.Itwasthereforedecidedthat

ExpositoryandGuidedInquirywouldbecomparedforthepurposeofinvestigatingany

differencesfoundbetweenfirstandsecondyearstudentsfortheirexperienceswith

alternativeteachingmethods.

SimilartothemethodologyemployedindesigningthemodifiedexperimentsinKRA001and

KRA113,eachexperimentwasbrokendownintothekeyconceptsandtechniques.After

moderationbytheappropriateacademicstaff,apureinstructionalformatwasdevelopedto

representtheExpositoryteachingmethod.Allcalculationsanddiscussionswerecompiledinto

asinglesectiontobeconsidereduponcompletionoftheexperiment.

Theexperimentscompletedinsecondyearareconsiderablymoreadvancedthanfirstyear;

havingmoredifficultconceptsinadditiontoalongertimeframe,fourhoursminimum,to

completetheexperiment.ThereforetheexpansiontoaGuidedInquiryformathadagreater

numberofareaspossibleforenhancementofthemethod.Byintegratingcalculationsand

discussionsthroughthemethod,studentswereprovidedassistanceinwritingtheirlaboratory

reports.Thelaboratoryreportswrittenbysecondyearstudentsareconstructedwithout

guidanceincomparisontofirstyearwhereprovidedtemplatesareused.


59

4.3KRA342

Atthethirdyearlevelforundergraduatechemistry,thenumberofexperimentscompletedper

studentdecreasesinfavourofincreasingthedepthofeachexperiment.Thisallowsfor

experimentstospanoverseverallaboratorysessions,wideningtherangeandtypesof

proceduresbeyondthosepossiblegiventimeconstraintsinfirstandsecondyears.Giventhe

extendedlengthoftheexperiments,onlyasingleexperimentwaschosenfromKRA342tobe

modified.Thiswasanexperimentfocuseduponpalladiumcatalyzedcross-couplingreactions.

OriginallythisexperimentwasdeliveredinamixtureofExpositoryandGuidedInquiry

approachesgivingaformalstructureforstudentstofollow,butallowingsomeexplorationinto

theflexibilityofthisclassofreactions.Aftersomeconsiderationofclasssizes,amaximumof

20percohort,itwasinitiallydecidedthatcomparingtwoteachingmethodswouldleadtoa

samplegroupofinsufficientsize.Asanextensionoftheproject’slargergoalitwasdecided

thatatthethirdyearlevelonlytheProblemSolvingapproachwouldbestudied.Thiswas

supportedbytheexpectationsthatstudentsatthislevelshouldhaveathorough

understandingofchemistryfoundationsandshouldbefocusinginsteadupontheapplication

ofthisknowledge.

Withthisinmind,aredevelopmentofthecurrentexperimentwasundertaken.Similartothe

previousmethodologiesdiscussed,thecoreconceptsandtechniqueswereidentifiedand

moderatedbytheappropriateacademicstaff.Inthiscasehowever,itwasdecidedtoredesign

theoverarchingdirectionoftheexperimenttogivegreaterfreedomtostudentsinexploring

thisreaction.Assuch,theexperimentwasseparatedintotwodistinctsections:thefirstan

explorationatthemicro-scaleofarangeofpotentialreactantsforaSuzuki-Miyauracross-

couplingreactiontodeterminereactionefficiencies.Thesecondascalingupofthemost

efficientreactionasdeterminedinsectionone,aprocessoftenusedwithinresearchand


60

developmenttominimizewastageofpotentiallyexpensivereagentsorprocesses.Anexcerpt

fromthelaboratorymanualprocedure(thefullexperimentcanbefoundwithinAppendixII)

hasbeengivenbelowdetailingthenatureoftheexperimentanditsroughstructure:

"Thisexperimentwillbecompletedinsmallgroupswitheachstudentinthatgroup

investigatingthereactivityof2-3differentarylhalides.Priortothelaboratory,you

shoulddiscusswiththeotherstudentswhoarecompletingtheexperiment,whicharyl

halidestoanalyseinordertoproduceameaningfulcomparison.Ameaningful

comparisonwillrequiretheanalysisof6-8reactionsacrossabroadrangeofaryl

halides.Beforebeginningtheexperiment,justifyyourchoicestothedemonstrator.On

completionofthelaboratorywork,resultswillbesharedamongstthegrouptogive

furtherinsight."

Chapter5–Results:FoundationChemistry

61


5.1IntroductionaboutFoundationChemistry

TogivecontextastotheinclusionofafoundationchemistryunitattheUniversityofTasmania,

arequiredprerequisiteforfirstyearchemistryisthecompletionofaYear12chemistryor

equivalent.FoundationChemistryisofferedasanalternativepathwayforthosestudentswho

didnotundertakeaYear12chemistryunitorthosestudentswhoarereturningtostudyata

laterstageoflife.TheinclusionofFoundationChemistryunitsissupportedbyarecent

revisionoftheguidelinesforthestructureofaBachelorofChemistryfromtheAmerican

ChemicalSociety(ACS),CommitteeonProfessionalTraining(AmericanChemicalSociety,2015).

TheACSCommitteeonProfessionalTrainingstatethat"Foundationcourseworkprovides

breadthandlaysthegroundworkforthein-depthcoursework."(2015,pp.11).

5.1.1UnitObjectives

Fromapracticalpointofview,thisunitisdesignedtoactasaprerequisiteforthefirstyear

chemistryunits,KRA113andKRA114,offeredattheUniversityofTasmania.Thisisnottosayit

isequivalenttothechemistrysubjectsofferedinGrade12atpre-tertiaryinstitutions.

SpecificallythisunitwillcovertopicsofdirectrelevancetoKRA113andKRA114including:the

natureofmatter,thefundamentalsofchemicalstructure,bondingandchemicalreactions,the

statesofmatter,anintroductiontochemicalanalysis,acidbasechemistryandorganic

chemistry.TakendirectlyfromtheunitoutlineforKRA001attheUniversityofTasmania

(2015a),theintendedlearningoutcomesare:

• Demonstrateknowledgeandunderstandingofchemicalprinciplesandtheories;


62

• Applychemicalprinciplesandtheoriestopredictandexplainthechemicaland

physicalpropertiesofsubstances,theirstructure,andtheinteractionsthattakeplace

betweenthem;

• Displaycompetenceinworkinginanindividualandteamenvironmentbothwithina

learningspaceandalaboratoryspace;and

• Demonstrateproblem-solvingskillsfromexperimentalandtheoreticalapproaches,in

additiontoknowingwhentoacceptevidencecontrarytoestablishedbeliefs.

(UniversityofTasmania,2015a,pp.2)

5.1.2UnitOperation

TheUniversityofTasmaniahasthreemaincampusesacrossTasmania:theSandyBaycampus

inHobart,theNewnhamcampusinLaunceston,andtheCradleCoastcampusinBurnie.The

foundationchemistryunit,KRA001,isofferedatallthreecampusesinavarietyofmodes.

Table10.ThevarietyofformatsKRA001isofferedas

Campus Semester Mode

SandyBay Semester1

Semester2

Semester3(Summer)

OnCampus

OnCampus

Online

Newnham Semester2

Semester3(Summer)

OnCampus

Online

CradleCoast Semester2 OnCampus

BetweencampusesKRA001effectivelyrunsinthesamefashionwiththesameexperiments,

assessmenttasks,andcontent.Somesmalldifferencesoccurbetweendifferentlecturersand


63

demonstratorsineachcampus.Therearemajordifferenceshowever,betweentheunit

offeredwithinsemesters1and2andtheunitofferedoverthesummersemester(3).Theon-

campusmodedeliversthecontentover13weeksinthestandardunitformatwithregular

lecturesandtutorials(2x1hourlectures,and1x1hourtutorialperweek)inadditiontothe

laboratorycourse.Thelaboratorycourseconsistsof6three-hourexperiments,i.e.,oneevery

twoweeksthroughthesemester.ThesummersemesteriterationofKRA001actsasan

abridgedversionofthesemester1and2counterparts,containingthesamecontentand

laboratorycoursedeliveredoverabriefperiodoftime.Asanonlinemode,thesummer

semesterversionoffersthemajorityofitscontentandassessmenttasksover7weeks.The

laboratorycomponentofthisunitfitsintotwolaboratorydayswhere3experimentsare

completedfrom9amuntil5pmeachday.

Asthisunitrunsthroughmultiplesemesterseachyear,implementationofmodifiedteaching

approachesoccurredinmultipleinstancesacrossthe4yearperiodofthisstudy.Theresults

collectedfrommultipleinstancesofthesameteachingapproachwerethenpooledforanalysis,

basedontheassumptionthatthestudentcohortsweresimilar.Thisassumptionissupported

bypreviousworkbyPullenetal.(2014).

5.1.3Laboratorycoursedetails

Table11below,providesabriefoverviewofthetasksundertakenandconceptsfocusedupon

ineachexperiment.Thoseexperimentsthatwerestudiedwithinthisprojecthavebeen

shaded.


64

Table11.KRA001LaboratorycourseofferedatUniversityofTasmaniawithdetailsofallexperiments

Experiment Overview

ChemicalSafety Thefirsthalfofthissessionactsasaninductionforsafety

withinthechemistrylaboratory.Uponcompletingthesafety

section,arangeofactivitiesareofferedforstudentstoexplore

sometypesofreactions.

TheAnalysisofaSolutionby

MeasurementofitsDensity

Usingavarietyofequipmentstudentswillfirstcalculatethe

densityofwaterandcomparewithaprovidedliteraturevalue

todeterminethemethodofmostaccuracyandprecision.

Usingthisidentifiedmethod,studentswillthendeterminethe

densityofasodiumchloridesolutionofunknowndensity.

DistillationasaSeparation

Technique

Thisexperimentactsasanintroductiontotheequipmentused

inastandarddistillationapparatus.Asampleofhardwater,

waterdopedwithamixtureofionsfoundcommonlyinwater

samples,isdistilledtoremovetheseionsfromthewater

sample.Somesimplespottestsareusedonbothhardwater

andthedistilledproducttoindicatethepresenceofions.

Preparationand

standardizationofsodium

hydroxidesolution

Studentswillprepareanapproximateconcentrationofsodium

hydroxidesolutiontobestandardizedwiththeuseofaknown

acid,potassiumhydrogenphthalate.Thestandardizedsodium

hydroxideisthenstoredtobeusedinthenextexperiment.


65

IdentificationofaCarboxylic

Acid

Throughtitrationagainstthestandardizedsodiumhydroxide

solutionandthedeterminationofanywatersofcrystallization,

studentswillidentifyoneoftwounknownacidsassignedto

them.

PropertiesofSolutionsof

AcidsandBases

Withinthisexperimentstudentswillexplorethedifferences

betweenavarietyofacidsandbasesusinguniversalindicators

forpH,pHmeters,andconductivitymeters.Classificationof

eachoftheseasacidorbase,strongorweak,orasalt,will

occurinadditiontodetailingthenetionicequations

associatedwitheachsubstance.

ShadedspaceswithinTable11indicatethoseexperimentsincludedwithinthisstudy.

5.2Results

TheanalysisofeachexperimentconsideredfortheFoundationunit,KRA001,willbepresented

inthissection.Eachexperimentwillbediscussedindividuallyforeachaspectconsidered

withintheanalysisbeforetheoverarchingoutcomesarediscussedforthisunit.Section5.2.1

willdiscussthefirstofthese,TheAnalysisofaSolutionbyMeasurementofitsDensity.Sample

sizesforthecomparisonsdiscussedthroughoutthisChaptercanbefoundwithinAppendixI.

5.2.1TheAnalysisofaSolutionbyMeasurementofitsDensity

TheAnalysisofaSolutionbyMeasurementofitsDensityexperimentservestwoprimary

purposes.Asoneoftheearlierexperimentscompletedduringthelaboratorycourse,itfurther

familiarisesstudentswiththelaboratorylayoutandbasicequipment.Specifictothis

experiment,emphasisisplacedupontheequipmentusedandthemethodsofmeasurement


66

possible.Therefore,thisexperimentisprimarilyclassifiedasahands-onexperience,witha

minorfocusoncalculations.

Duringthisexperimentstudentsuseavarietyofequipmentincludingpipettes,measuring

cylinders,burettes,andbothbenchandanalyticalbalancestomeasurethedensityofwater.

Throughcomparisonofthesecombinations,anidealapproachisdeterminedbeforerepeating

thismethodtodeterminethedensityofasodiumchloridesolution.Finally,theirdensityis

convertedtobothweightbyweightandweightbyvolumevalues.

UsingtheexperimentdesignprocessdiscussedinChapter4,threeversionsofthisexperiment

wereimplementedtorepresenteachteachingapproachconsidered:Expository,Guided

InquiryandProblemSolving.Analysiswascompletedthroughseveralmechanismsasdetailed

inSection3.7.

5.2.1.1Studentperceptions–Survey

Aone-waybetween-groupsanalysisofvariancewasconducteduponthecollectedsurvey

responses,toexploretheimpactofalternativeteachingstylesonmultiplecohortsofstudents

undertakingthechemistryunit,KRA001.Forthisexperiment,TheAnalysisofaSolutionby

MeasurementofitsDensity,statisticalanalysisforthecomparisonbetweenteachingmethods

(Expository,N=86;GuidedInquiry,N=42;ProblemSolving,N=62)yieldednodifferencesat

thep<0.05levelinthedirectedquestionsaskedwithinthesurvey.Thediscussionofthese

surveyshasbeenstructuredtoconsiderthefindingsatabroadlevelbeforegradually

narrowingthefocustoidentifykeysub-themes.Theoverarchingbroadthemesareidentified

beforeinspectingthedistributionofpositiveversusnegativeresponsesineachofthese

themesbeforefinallyidentifyingthespecificsub-themes.ThroughoutChapter5thethree


67

teachingapproaches(Expository,GuidedInquiry,andProblemSolving)willbeabbreviatedas

EX,GI,andPSrespectively

5.2.1.2Studentperceptions–Surveycomments

WithinFigure5,thecombined,bothpositiveandnegative,studentcommentsforTheAnalysis

ofaSolutionbyMeasurementofitsDensity,havebeencategorizedintofiveoverarching

themes.Thesethemesare:

• Interactionwithothers

• Laboratoryprocesses

• Engagementwithinformation

• Overalllaboratoryexperience

• Miscellaneous

Whatcanbedrawnfromthisrepresentationistheproportionofcommentsmadeineachof

theseareas,andhowthesechangebetweentheteachingapproachesused.Throughabrief

observationoftheproportions,itisapparentthattherearesomekeydifferences.Forexample,

theProblemSolvingiterationhadaconsiderableincreaseforcommentsonthelaboratory

processesusedandadecreasefortheinteractionwithotherstheme.Wherethisproportion

waschangedforExpositoryandGuidedInquirywereforincreasesintheengagementwith

information,overalllaboratoryexperienceandinteractionwithothersthemes,respectively.


68

Figure5.TotaldistributionoftypesofsurveycommentsforTheAnalysisofaSolutionbyMeasurementofitsDensityexperiment(Expository,N=108;GuidedInquiry,N=35;ProblemSolving,N=19).

Whenconsideringtheproportionsofpositiveversusnegativecommentsthedepthof

conclusionsthatcanbedrawnfromthisgreatlyincreases.Forexample,whenanalyzingfor

sub-themescommonbetweenallthreeteachingapproachesofthisexperiment,theonly

themescommonwerecommentscentringuponthepositiveinteractionwithdemonstrators

andtheircapacitytoruntheexperimentinanefficientmanner.Itisclearwhenconsidering

thebroadproportionswithinFigure6,excludingthecommentsclassifiedundertheoverall

experiencetheme,thateachoverarchingthemehasanevenbalanceofpositiveandnegative

comments.Investigatingthisfurtherleadsustosub-themespresentforbothpositiveand

negativecomments.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

Percentageresponse

EX

GI

PS


69

Figure6.TheproportionofpositiveversusnegativecommentsfortheoverarchingthemesintheExpository(N=108)versionofTheAnalysisofaSolutionbyMeasurementofitsDensityexperiment.

Thesub-themespresentedinTable12fortheExpositoryversionoftheAnalysisofaSolution

byMeasurementofitsDensityexperimentindicatedseveralareasstudentsdeemedasboth

positiveandnegative.Aligningwiththeteachingapproachused,studentsfoundtheclarityof

theobjectivestobeoneofthepreferredaspectsofthisiteration.Conversely,students

indicatedtherewasalackofbackgroundinformationthatledtoareducedlevelof

understandinguponcompletionoftheexperiment.Theremainingsub-themesfocussedupon

aspectsofthelaboratorynotdirectlyrelatedtotheteachingapproachused.Forexample,

bothbeingahands-onlaboratoryandworkingasagroupwasapositiveexperience,whilethe

useofpipettesandalackoftimewerenegative.

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Per

ce

ntage

Res

po

nse

%Posiive

%Negaive


70

Table12.Sub-themesobservedfortheExpositoryversionofTheAnalysisofaSolutionbyMeasurementofitsDensityexperiment

Positive

• Hands-onexperiment

• Clearobjectives

• Groupwork

Negative

• Studentsfeltrushed,alackoftime

• Needmorebackgroundinformation

• Notenjoyingtheuseofpipettes

Additionally,demonstratorsindicatedthatthekeyfactorformakingtheExpositoryexperience

apositiveandsuccessfulonewastocouplethelaboratoryformatwithclearinstructionsfrom

theprovidedmanualthroughdiscussions.Thisallowedthedemonstratorstoexpanduponthe

studentsintendeddevelopmentofunderstandingthroughtheexperimentwhileprovidinga

clearstructureforthecompletionoftheexperiment.

Figure7fortheGuidedInquiryversionpaintsafardifferentpicturetotheproportions

observedfortheExpositoryversion.ThreeareasinFigure7donothavebalancedproportions

betweenpositiveandnegativeresponses.Thelaboratoryprocessthemeincludingall

equipment,reagents,andprocessesinvolvedwithinalaboratoryspacehasadistinctincrease

ofnegativecomments.Whereascommentswithintheoverallexperiencethemehadthe

reverse,withadistinctincreaseofpositivecomments.Whilstthemiscellaneouscommentsare

reportedasbeingallpositive,thenumberofmiscellaneouscommentswasminimal(N=1)and

thereforecanbeconsideredasmisleading.


71

Figure7.TheproportionofpositiveversusnegativecommentsfortheoverarchingthemesintheGuidedInquiry(N=35)versionofTheAnalysisofaSolutionbyMeasurementofitsDensityexperiment.

Thesub-themesinTable13fortheGuided-Inquiryinstanceofthisexperimentdidnot

elucidatemanyspecificelementsoftheexperiment.Aspectssuchasworkingindividuallyand

difficultyhearingdemonstratorsorpeersareoftenpersonalpreferenceforstudentsandcan

beaddressedeasily.Thedifficultyhearingwasanissuethathasbeenraisedpreviouslyby

demonstratorsattributedtothelayoutofthelaboratory.Onethemeofnotehowever,liesin

thenumberofstudentslistinganuncertaintyaboutthedifferencebetweentheteaching

methodusedinthisexperiment,Guided-Inquiry,andotherteachingmethodstheymaybe

usedto.Unfortunately,thecommentsweregeneralanddidnothighlightanyspecific

differencesorsimilarities.Uponreflection,onepotentialexplanationcouldlieinthenatureof

thisexperiment.GiventhatthisexperimentisthefirstexperimentforaFoundationChemistry

unit,theconceptsandprocessescontainedcouldbeatastandardthat,regardlessofteaching

approach,mayprovideasimilarexperience.

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Per

cent

age

Res

pons

e

%Posiive

%Negaive


72

Table13.Sub-themesobservedfortheGuided-InquiryversionofTheAnalysisofaSolutionbyMeasurementofitsDensityexperiment

Positive

• Thelearningenvironment

Negative

• Preferredtoworkindividually

• Difficulttohearthedemonstrator

overthegenerallaboratorynoise

• Notsureofthedifferencebetween

thisandotherteachingmethods

Demonstratorsforthisinstanceoftheexperimentobservedthattherewasadistinctlackof

preparationwhichledtostudentsstrugglingwithanydiscussionsorquestionsrequired

throughtheprocedure.Asthisexperimentisoneofthefirstexperimentsundertakenby

studentsinthisunit,theimportanceofpreparingforlaboratorysessionshasnottakenhold.

Theprocedureitselfwasobservedtobesuccessfulotherwise.

DifferentoncemoretobothExpositoryandGuided-Inquiryversions,Figure8illustratesthe

proportionsofpositiveversusnegativecommentsfortheProblem-Solvingversionofthis

experiment.Thetwokeyindicatorsofdifferenceherelieintheresponsescategorizedintothe

interactionwithothers,bothpeersanddemonstrators,andtheengagementwithinformation

overarchingthemes.Inbothcases,anincreaseinthenegativecommentswasobservedwitha

muchlargereffectfortheengagementwithinformationtheme.


73

Figure8.TheproportionofpositiveversusnegativecommentsfortheoverarchingthemesintheProblemSolving(N=19)versionofTheAnalysisofaSolutionbyMeasurementofitsDensityexperiment.

Thesub-themesforthisteachingapproachhavebeendisplayedwithinTable14.Thepositive

themesidentifiedwerebasedupontwoaspectsofthelaboratory.Onebeingtheselfpaced

approachtoaProblemSolvingexperienceallowingstudentstodeveloptheirownmethods

andimplementthemontheirterms.Thesecondbeingthegroupdiscussionsheldpriortothe

laboratorystart.FortheProblemSolvingversionofthisexperiment,particularcarewasgiven

toallowstudentsachancetoengagewithinthesegroupdiscussionsandvoiceconcernsor

ideasbasedontheirplan.Thenegativesub-themesidentifiedwerealignedwithconcernson

theinformationwithinthelaboratory.Bothfortheinformationandinstructionsinthe

laboratorymanual,andthelackofchemistryknowledgeofstudentspriortobeginningthe

experiment.Interestingly,somestudentfeltthattheopennessoftheexperimental

informationinthelaboratorymanualhadcausedthemtoover-preparefortheexperiment,

whichwasconsideredanegativeeffect.Thisfindingisadirectcontrasttooneoftheresults

obtainedforGuided-Inquirywherealackofpreparationwasobserved.

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Per

cent

age

Res

pons

e

%Posiive

%Negaive


74

Table14.Sub-themesobservedfortheProblemSolvingversionofTheAnalysisofaSolutionbyMeasurementofitsDensityexperiment

Positive

• Selfpacedwithanappropriate

workload

• Groupdiscussionspriortoindividual

work

Negative

• Theinformationandinstructionsin

thelaboratorymanualwerelacking

• Lackofchemistryknowledgeto

supportthisteachingapproach

• Somestudentsfelttheyhadover-

prepared

DemonstratorsnotedfortheProblemSolvingversionofthisexperimentthatwhilethe

experienceoverallwaspositiveforboththemselvesandtheirstudents,theverbal

explanationsprovidedthroughouttheexperimentwereconsiderablymoredifficultthan

normal.

5.2.1.3Studentperformance–Grade

UsingthemethoddiscussedinSection3.5.1,statisticallysignificantdifferencesatthep<0.05

levelwerenotonlyfoundintheaveragesforeachofthethreecriteria,butalsointheoverall

gradegiventostudents.Figure9displaysthecomparisonofthethreeteachingapproaches

(Expository,N=97;GuidedInquiry,N=72;ProblemSolving,N=79)fortheoverallgradeand

therespectivecriteria.ThethreecriteriahavebeendiscussedindetailwithinSection3.5.3and

aredefinedas:

1. Completionofpre-laboratoryrequirementsandworksafelyandefficientlywithina

laboratory

2. Useofthecorrecttechniquesandcalculations


75

3. Understandingoftheconceptsandprinciples

TotalGrade

Criterion1

Criterion2 Criterion3

Figure9.ComparisonofgradesbetweenteachingmethodsforTheAnalysisofaSolutionbyMeasurementofitsDensityexperimentinKRA001.Truevalues:Criterion1-20,Criteria2and3-40scaledtopercentagewithpercentageerrorrepresentedaserrorbars.

Forthepost-hocanalyses,twotestswereavailableforuse:theGames-Howelltestandthe

TukeyHSDtest.WhichtestisusedisdeterminedviauseofLevene'stestforhomogeneityof

variances.Forthosecomparisonsofvarianceswherethesignificancevalue(p)wasgreater

than0.05,thehomogeneityofvariancesassumptionhasnotbeenviolatedandtheTukeyHSD

testmaybeused.Forpvalueslessthan0.05,theGames-Howelltestisused.Foreach

comparisonwheresignificantdifferenceswereidentified,theeffectsize(Cohen,1988,pp.284

0

20

40

60

80

100

EX GI PS

Percen

tageRespo

nse

0

20

40

60

80

100

EX GI PS

Percen

tageRespo

nse

0

20

40

60

80

100

EX GI PS

Percen

tageRespo

nse

0

20

40

60

80

100

EX GI PSPe

rcen

tageRespo

nse


76

-287)wascalculated.Cohenclassifies0.01asasmalleffectsize,0.06asamediumeffectand

0.14asalargeeffect.ThesummaryoftheanalysescompletedforTheAnalysisofaSolutionby

MeasurementofitsDensityexperimentcanbefoundinTable15.

Post-hoccomparisonsusingtheGames-HowelltestforCriterion1indicatedthatthemean

scoresforbothExpository(µ=16.89,σ=2.38)andProblemSolving(µ=16.56,σ=3.03)were

significantlydifferenttoGuidedInquiry(µ=14.875,σ=4.72).TheeffectsizeforCriterion1,

calculatedusingetasquared,was0.07.Aneffectofthissizeisconsideredasamediumeffect

asdefinedbyCohen(1988,pp.284-7).

Post-hoccomparisonsusingtheTukeyHSDtestforCriterion2indicatedthatthemeanscores

forbothExpository(µ=31.16,σ=4.23)andProblemSolving(µ=29.68,σ=4.56)were

significantlydifferenttoGuidedInquiry(µ=27.04,σ=5.24).TheeffectsizeforCriterion2was

0.12,asizeofwhichisconsideredasalargeeffectasdefinedbyCohen.

Post-hoccomparisonsusingtheTukeyHSDtestforCriterion3indicatedthatthemeanscores

forExpository(µ=29.38,σ=4.61)weresignificantlydifferenttobothGuidedInquiry(µ=

26.125,σ=5.51)andProblemSolving(µ=27.56,σ=4.60).TheeffectsizeforCriterion3was

0.07,asizeofwhichisconsideredamediumeffect.

Post-hoccomparisonsusingtheGames-HowelltestfortheoverallGradeindicatedthatthe

meanscoresforbothExpository(µ=77.53,σ=8.94)andProblemSolving(µ=74.60,σ=10.66)

wassignificantlydifferenttoGuidedInquiry(µ=69.06,σ=13.64).Theeffectsizeforthe

overallGradewas0.09,asizeofwhichisconsideredamediumeffect.


77

Table15.Post-hocoutputofcomparisonsofstudents'overallgradeyieldingsignificantdifferencesata95%confidenceintervalforTheAnalysisofaSolutionbyMeasurementofitsDensityexperiment

Variable Post-Hoc* EffectSize Comparison pValue

Criterion1 Games–Howell 0.07

(medium)

Expository>GuidedInquiry 0.001

ProblemSolving>GuidedInquiry 0.018

Criterion2 Tukey 0.12

(medium)

Expository>GuidedInquiry <0.001



(medium)


Expository>ProblemSolving 0.038

Grade Games–Howell 0.09

(medium)



*Post-HoctestsdeterminedbyLevene'stestforhomogeneityofvariancesasdiscussedinSection5.2.1.3.

5.2.1.4StudentPerformance–Quiz

Thepost-laboratoryquizfortheAnalysisofaSolutionbyMeasurementofitsDensity

experimentcontainedatotalof5questionstoaddressthekeyconceptsortechniquesused

withinthislaboratory.Thesequestionshavebeensummarisedbelow:

Question1a–Focusesupontheidentificationofsignificantfiguresinprovidedvalues.

Question1b–PerformsacalculationusingtheprovidedvaluesinQuestion1a.

Question2–Recognitionanddifferentiationbetweenanalyticalandtop-loading

balances.

Question3–Usingprovidedvaluesstudentscalculatedensity.

Question4–UsingthedensitycalculatedinQuestion3,studentsconvertaprovided%

w/vcompositionto%w/w.


78

Intheanalysisofthedatacollectedforthesequestions,responseswerejudgedoneofthe

following:correct,partiallycorrect,incorrect,ordidnotattempt.Forsimplicity,theoutputof

thisanalysisdisplaysonlythecorrect(inblue)andthepartiallycorrect(inred)responses.The

pictorialcomparisonbetweenteachingapproachesforthesequestionshavebeensummarised

inFigure10.

Question1a Question1b

Question2

Question3 Question4

Figure10.Percentageofcorrect(blue)andpartiallycorrect(red)responsestoquestionscontainedwithinthepost-experimentquizforTheAnalysisofaSolutionbyMeasurementofitsDensityexperiment(Expository,N=86;GuidedInquiry,N=38;ProblemSolving,N=56).

Whenconsideringtheperformanceofstudentsthroughthecompletionofapost-experiment

quiz,thefirstmostapparentoutcomeobservedisthesimilaritybetweentheExpositoryand

0

20

40

60

80

100

EX GI PS

Percen

tageRespo

nse

0

20

40

60

80

100

EX GI PS

Percen

tageRespo

nse

0

20

40

60

80

100

EX GI PS

Percen

tageRespo

nse

0

20

40

60

80

100

EX GI PS

Percen

tageRespo

nse

0

20

40

60

80

100

EX GI PS

Percen

tageRespo

nse


79

ProblemSolvingversionsofthisexperiment.Withoutdelvingintospecificsofeachquestions

conceptsortechniques,bothoftheseteachingmethodsnotonlyhadcomparablecorrect

responsesbutalsopartiallycorrectresponsesfortheirrespectivecohorts.TheGuided-Inquiry

cohortappearedtobeperformingatalowerlevelofunderstandingfortheseconcepts,butof

mostconcernforQuestions2and4.Respectively,thesequestionstestforknowledgeand

understandingofthetwotypesofbalancesusedwithinthelaboratory,andtheconversionof

%weightbyvolume(w/v)to%weightbyweight(w/w).NoobviouscharacteristicofGuided

Inquirycouldbeidentifiedascausingthislackofunderstanding.Onepotentialexplanation

couldbethewealthofinformationstudentsengagedwithwhenaddressingboththe

discussionpointsandprocedureatthesametime.Thismayhaveledtoanoverloadingof

informationcausingmisunderstandingsorconfusionwhenansweringthepost-experiment

quiz.

5.2.1.5Summaryofresults

Withnodifferencesobservedwithinthesurveyquestionsposedtothestudentcohortit

becomesnecessarytoassumeallthreeteachingmethodswereachievinganapproximately

equalstandardforthesurveyquestions.Investigatingfurtherbyconsideringtheresponses

fromstudentsgivesanindicationofsomedifferenceshowever,betweentheteaching

approaches.Theoverarchingviewofthedistributionofcomments,combiningbothpositive

andnegative,indicatedthatbetweenteachingmethodsthereweredifferencesinwhat

themeswereofmostinteresttothestudentsuponcompletionoftheirexperiment.Themajor

differencelaywithintheproportionofcommentsrelatingtothelaboratoryprocess.Onthe

wholetheExpositorystylewasfairlyevenlydistributedacrosseachofthethemes(interaction

withothers,laboratoryprocess,engagementwithinformation,overall,andmiscellaneous)

exceptingtheoverallexperiencebeingallpositive.GuidedInquiryandProblemSolvingstyles


80

werefoundtohavealargeproportionshifttonegativeforthelaboratoryprocessand

engagementwithinformationthemesrespectively.

Lookingatthecomparisonofgradesbetweenteachingmethodstherewasadefinitive

increaseforbothExpositoryandProblemSolvingovertheGuidedInquiryapproach.Whilst

bothCriterion1and3hadonlyamediumeffectsize(asdefinedbyCohen),Criterion2,the

criterionallocatedforperformanceintheuseofcalculationsandtechniques,wasobservedto

havealargeeffectsize.ThisindicatesthatstudentscompletingtheExpositoryandProblem

Solvingversionswereperformingatahigherstandardfortherelevantcalculationsand

techniquesusedwithinthisexperiment.Realisticallyhowever,despitetherebeinganincrease

forbothExpositoryandProblemSolving,thedifferenceobservedisthedifferencebetweena

Distinctionwithanapproximategradeof70%forGuidedInquiryandbothExpositoryand

ProblemSolvingsittingaround75%and80%.

Finally,theresultsobservedforthecomparisonofquizresponsesindicatedthatboth

ExpositoryandProblemSolvingweresimilarinthestandardshownbystudents.Students

completingtheGuidedInquiryversionhowever,werefoundtobeperformingatalower

standardfortwooftheconceptstestedthroughthisquiz.Thisresultmayhaveresultedfroma

perceivedincreaseinworkloadbyintegratingdiscussionquestionsandchallengesthroughthe

procedure.

Basedonthecollationofthisdata,itbecomesapparentthatintermsofwhichteaching

approachhadthemostsuccessforTheAnalysisofaSolutionbyMeasurementofitsDensity

experiment,GuidedInquirycanbedefinitivelyruledout.TheExpositoryandProblemSolving

versionsbecomemoredifficulttoseparate.Inmostcomparisons,bothteachingapproaches


81

wereobservedtobeoperatingatasimilarstandard,theexceptionlyinginthestudentfree-

textresponseswhereExpositoryappearedtobebetterbalancedintermsofstudentreception.

Thefinalconsiderationtotakeintoaccountistherealisticimplementationofthisexperiment

withinthelaboratorycourseitisofferedin.Giventhatthisexperimentistypicallythesecond

experiment,thefirsttruewetlaboratoryexperiment.Inadditiontothenatureofthisunit

beingcomposedofmanyfirsttimelaboratorystudents.Theadditionalworkloadandpre-

knowledgerequiredfortheProblemSolvingversionmakesitunfavouredincomparisontothe

Expositoryapproach.

5.2.2DistillationasaSeparationTechnique

TheDistillationasaSeparationTechniqueexperimentfocusesupontwolearningobjectives.

Firstlytoenablefamiliaritywiththeequipmentandtechniquesassociatedwithcompletinga

distillation.Secondly,todescribetheinteractionsbetweenmultiplemoleculesusingionic

equations.Assuch,theprimaryfocusonthisexperimentisthedevelopmentofhands-onskills

forbothgeneralandspecializedequipment.

Studentscompletingthisexperimentworkinpairsinitiallytosetupandrunasteamdistillation

ofahardwatersampletoremovecontaminantsandcollectadistilledwaterproduct.Asthis

distillationisrunning,studentsindividuallycompletesmall-scalespotteststodeterminethe

presenceofparticularioncontaminantsinahardwatersample.Uponcompletionofthe

distillation,individualtestsarethencompletedonthedistilledproducttocompareforthe

presenceoftheioncontaminantstestedearlier.Finally,theobservedoutcomesofthesespot-

tests,orlackthereof,aredescribedusingionicequationsanddiscussion.


82


Aone-waybetweengroupsanalysisofvariancewasconductedtoexploretheimpactof

alternativeteachingstylesonmultiplecohortsofstudentsundertakingthechemistryunit,

KRA001.Forthisexperiment,DistillationasaSeparationTechnique,statisticalanalysisforthe

comparisonbetweenteachingmethods(Expository,N=76;GuidedInquiry,N=46;Problem

Solving,N=75)yieldednodifferencesatthep<0.05levelinthedirectedquestionsasked

withinthesurvey.


WithinFigure11thecombinedstudentcomments,bothpositiveandnegative,forthe

DistillationasaSeparationTechniquehavebeencategorizedintofiveoverarchingthemesas

discussedinSection5.2.1.2.Acrossallthreeteachingapproachestheengagementwith

information,overallexperienceandmiscellaneousthemesappeartoremainunchanged.The

majordifferencescanbeseenclearlyintheproportionofcommentsbeingsubmittedbetween

theinteractionwithothersandthelaboratoryprocessthemes.Fortheinteractionwithothers

theme,theGuidedInquiryapproachhasthehighestproportionofstudentcommentsbefore

theExpositoryandfinallyProblemSolvingapproaches.


83

Figure11.TotaldistributionoftypesofsurveycommentsfortheDistillationasaSeparationTechniqueexperiment(Expository,N=56,GuidedInquiry,N=49;ProblemSolving,N=58).

Onlyonesub-themewasconsistentthroughoutallthreeteachingapproaches:thepositive

experienceofworkinginsmallgroupsfortheinitialsetupofthefullsteamdistillation

equipmentandthesubsequentcollectionofdistilledwater.

TheproportionsofresponsesforeachoftheoverarchingthemesfortheExpositoryversionof

theDistillationasaSeparationTechniqueexperimentarewithinFigure12.Considerationof

theseproportionsindicatedsomeimbalancesfortheoverarchingthemes.Thelaboratory

processthemewastheoneexception.Bothinteractionwithothersandtheoverallexperience

themeshadsolelypositivestudentfeedbackforthefree-formtextcomments,whilstthe

engagementwithinformationthemehadadistinctskewofmorenegativeresponsesthan

positive.Atthislevelofobservationitcanbesurmisedthatwhilestudentsenjoyedthe

physicalactionsandtheinteractionwithbothdemonstratorsandpeers,agaporproblemof

somekindexistedwithintheinformationbeingprovidedleadingtoanegativeexperience.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

PercentageResponse

EX

GI

PS


84

Figure12.TheproportionofpositiveversusnegativecommentsfortheoverarchingthemesintheExpository(N=56)versionoftheDistillationasaSeparationTechniqueexperiment.

Toinvestigatethestudentsresponsesatafinerlevel,Table16detailsthesub-themesthat

wereidentifiedacrossallfiveoverarchingthemes.Thesub-themesidentifiedcontinueto

developtheideathatstudentsareenjoyingthehands-onphysicalaspectofthislaboratory,

whilstatthesametimestrugglingwiththeconceptsthatarerequiredforcompletionofthe

laboratory.Interestingly,therewasasplitofresponsesforbothpositiveandnegative

experienceswiththesetupofthedistillationitself.Ionicequationsinparticularwere

highlightedmultipletimesbystudentsasapointoffrustrationandlackofunderstanding.A

miscellaneouscommentthatwasalsoprevalentwastheindicationfromstudentsthatthe

additionofcontenttobecompletedduringthedistillationprocesswouldbewelcomed.One

resolutiontothisgapintheexperimentwouldbetheinclusionofinformationandactivitiesto

betterimprovetheunderstandingofionicequations.

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Per

cent

age

Res

pons

e

%Posiive

%Negaive


85

Table16.Sub-themesobservedfortheExpositoryversionoftheDistillationasaSeparationTechniqueexperiment

Positive

• Thesetupofthedistillation

equipmentasalaboratoryprocess

• Thecomparisonofbeforeandafter

distillationspot-tests

• Generalcommentsfortheenjoyment

ofthelaboratory

Negative

• Thesetupofthedistillationasa

laboratoryprocess

• Understandingtheprocessof

distillationasaconcept

• Theconstructionanduseofionic

equations

IncomparisontothestudentcommentproportionsobservedfortheExpositoryapproach,the

proportioninFigure13fortheGuidedInquirystyledisplaysamuchmorebalancedrangeof

comments.Solelypositiveresponseswereobservedfortheoverallexperiencethemeonce

againbutasmallerskewofpositiveresponsesfortheinteractionwithotherscanbeseen.

Figure13.TheproportionofpositiveversusnegativecommentsfortheoverarchingthemesintheGuidedInquiry(N=49)versionoftheDistillationasaSeparationTechniqueexperiment.

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

PercentageResponse

%Posiive

%Negaive


86

Theresponsesgivenbystudentswithinthefree-textentryspacesofthesurveyswerevaried

suchthatonly2sub-themeswereidentified,bothofwhichwerepositive,asseenwithinTable

17.Anynegativecommentscouldbedescribedasindividualconcernsratherthanconcerns

thatmayinfluencetheentireclass.Demonstratorsmirroredthiswiththeircomments

reflectingonthepositiveoverallexperienceforbothdemonstratorsandthestudents

completingthisexperiment.Someminorlaboratorymanualadjustmentswerenotedbythe

demonstratorstoreduceconfusionfortherecordingofresults.

Table17.Sub-themesobservedfortheGuidedInquiryoftheDistillationasaSeparationTechniqueexperiment

Positive

• Generalcommentsfortheenjoyment

ofthelaboratory

• Interactionwiththedemonstrators

specifically.

Negative

• Nonegativesub-themeswere

identified.

InFigure14,theresponsesgiveanimmediateindicationoftwoverystrongthemesforthe

ProblemSolvingversionoftheDistillationasaSeparationTechniqueexperiment.Notably,all

responsesrelatingtointeractionwithpeersordemonstratorsweresolelypositive.Conversely,

allresponsesrelatingtotheengagementwithinformationtheme,throughthelaboratory

manual,lectures,pre-readings,orprovidedinformationduringthelaboratory,werenegative.

Interestingly,thelaboratoryprocessesthemeremainedlargelythesamebetweenallthree

teachingapproaches.


87

Figure14.TheproportionofpositiveversusnegativecommentsfortheoverarchingthemesintheProblemSolving(N=58)versionoftheDistillationasaSeparationTechniqueexperiment.

Avarietyofsub-themeswereidentifiedfortheProblemSolvingversionofthisexperimentas

displayedinTable18.Basedonthecommentsreceived,thestudentsrespondedwelltothe

ProblemSolvingnatureoftheteachingapproachandhighlightedtheabilitytohavesome

controloftheexperimentaldirectionintheirlaboratory.Therewasamixofcomments

relatingtoclaritywithinthelaboratorymanualwithareasonablesplitforthosewhofoundthe

manualclearandthosewhodidnot.Oneofthenegativesub-themesobservedindicated

studentsfelttherewasnotenoughwork,andthatanexpansionofthisexperimentwouldbe

feasible.Whilenotspecificallynotedwithinthisexperiment,studentsfromanumberof

ProblemSolvingversionsofotherexperimentsindicatedanincreasedworkloadforProblem

Solvingasanegativesub-theme.Theresponsesfromdemonstratorsindicatedapreferencefor

theProblemSolvingapproach;thereasoninggivenconcededthatwhilsttheExpository

approachwasrapidinitscompletion,theProblemSolvingapproachwasbothmoreenjoyable

andallowedstudentstogainabetterunderstandingoftheconcepts.

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Per

cent

age

Res

pons

e

%Posiive

%Negaive


88

Table18.Sub-themesobservedfortheProblemSolvingversionoftheDistillationasaSeparationTechniqueexperiment

Positive

• Generalcommentsontheexperiment

beingsuccessful

• Clearlayoutwithinthelaboratory

manual

• Flexibilityforstudentstodesigntheir

experimentsdirection

• Hands-ontypeofexperiment

Negative

• Explanationsandinformation

providedduringtheexperiment

• Wordingisvague,someofthe

questionsposedinthelaboratory

manualwereconfusing

• Notenoughworkforathreehour

laboratorysession


Statisticallysignificantdifferencesatthep<0.05levelwerenotonlyfoundintheaveragesfor

eachofthethreecriteria,butalsofortheoverallgradegiventothestudents.Thecomparisons

ofthethreeteachingapproaches(Expository,N=96;GuidedInquiry,N=69;ProblemSolving,

N=78)fortheoverallgradeandrespectivecriteriaisshowninFigure15.


89

TotalGrade

Criterion1


Figure15.ComparisonofgradesbetweenteachingmethodsfortheDistillationasaSeparationTechniqueexperimentinKRA001.Truevalues:Criterion1-20,Criteria2and3-40scaledtopercentagewithpercentageerrorrepresentedaserrorbars.

Thestatisticalanalysisforthecomparisonoftheteachingapproachesforthegradesisshown

inTable19.Thepost-hoctestsusedweredeterminedbyLevene'stestforhomogeneityof

variancesasdiscussedinSection5.2.1.3.Post-hoccomparisonsusingtheGames-Howelltest

forCriterion1indicatedthatthemeanscorefortheProblemSolving(µ=18.31,σ=2.00)

versionwassignificantlydifferenttoboththeExpository(µ=16.77,σ=2.86)andGuided

Inquiry(µ=17.09,σ=2.71)versions.TheeffectsizeforCriterion1,calculatedusingeta

squared,was0.06.Aneffectofthissizeisconsideredamediumeffect.Post-hoccomparisons

usingtheGames-HowelltestforCriterion2indicatedthatthemeanscorefortheProblem

0

20

40

60

80

100

EX GI PS

Percen

tageRespo

nse

0

20

40

60

80

100

EX GI PS

Percen

tageRespo

nse

0

20

40

60

80

100

EX GI PS

Percen

tageRespo

nse

0

20

40

60

80

100

EX GI PS

Percen

tageRespo

nse


90

Solving(µ=33.13,σ=3.64)wassignificantlydifferenttoboththeExpository(µ=31.09,σ=

4.95)andtheGuidedInquiry(µ=29.57,σ=3.62).TheeffectsizeforCriterion2was0.10,i.e.a

mediumeffect.Post-hoccomparisonstheTukeyHSDtestforCriterion3indicatedthatthe

meanscoreforProblemSolving(µ=30.90,σ=4.87)wassignificantlydifferenttotheGuided

Inquiry(µ=27.87,σ=4.53).TheeffectsizeforCriterion3was0.06,i.e.amediumeffect.Post-

hoccomparisonsusingtheTukeyHSDtestfortheoverallGradeindicatedthatthemeanscore

fortheProblemSolving(µ=81.94,σ=9.09)wassignificantlydifferenttoboththeExpository

(µ=77.47,σ=10.69)andtheGuidedInquiry(µ=75.30,σ=9.19).Theeffectsizeforthe

overallGradewas0.07,i.e.amediumeffect.

Table19.Post-hocoutputofcomparisonsofstudents'overallgradeyieldingsignificantdifferencesata95%confidenceintervalfortheDistillationasaSeparationTechniqueexperiment



(medium)

ProblemSolving>GuidedInquiry <0.001

ProblemSolving>Expository 0.007


(medium)




(medium)


Grade Tukey 0.07

(medium)





91

5.2.2.4Studentperformance-Quiz

Thepost-laboratoryquizfortheDistillationasaSeparationTechniqueexperimentcontained

twoquestionstoencompassthekeyconceptsandtechniquesusedwithinthislaboratory.

Thesequestions,looselyadaptedfromtheoriginal,were:

Question1–Requiresadescriptionofthedistillationprocessandhowthisisusedto

achieveseparation.

Question2–Givenachemicalreaction,studentsmustprovidethecorrespondingthe

totalandnetionicequations.

AsdiscussedinSection5.2.1.4,theresultspresentedinFigure16belowdisplaythepercentage

ofstudentswhoprovidedcorrect(blue)orpartiallycorrect(red)answers.

Question1

Question2

Figure16.Percentageofcorrect(blue)andpartiallycorrect(red)responsestoquestionscontainedwithinthepost-experimentquizfortheDistillationasaSeparationTechniqueexperiment(Expository,N=79;GuidedInquiry,N=29;ProblemSolving,N=68).

Comparingthestandardsachievedforeachquestionbetweenthethreeteachingapproaches,

noteachingapproachclearlyperformsatahigherstandard.ForQuestion1bothExpository

andProblemSolvinghadalargerproportionofstudentscorrectlyansweringthequestionthan

0

20

40

60

80

100

EX GI PS

Percen

tageRespo

nse

0

20

40

60

80

100

EX GI PS

Percen

tageRespo

nse


92

GuidedInquiry.Allthreehowever,hadresponsesthatwerepartiallycorrectforthemajorityof

thestudentswhocompletedthequiz.

ForQuestion2ProblemSolvinghadthelargestproportionofstudentscorrectlygivingthenet

andtotalionicequations.Whenconsideringthepartiallycorrectresponseshowever,Guided

InquiryhadafarhigherpercentageofstudentsthanbothExpositoryandProblemSolving.The

misconceptionscausingpartiallycorrectresponseswerelargelythesameacrossallthree

teachingapproaches.

ThemajormisconceptionscausinganswerstobeonlypartiallycorrectforQuestion1was

failingtorecognizehowdistillationtakesadvantageofdifferentboilingpoints.Studentswould

oftenquotethatthewaterwouldboiloffbecausewhatwasleftbehindcouldnottransitionto

agas.ThepartiallycorrectresponsesforQuestion2wereamixtureamongsttheabsenceof

identifyingstatesofmatter,failingtobalanceequationscorrectly,andcorrectlydescribingthe

netionicequationbutunabletodescribethetotalionicequation.


Analysisofthedirectedquestionswithinthesurveyyieldednosignificantdifferencesbetween

theteachingapproachesfortheDistillationasaSeparationTechniqueexperiment.Analysisof

thefreetextentrycomponentofthesurveyprovidessomecontrastingindicationof

differencesbetweentheteachingapproaches.Atthebroadestlevelofanalysisitwasobserved

thatforExpository,GuidedInquiryandProblemSolvingtherewasadefinitetrendofashift

betweencommentsbeingmadewithintheinteractionwithothersandlaboratoryprocess

themes.Theorderofthistrendforinteractionwithothershavingthemostresponsestothe

leastwasGuidedInquiry,ExpositoryandfinallyProblemSolving.Responsesforthelaboratory


93

processthemehadthereversetrend.Whenconsideringtheproportionsofpositiveto

negativecommentswithinthesebroadthemes,GuidedInquiryhadafarbettermixtureof

positiveandnegativecommentsreferringtothistheme.Thisoutcomewasdespitethetrend

indicatingmorecommentsweremadewithintheGuidedInquiryapproachthanboththe

ExpositoryandProblemSolvingapproachesTheExpositoryandProblemSolvingapproaches

werealmostentirelynegativewhenconsideringresponseswithinthesametheme.Thesub-

themesidentifiedforeachteachingapproachalsoyieldedsomeinterestingoutcomes.The

Expositoryapproachsub-themes,particularlythenegativeones,wereforthemostpart

concernedwithcomponentsofthelaboratorythatrequiredunderstandingoftheequipment

orconceptsutilizedwithintheexperiment.TheGuidedInquiryapproach,despitehavingquite

variedresponses,wasidentifiedasamostlypositiveexperiencewithnoparticularweakor

confusingareasforstudents.OfmostinterestperhapswastheProblemSolvingapproach,asa

contrasttotheExpositoryapproachresponses;thesub-themesidentifiedherewere

concernedwithcomponentsofthelaboratorythatareeasilyaccessibleforamendment.For

example,theexplanationsorinformationprovidedduringtheexperiment,thestructureand

clarityofthelaboratorymanual,andtheindicationthatstudentswouldlikemoreworkto

completeduringthislaboratorysession.

Theperformanceofstudentsduringthislaboratoryasdefinedbytheassessmentprovidedby

demonstrators.Thegrades,whencomparedafterwards,indicatedthepresenceofsignificant

differencesbetweenthethreeteachingapproaches.Tobespecific,thegradesfortheProblem

SolvingapproachweresignificantlyhigherthanbothExpositoryandGuidedInquiry

approaches,thoughtheeffectsizeforthesecomparisonswereofamediumsizeandtherefore

negligible.Furthermore,allthreeteachingapproacheshadcalculatedaveragegradeswithin

theDNandHDrange,wellabovethestandardrequiredtopassthislaboratory.


94

Thepost-experimentalquiztodeterminestudents'understandingofkeytechniquesor

conceptswithinthisexperimentdidnotyieldanyconclusiveresultsforoneteachingapproach

beingsuperior.Question1centredupondemonstratinganunderstandingoftheequipment

used,withallthreeteachingapproachesdemonstratingsimilarresponses.Question2

however,whichcentreduponthedemonstrationofchemistryknowledgeandapplicationfor

netandtotalionicequations,appearedtosignificantlyfavouroftheGuidedInquiryapproach.

Withthesefindingsinmind,itisapparentthattheGuidedInquiryapproachhasaslightedge

inseveralareas.Firstly,thestudentexperience,asdeterminedviatheirfree-textentryspaces,

indicatedthatwhileboththeGuidedInquiryandProblemSolvingapproacheswerereceived

well,theGuidedInquiryapproachdidnotappeartohaveanyspecificweaknesses.Secondly,

despitethegradeawardedtostudentsfortheirperformanceinthelaboratory,asdetermined

bythedemonstrators,beingrelativelythesamebetweentheteachingapproaches,the

understandingdemonstratedbythestudentsthroughthepost-experimentquizindicatedthat

theGuidedInquiryapproachwassuperior.Withinthelaboratorycourseincurrent

implementation,thisisthethirdexperimentofthecourseandasidefromtheset-upofthe

distillationequipmentitself,featuresnonewlaboratoryskills.Itisthereforeconcludedthat

theGuidedInquiryapproachwasofmostsuccessfortheDistillationasaSeparationTechnique

experiment.


95

5.2.3IdentificationofaCarboxylicAcid

TheIdentificationofaCarboxylicAcidexperimentisdesignedasafollow-onexperimenttoa

previousexperimentinwhicheachstudentstandardizesauniquesodiumhydroxidesolution.

Asthepreviousexperimentfocusesupondevelopingthetechniqueoftitration,this

experimentfocusesinsteadupontheapplicationofthetitrationtechniqueinconjunctionwith

understandingandapplyingtheconceptofequivalentmasstoidentifytheircarboxylicacid

provided.Assuchthisexperimentfallsunderthethinkingandinterpretationcategoryfor

experimenttype.

Thisexperimentcontainstwoprimarycomponentsthatthestudentscomplete.Firstly

studentsidentifywhethertheirsamplecontainsanywatermoleculeswithinitscrystal

structure,asmallsampleisdriedwithinanoventoidentifyanywaterofcrystallizationby

changeinmass.Secondly,duringthisdryingtimethetechniqueoftitrationisappliedusing

theirstandardizedsodiumhydroxidesolutiontodeterminetheequivalentmassoftheir

unknowncarboxylicacid.Throughtheinterpretationofthesetwocomponents’resultsand

providedinformationonarangeofpossiblecarboxylicacids,studentscanthenidentifytheir

carboxylicacid.




KRA001.Forthisexperiment,IdentificationofaCarboxylicAcid,statisticalanalysisforthe

comparisonbetweenteachingmethods(Expository,N=74;GuidedInquiry,N=30;Problem

Solving,N=40)yieldednodifferencesatthep<0.05levelinthedirectedquestionsasked

withinthesurvey.


96


Unfortunately,thedataforthiscomponentofthestudywasmislaid.Ifmoretimewas

availableforthisstudy,anotheriterationofthisexperimentwouldberuntocollectnewdata

foranalysisandcomparison.


Theaverageoverallgradesandrespectivecriteria(Expository,N=95;GuidedInquiry,N=68;

ProblemSolving,N=85)fortheIdentificationofaCarboxylicAcidexperimentareshownin

Figure17.Statisticallysignificantdifferencesatthep<0.05levelwerenotonlyfoundinthe

averagesforeachofthethreecriteria,butalsotheoverallgradegiventostudents.


97

TotalGrade

Criterion1


Figure17.ComparisonofgradesbetweenteachingmethodsfortheIdentificationofaCarboxylicAcidexperimentinKRA001.Truevalues:Criterion1-20,Criteria2and3-40scaledtopercentagewithpercentageerrorrepresentedaserrorbars.

Thepost-hoctestsweredecidedasdiscussedinSection5.2.1.3.Asummaryofthestatistical

analysescanbefoundinTable20.Post-hoccomparisonsusingtheGames-Howelltestfor

Criterion1indicatedthatthemeanscorefortheProblemSolving(µ=17.34,σ=2.68)was

significantlydifferenttoboththeExpository(µ=15.90,σ=3.56)andtheGuidedInquiry(µ=

15.59,σ=3.72).TheeffectsizeforCriterion1was0.05,i.e.asmalleffect.Post-hoc

comparisonsusingtheTukeyHSDtestforCriterion2indicatedthatthemeanscoreforthe

ProblemSolving(µ=30.52,σ=4.19)wassignificantlydifferenttotheGuidedInquiry(µ=


0

20

40

60

80

100

EX GI PS

Percen

tageRespo

nse

0

20

40

60

80

100

EX GI PS

Percen

tageRespo

nse

0

20

40

60

80

100

EX GI PS

Percen

tageRespo

nse

0

20

40

60

80

100

EX GI PS

Percen

tageRespo

nse


98

comparisonsusingtheTukeyHSDtestforCriterion3indicatedthatthemeanscoreforthe

ProblemSolving(µ=30.52,σ=3.76)wassignificantlydifferenttotheGuidedInquiry(µ=


comparisonsusingtheTukeyHSDtestfortheoverallGradeindicatedthattheProblemSolving

(µ=77.77,σ=8.87)wassignificantlydifferenttotheGuidedInquiry(µ=72.61,σ=11.78).The

effectsizefortheoverallGradewas0.04,i.e.asmalleffect.

Table20.Post-hocoutputofcomparisonsofstudents'overallgradeyieldingsignificantdifferencesata95%confidenceintervalfortheIdentificationofaCarboxylicAcidexperiment



(small)




(small)



(small)


Grade Tukey 0.04

(small)



5.2.3.4Studentperformance–Quiz

TheIdentificationofaCarboxylicAcidpost-laboratoryquizcontainedfourquestionscovering

thekeyconceptsandskillsusedinthisexperiment.Asummaryofeachquestionhasbeen

listedbelow:


99

Question1–Studentsmustdemonstrateanunderstandingofwhatisrequiredto

identifyanunknowncompound,withexamples.

Question2–Backcalculationutilizingmolarequivalenceandtitration.

Question3–Definingthetermdiprotic.

Question4–Studentsmustprovidetheempiricalformulaforavarietyofmolecular

representationsprovided.

Thepost-laboratoryquizresponsesaredisplayedinFigure18.AsdiscussedinSection5.2.1.4,

thepercentageofcorrect(blue)andpartiallycorrect(red)arepictoriallycomparedforeach

question.


100

Question1 Question2

Question3

Question4

Figure18.Percentageofcorrect(blue)andpartiallycorrect(red)responsestoquestionscontainedwithinthepost-experimentquizfortheIdentificationofaCarboxylicAcidexperiment(Expository,N=80;GuidedInquiry,N=21;ProblemSolving,N=33).

Whenconsideringthecomparisonofstandardsachievedbystudentscompletingeach

teachingapproachfortheIdentificationofaCarboxylicAcidexperiment,similarproportionof

correctorpartiallycorrectresponsesoccurforallteachingapproaches.Tobespecific,both

studentcohortswhocompletedtheExpositoryandProblemSolvingversionsofthis

experimentperformedtoasimilarstandard.TheGuidedInquirycohortbycomparison

appearedtohaveperformedatahigherstandardinallfourquestionsposed.Thisfindingis

directcontrasttotheAnalysisofaSolutionbyMeasurementofitsDensityexperimentin

Section5.2.1.4.Twopossibleexplanationscometomind:Firstly,thatthisparticularcohort

alternatedinsuccesswhenapproachingthesetwoexperiments.Orsecondly,GuidedInquiry

0

20

40

60

80

100

EX GI PS

Percen

tageRespo

nse

0

20

40

60

80

100

EX GI PS

Percen

tageRespo

nse

0

20

40

60

80

100

EX GI PS

Percen

tageRespo

nse

0

20

40

60

80

100

EX GI PSPe

rcen

tageRespo

nse


101

asateachingapproachwasamorealignedwiththelearningoutcomesintendedforthe

IdentificationofaCarboxylicAcidexperiment.OnepartialexceptiontothisliesinQuestion2

wherenostudentswhocompletedtheGuidedInquirypost-experimentalquizgaveacorrect

answer,whereasboththeExpositoryandProblemSolvingcohortsdid.


Amajorlimitationforthisparticularexperimentisthelackofdataconcerningthestudent

experienceasprovidedthroughthefree-textentryspacesofthesurvey.Analysisofthe

directedquestionsposedonthesurveyindicatednostatisticallysignificantdifferences

betweenthethreeteachingapproachesforthisexperiment.Furthermore,uponanalysisofthe

averagegradesforeachteachingapproach,despitestatisticallysignificantdifferencesbeing

observed,thecalculatedeffectsizesforeachvariablewasofasmallsizeandtherefore

negligible.Finally,thedatacollectedfromstudentsontheirunderstandingofthecore

techniquesandconceptsthroughthepost-experimentalquizindicatedthattheGuidedInquiry

cohortofstudentsachievedahigherstandardineachofthequestionsposed.

Whileitcouldbearguedthatallthreeteachingmethodsperformtoasimilarstandard.The

understandingdemonstratedbystudentswithinthepost-experimentalquizbytheGuided

Inquirystudentcohortindicatesthatwouldbethemostbeneficialteachingapproach.Given

thelimiteddatahowever,thiswouldrequirefurtherimplementationtoconfirmthis

conclusion.


102

5.2.4PropertiesofSolutionsofAcidsandBases

ThePropertiesofSolutionsofAcidsandBasesexperimentdiffersfromtheotherexperiments

withintheKRA001laboratorycourseasitiscompletedinsmallgroupsof4to5students.The

primaryfocusofthisexperimentisthedevelopmentandpracticeofobservationalskills,

includingtheuseofpHmeasuringtoolsandconductivitymeasurement.Usingthe

observationsanddatacollected,studentsthenclassifyarangeofsolutionsbasedontheirpH

andconductivity.Finally,theionicequationsforbothdissociationandhydrolysis,where

applicable,aredetailedforeachsolution.




KRA001.ForthePropertiesofSolutionsofAcidsandBasesexperimentstatisticalanalysisfor

thecomparisonbetweenteachingmethods(Expository,N=69;GuidedInquiry,N=41;

ProblemSolving,N=46)yieldednodifferencesatthep<0.05levelinthedirectedquestions

askedwithinthesurvey.


ThedistributionofcommentsamongstthebroadthemespreviouslydiscussedinthisChapter

forthePropertiesofSolutionsofAcidsandBasesexperimentaredisplayedwithinFigure19.

Inspectionofthesedistributionsyieldsnocleartrends.Therearehoweversomeinteresting

changesbetweeneachteachingapproach.Themajorityofthecommentsgivenbythestudent

cohortwhocompletedtheExpositoryversionofthisexperimentliewithintheinteractionwith

othersandthelaboratoryprocessthemes.TheGuidedInquiryteachingapproachdatagavea

balanceddistributionbetweenthreeofthethemes,interactionwithothers,engagementwith


103

information,andtheoveralllaboratoryexperience.Thelaboratoryprocessthemein

comparisontotheExpositoryiterationwasconsiderablyreduced.TheProblemSolvingversion

ofthisexperimentwasdominatedbycommentswithintheengagementwithinformation

themewithanequalspreadamongsttheotherthemesexceptingthemiscellaneous

comments.

Figure19.TotaldistributionoftypesofsurveycommentsforthePropertiesofSolutionsofAcidsandBasesexperiment(Expository,N=39;GuidedInquiry,N=28;ProblemSolving,N=23).

Twosub-themeswereidentifiedthatwerecommonacrossallthreeteachingapproaches.

Theseincludedapositiveresponsetotheexperimentsbeingcompletedinsmallgroupsrather

thanindividualtasks.Inadditiontothis,allstudentcohortsreportedtheirrespectiveteaching

approachversionsoftheexperimentasanoverallpositivelaboratoryexperience.Beingthe

finallaboratoryofthecoursehowever,thismayhaveinfluencedtheirexperiencein

comparisontootherlaboratories.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

Percen

tageRespo

nse

EX

GI

PS


104

Theproportionofcommentsforeachbroadthemewhenbrokendowntothepositiveversus

negative,showninFigure20,givesastrongindicationoftheExpositoryteachingapproach’s

strengthsandweaknesses.Interactionwithothers,theoveralllaboratoryexperience,andthe

commentswithinthemiscellaneousthemesallmostlyconsistedofpositiveresponsesfrom

students.Conversely,boththelaboratoryprocessesandtheengagementwithinformation

themesmostlyconsistedofnegativecomments.

Figure20.TheproportionofpositiveversusnegativecommentsfortheoverarchingthemesintheExpository(N=39)versionofthePropertiesofSolutionsofAcidsandBasesexperiment

Thesub-themesidentifiedfortheExpositoryversionofthePropertiesofSolutionsofAcidsand

BasesexperimenthavebeensummarisedwithinTable21.Themajorityofcommentsmade

throughoutthethemeswerequitevariedwithnodistinctpositivesub-themesbeingidentified

andonlyonenegativesub-theme.Interestingly,thenegativesub-themecentredupon

studentsrequestingmorecontentfortheexperiment.Thereasoningvaryingbetweenan

inclinationformoretodoandfurthercontenttodeepentheirunderstandingbeyondthe

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Per

cent

age

Res

pons

e

%Posiive

%Negaive


105

scopeofthelaboratoryatitscurrentstate.Demonstratorsreportedamixtureofstudent

efficiency,withsomefinishingwellwithinthetimeframewhileothersstruggledwiththe

calculationsandconclusionscomponentoftheexperimentandusingthefulltimeallotted.

Table21.Sub-themesobservedfortheExpositoryversionofthePropertiesofSolutionsofAcidsandBasesexperiment

Positive

• Nopositivesub-themeswere

identified.

Negative

• Studentsreportedapreferenceforan

increaseincontentforthis

experiment.

Interestingly,whentheresultswithinFigure21arecomparedwiththerespectiveresults

obtainedfortheExpositoryiterationofthisexperiment,averysimilartrendisobserved.The

proportionofpositivetonegativecommentshavereducedbyasmallmarginandno

commentswereidentifiedforthebroadmiscellaneoustheme.


106

Figure21.TheproportionofpositiveversusnegativecommentsfortheoverarchingthemesintheGuidedInquiry(N=28)versionofthePropertiesofSolutionsofAcidsandBasesexperiment.

ThecommentsfortheGuidedInquiryapproachweresimilartotheExpositoryiterationin

beingquitevariedandonlynegativesub-themeswereidentified,asseeninTable22.Ofthese,

thefirstrelatingtothelaboratorymanualisinteresting,asthetablesinquestionhadnotbeen

alteredfromtheExpositoryversionofthisexperiment.Thiswouldsuggestthatbecauseofthe

straightforwardnatureoftheinstructionsprovidedwithintheExpositoryprocedure,student

understandingofthetableswasgreaterthanthestudentcohortcompletingtheGuided

Inquiryversion.Theothertwosub-themeswererelatedinthatmanystudentswhoquoteda

lackofengagementsimilarlyaskedforfurtherbackgroundinformationtohelpnotonlywith

theirunderstandingbutalsoclarifythecontentoftheexperiment.

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Per

ce

ntage

Res

po

nse

%Posiive

%Negaive


107

Table22.Sub-themesobservedfortheGuidedInquiryversionofthePropertiesofSolutionsofAcidsandBasesexperiment

Positive

• Nopositivesub-themeswere

identified.

Negative

• Thetableswithinthelaboratory

manualwereconfusing

• Morebackgroundinformationforthe

mathematics,equationsandconcepts

• Studentsfelttheywerenotengaged

bythisteachingapproach.

ItcanbeobservedfromtheresultsinFigure22thatbothinteractionwithothersandthe

overalllaboratoryexperienceretainedahighproportionofpositivetonegativecomments.

Thisoutcomefollowsthetrendfromthetwopreviousteachingapproachesdiscussed,

ExpositoryandGuidedInquiry.Thelaboratoryprocessandengagementwithinformation

themeshowever,furthershiftedtoabalancebetweenpositiveandnegativecomments.


108

Figure22.TheproportionofpositiveversusnegativecommentsfortheoverarchingthemesintheProblemSolving(N=23)versionofthePropertiesofSolutionsofAcidsandBasesexperiment

Thesub-themesfortheProblemSolvingversionofthisexperimentaredisplayedinTable23.

Despitetheincreaseofnegativesub-themesobservedincomparisontoboththeExpository

andGuidedInquiryversionsofthisexperiment,thesub-themesfortheProblemSolving

versionlargelyrelatetosuperficialproblemswithinthelaboratorythatareeasilyaddressed.

Onecommonresponseindicatedaninsufficientamountofspaceprovidedwithinthe

laboratorymanualforwriting,particularlyconsideringthisexperimentrequiredalarge

numberofobservationsandcalculations.Additionally,studentsrequestedmoreinformation

withinthelaboratorymanual.Twopossibleexplanationsforthisareanincreasedlevelof

engagementleadingtostudentswantingtodeepentheirunderstanding,orwithgreater

freedominthedevelopmentandundertakingofthisexperimentstudentsfeltagreaterpool

ofinformationwouldassistincompletionofthisexperiment.Thenumberofcomments

receivedconcerningtheamountofequipmentandreagentsavailablewasnoteworthy

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Per

ce

ntage

Res

po

nse

%Posiive

%Negaive


109

consideringtheproportionsofequipmentandreagentstostudentsremainedthesame

throughoutallthreeiterationsofthisexperiment.

Table23.Sub-themesobservedfortheProblemSolvingversionofthePropertiesofSolutionsofAcidsandBasesexperiment

Positive

• Theexperimentalmethodwasclear.

Negative

• Notenoughlaboratorymanualspace

• Moreinformationwithinthe

laboratorymanual

• Anincreaseintheamountof

equipmentandreagentsavailablefor

use.


Statisticallysignificantdifferencesatthep<0.05levelwerenotonlyfoundintheaveragesfor

eachofthethreecriteria,butalsofortheoverallgradegiventostudents.Figure23showsthe

comparisonsfortheoverallaveragegradesandrespectivecriteriaforthethreeteaching

approaches(Expository,N=95;GuidedInquiry,N=63;ProblemSolving,N=84).


110

TotalGrade

Criterion1


Figure23.ComparisonofgradesbetweenteachingmethodsforthePropertiesofSolutionsofAcidsandBasesexperimentinKRA001.Truevalues:Criterion1-20,Criteria2and3-40scaledtopercentagewithpercentageerrorrepresentedaserrorbars.

Thepost-hoctestusedforeachcomparisonwasdeterminedusingLevene'stestfor

homogeneityofvariancesasdiscussedinSection5.2.1.3.Asummaryofthestatisticalanalyses

completedforthePropertiesofSolutionsofAcidsandBasesarewithinTable24.Post-hoc

comparisonsusingtheGames-HowelltestforCriterion1indicatedthatthemeanscorefor

bothGuidedInquiry(µ=17.89,σ=2.67)andProblemSolving(µ=18.69,σ=2.08)were

significantlydifferenttoExpository(µ=16.58,σ=3.22).TheeffectsizeforCriterion1was0.10,

i.e.amediumeffect.Post-hoccomparisonsusingtheTukeyHSDtestforCriterion2indicated

0

20

40

60

80

100

EX GI PS

Percen

tageRespo

nse

0

20

40

60

80

100

EX GI PS

Percen

tageRespo

nse

0

20

40

60

80

100

EX GI PS

Percen

tageRespo

nse

0

20

40

60

80

100

EX GI PS

Percen

tageRespo

nse


111

thatthemeanscoreforProblemSolving(µ=32.36,σ=4.24)wassignificantlydifferenttoboth

Expository(µ=30.72,σ=4.26)andGuidedInquiry(µ=29.25,σ=4.93).Theeffectsizefor

Criterion2was0.07,i.e.amediumeffect.Post-hoccomparisonsusingtheTukeyHSDtestfor

Criterion3indicatedthatthemeanscoreforProblemSolving(µ=30.62,σ=4.77)was

significantlydifferenttoGuidedInquiry(µ=28.35,σ=4.36).TheeffectsizeforCriterion3was

0.04,i.e.asmalleffect.Post-hoccomparisonsusingtheTukeyHSDtestfortheoverallGrade

indicatedthatthemeanscoreforProblemSolving(µ=81.67,σ=9.39)wassignificantly

differenttobothExpository(µ=75.82,σ=12.15)andGuidedInquiry(µ=75.86,σ=9.33).The

effectsizefortheoverallGradewas0.06,i.e.amediumeffect.

Table24.Post-hocoutputofcomparisonsofstudents'overallgradeyieldingstatisticallysignificantdifferencesata95%confidenceintervalforthePropertiesofSolutionsofAcidsandBasesexperiment



(medium)

GuidedInquiry>Expository 0.017

ProblemSolving>Expository <0.001


(medium)




(medium)


Grade Tukey 0.06

(medium)





112


Thepost-laboratoryquizforthePropertiesofSolutionsofAcidsandBasesexperimentwas

composedofatotaloffourquestionstoprobethestudentcohorts'understandingofthekey

conceptsandtechniquesusedwithinthislaboratory.Asummaryofthesefourquestionsis:

Question1–StudentsareaskedtodefinepH.

Question2–Studentsareaskedtodefineconductivity.

Question3–Foracidandbaseexamples,studentsprovidetheionicequationsfor

dissociationinwaterinadditiontotheneutralisationreactionbetweenthetwo.

Question4–ConversionofconcentrationtopH.

Thevisualcomparisonofthethreeteachingmethodsforthepost-laboratoryquizisinFigure

24.Eachcomparisonpresentsthepercentageofcorrect(blue)andpartiallycorrect(red)

responses,asdiscussedinSection5.2.1.4.


113

Question1 Question2

Question3

Question4

Figure24.Percentageofcorrect(blue)andpartiallycorrect(red)responsestoquestionscontainedwithinthepost-experimentquizforthePropertiesofSolutionsofAcidsandBasesexperiment(Expository,N=50;GuidedInquiry,N=27;ProblemSolving,N=78).

Figure24givesastrongindicationthatQuestions1,2and4wereallcompletedtoasimilar

standardforallthreeteachingapproaches.Question3appearstoindicateaslightadvantage

oftheGuidedInquiryandProblemSolvingapproachesoverExpository,butthisisbynomeans

definitive.


Oncemore,theanalysisofthedirectedquestionswithinthestudentcompletedsurveyyielded

nostatisticallysignificantdifferencesbetweentheteachingapproaches.Theanalysisofthe

0

20

40

60

80

100

EX GI PS

Percen

tageRespo

nse

0

20

40

60

80

100

EX GI PS

Percen

tageRespo

nse

0

20

40

60

80

100

EX GI PS

Percen

tageRespo

nse

0

20

40

60

80

100

EX GI PSPe

rcen

tageRespo

nse


114

free-textentrycommentshowever,gaveafarmoreinterestinglookintothestudent

experienceofPropertiesofSolutionsofAcidsandBasesexperiment.Comparingthenumberof

negativecommentsrelatingtothelaboratoryprocessandengagementwithinformation

themes,itwasfoundthatExpositorywasleastfavoured,followedbyGuidedInquiryand

finallyProblemSolving.Theinteractionwithothersandtheoverallexperiencethemesboth

mostlyconsistedofpositivecommentsforallthreeteachingapproaches.

Theanalysisofthegradesgivenbydemonstratorstostudentsfortheirin-laboratory

performanceyieldedstatisticallysignificantdifferencesbetweentheteachingapproaches,but

theeffectsizeofthesecomparisonswereofsmalltomediumsizeandarethereforenegligible.

Furthermore,theunderstandingdemonstratedbystudentsthroughthepost-experimental

quizindicatedthatacrossallfourquestionsthestudentcohortsofallthreeteaching

approachesperformedtoasimilarstandard.

Takingtheresultsfromeachofthedatasources,Expository,GuidedInquiry,andProblem

Solving,intoaccount,theredoesnotappeartobeanysignificantdifferencebetweenthese

teachingapproacheswithregardtotheirlaboratoryprocessordemonstratedunderstanding

uponcompletionoftheexperiment.Thereis,however,differencesobservedwheninspecting

studentperceptionofthelaboratoryexperienceasdescribedbythefree-textentry

componentofthestudent-completedsurvey.Theseresponsesindicatedstudentspreferred

thestructureoftheProblemSolvingapproach.Whilesomeconcernsweredetailedby

students,theseconcernswerelargelylogisticalinnatureandcanbeaddressedbyminor

adjustments.


115

5.3FinalThoughts

Thischapterhaspresentedtheresultsobtainedfromanalysisoffouroftheexperiments

undertakenbystudentsaspartoftheFoundationChemistryunit,KRA001.Theexperiments

werechosentorepresentamixtureofexperimenttypesincluding:hands-on,observational,

calculationsandinterpretiveskills.AsKRA001runsinthreesemestersperyear,multiple

instanceswereusedfordatacollectionwithstudentcohortsbeingcombinedbasedonthe

assumptionofhomogenousstudentcohorts.Toconsiderallfourexperiments,thetwodata

collectioninstrumentsthatyieldedthemostdifferenceswerethestudent-completedsurvey

andthestudent-completedpost-laboratoryquiz.Thecomparisonsofgradesinallcases,while

somestatisticallysignificantdifferenceswereidentified,werenegligiblefortheoverall

laboratoryexperience.ThefourexperimentsdiscussedpreviouslywithinChapter5havebeen

summarisedinturn.Table25providestherecommendedteachingapproachforeach

experiment:


NameofExperiment TypeofExperiment RecommendedTeachingApproach

TheAnalysisofaSolutionby

MeasurementofitsDensity

Calculation/Hands-on Expository

DistillationasaSeparation

Technique

Hands-on/Interpretation GuidedInquiry

IdentificationofaCarboxylic

Acid

Hands-on/Calculation GuidedInquiry

PropertiesofSolutionsof

AcidsandBases

Observation/Interpretation ProblemSolving


116

TheAnalysisofaSolutionbyMeasurementofitsDensityexperiment(Calculation/Hands-on)

wasthemostpreferredbystudentstoberunaseitherProblemSolvingorExpositoryversions.

Theanalysisofthepost-laboratoryquizmirroredthestudentpreference,withbothExpository

andProblemSolvingapproachesattainingasimilarstandard.Giventheearlinessofthis

experimentwithinthelaboratorycourse,Expositorywasdeemedthemostappropriateforthis

experiment.

TheGuidedInquiryversionoftheDistillationasaSeparationTechniqueexperiment(Hands-

on/Interpretation)wasnotonlypreferredbystudentsthroughanalysisofthestudent-

completedsurvey,butalsodemonstratedahigherlevelofunderstandingthroughthepost-

laboratoryquiz.GuidedInquirywasthereforedeemedmostappropriateforthisexperiment.

ThemajorstrengthsdemonstratedbytheGuidedInquryversionwerebasedwithin

interactionswithpeersanddemonstratorsandtheoveralllaboratoryexperience.

TheIdentificationofaCarboxylicAcidexperiment(Hands-on/Calculation)wasconsiderably

limitedbythelackofdatapertainingtothestudentperceptionoftheirexperienceinthis

laboratory.Analysisofboththedirectedsurveyquestionsandthegradesindicatedno

differencesbetweentheteachingapproaches.Thepost-laboratoryquizanalysishowever,

suggestedstudentswhocompletedtheGuidedInquiryversionofthisexperimentattaineda

higherlevelofunderstandingforthosequestionsasked.Basedonthelimiteddata,Guided

Inquirywouldappeartobethemostbeneficialteachingapproach.Arepeatofthisexperiment

wouldberequiredtoconfirmthisassertion.

ThePropertiesofSolutionsofAcidsandBasesexperiment(Observation/Interpretation)

indicatedthatallthreeteachingapproachesachievedasimilarstandardwithregardto


117

scholarlyoutputs.Theresponsesfromstudentsontheirexperienceindicatedhowever,that

whileallthreeteachingapproacheswerereceivedwell,theProblemSolvingiterationin

particularappearedtobefavoured.Asnodisadvantagefortheunderstandingdevelopedby

studentswasobserved,theProblemSolvingapproachforthisexperimentwasdecidedasthe

mostadvantageous.

Whenconsideringtheseexperimentsinthecontextoftheoveralllaboratorystructure,an

interestingthemebecomesapparent.Asstudentsprogressthroughtheirlaboratorycourse,a

transitionfromthemorestructuredteachingapproachessuchasExpositorytoGuidedInquiry

totheopen-endedexperiencessuchasProblemSolvingseemtobefavoured.AsKRA001asa

unitisanexceptiontoordinaryundergraduatedegrees,thismaybeanoutcomeobserveddue

totheexperienceofstudentsundertakingthisunit.Forstudentswithlittletonolaboratory

experience,thegradualincreaseinstudentresponsibilityfortheirlearningandscientific

investigationskillsmaybeanaturalprogressionastheygainconfidenceinthelaboratoryskills

andscientificthinking.

Chapter6–Results:FirstYearChemistry

118


6.1IntroductiontoFirstYearChemistry

6.1.1UnitObjectives

Thechemistryunitstudiedfromthefirstyearcomponentofthebachelorsdegreeofferedat

theUniversityofTasmaniawasChemistry1A.Thisunitisoneoftwounits(Chemistry1Aand

1B,KRA113andKRA114respectively)thatarecompulsoryforstudentswhoareintendingto

majorinChemistryorundertakesecondyearchemistryunitsfortheirBachelorofScience.

Additionally,theseunitsactaprerequisiteformanydegreesofferedattheUniversityof

Tasmaniaincluding,butnotlimitedto,geology,marinescience,pharmacy,agriculturalscience,

andmedicalresearch.Withinthisunitfundamentalchemistrytopicsarecoveredincluding

chemicalbondingandchemicalstructure,organicchemistry,structureandreactions,and

thermodynamicsandcolligativeproperties.Furtherinformationforthisunitcanbefound

withintheKRA1132015UnitOutline(UniversityofTasmania,2015b).Takendirectlyfromthe

2015UnitOutlineforKRA113,theIntendedLearningOutcomesforthisunitare:

• "Demonstrateknowledgeandunderstandingofchemicalprinciplesandtheoriesand

insodoingbeabletoappreciatetheunifyingthemesinchemistry.

• Applychemicalprinciplesandtheoriestopredictandexplainthechemicaland

physicalpropertiesofsubstances,theirstructureandtheinteractionsthattakeplace

betweenthem.

• Demonstrateanunderstandingofthecentralroleofchemistryinotherbranchesof

naturalscience,suchasbiology,geologyandphysicsandtorecognizethecentralrole

thatchemistryhasinunderstandingthenaturalworld.

• Demonstrateproblemsolvingskillsfromexperimentalandtheoreticalapproaches.


119

• Knowwhentoacceptevidencecontrarytoestablishedbeliefs.

• Demonstrateawarenessthatchemistryisalivingandrapidlydevelopingscience."

(UniversityofTasmania,2015b,pp.2)

6.1.2HowDoesItRun?

Despitefirstyearchemistrybeingofferedacrossallthreecampuses,CradleCoast,Newnham,

andSandyBay,KRA113intheformatoftheunitincludedinthisstudywasonlyprovidedon-

campusattheSandyBaycampus.AsKRA113runsasonehalfofthefirstyearchemistryunits

offered,thisunitisalwaysundertakenduringSemester1,KRA114,thefollow-onunit,runsin

Semester2.Theunitiscomposedofthreemajorcomponents:aseriesofface-to-facelectures

andProblemSolvingsessions,4perweektotaling49overthecourseofthesemester;aseries

ofonlineactivitiestobecompletedoutsideofcompulsorycontacttime;andalaboratory

coursecomposedof8three-hourexperimentson-campus.Astandardstudentcohorttotals

200to250students,withalargevarietyofstudentsincludingchemistrymajors,15–20%and

adiverserangeofotherdisciplinesrequiringchemistryasapre-requisiteforfurtherstudies.

Giventhesizeofthestudentcohort,thelaboratorysessionsarelimitedtoapproximately50

studentswithalaboratoryrunningoneachdayduringtheweek.

6.1.3LaboratoryCourseDetails

Anoverviewofthelaboratorycourseforthefirstyearchemistryunit,KRA113,hasbeen

summarisedwithinTable26.Thoseexperimentsthatwereconsideredaspartofthisstudy

havebeenshadedforidentification.


120

Table26.Thefulllaboratorycoursecompletedaspartofthefirstyearchemistryunit,KRA113,indicatingwhichexperimentshavebeenmodifiedforthisstudy

Experiment Overview

RecrystallisationofaSolid,

SafetyInductionandLocker

Check

Theintroductorylaboratorytofamiliarizestudentswiththe

laboratorysettingandbasicequipment.Studentsrecrystallize

crudebenzoicacidusingvacuumfiltrationandslowcooling.

Preparationand

StandardisationofSodium

HydroxideSolutionand

DeterminationofAceticAcid

inVinegar

Thetechniqueoftitrationandstandardizationisintroduced

withemphasisuponprecisionandaccuracy.Studentswillfirst

standardizeasodiumhydroxidesolutiontheypreparebefore

determiningtheconcentrationofaceticacidpresentina

vinegarsolutionprovided.

SN1Substitution:Synthesisof

t-ButylChloride

DuringthisSN1substitutionsynthesis,studentswillbe

exposedtoboththesolventextractionandpurificationvia

distillationtechniques.

OxidationofBenzylAlcohol:

SynthesisofBenzoicAcid

Anexpansionofthefirstexperiment,studentsfirstsynthesise

benzoicacidfromaprovidedbenzylalcoholsamplethrough

oxidation,followedbycleaningandrecrystallizingtoapure

product.

OrganicFunctionalGroups Studentsareintroducedtotheconceptofusingsmall-scale

testsforidentificationoffunctionalgroupsincluding:alkenes,

phenols,aldehydes,ketones,andcarboxylicacids.Finally,

studentsuseacombinationoftheseskillstoidentifya

providedunknownfromaselectionofcompounds.


121

DeterminationofUnknown

Concentrationby

Spectroscopy

Studentsareintroducedtotheirfirstexperienceusing

spectroscopytoidentifytheconcentrationofacoppersulfate

solution.Withinthisexperimentstudentsconstructa

calibrationcurveandapplyBeer’sLaw.

Thermochemistry:Enthalpyof

Neutralisation

TocomplementthetheorygivenonHess’sLaw,students

constructabasiccalorimeterandmeasuretheenthalpyof:

neutralisationofHClandNaOHsolutions,dissolutionofNaOH

solidpellets,andthecombinedprocesses.

Determinationofthe

Freezing-PointDepression

ConstantforCyclohexane

Thisexperimentexploresthedifferencebetweenmolarityand

molalitybeforeconstructingcoolingcurvestodeterminethe

freezingpointconstantofcyclohexane.Finally,throughuseof

thisconstant,thedeterminationofthemolecularmassofan

unknownsolidiscalculated.

ShadedspaceswithinTable26indicatethoseexperimentsincludedwithinthisstudy.

6.2Results

Section6.2willdiscusstheoutcomesforthecomparisonofthethreeteachingapproaches,

Expository,GuidedInquiryandProblemSolving,forthefourexperimentsconsideredfrom

KRA113.ThestructuretothisdiscussionwillmirrorthatofChapter5.Thefirstexperiment

presentedbelowistheOxidationofBenzylAlcohol:SynthesisofBenzoicAcidexperiment.

SamplesizesforthecomparisonsdiscussedthroughoutthisChaptercanbefoundwithin

AppendixI.


122

6.2.1OxidationofBenzylAlcohol:SynthesisofBenzoicAcid

Thisexperimentservestoreinforcetherecrystallizationtechniquespreviouslycoveredin

earlierKRA113experiments,inadditiontoapplyingthesetoafullsynthesisofbenzoicacid

frombenzylalcohol.Assuchtheskillsbeingpracticedinthislaboratoryareprimarilyhands-on

basedskills,requiringfamiliarityandproficiencyinthehandlingofequipmentusedfor

synthesisexperiments.

Individually,studentscollectapre-measuredsampleofpotassiumpermanganatesolidtobe

dissolvedandheatedbeforereactionwithbenzylalcohol.Uponformationoftheinsoluble

manganesedioxide,deionizedwater,50%sulfuricacid,and20%sodiumsulfitesolutionare

addedtoproducethecrudefinalproduct.RepeatingthetechniquesusedinanearlierKRA113

experiment,thecrudebenzoicacidisthenrecrystallizedandcollectedviavacuumfiltration.

Finalcalculationsareperformedtodeterminetheyield,andasmall-scaletestforthepresence

ofacarboxylicacidfunctionalityisusedtoensuretheintendedproductwasformed.


UsingthemethoddiscussedinSection5.2.1.1,aone-waybetweengroupsanalysisofvariance

wasconductedtocomparethethreeteachingapproaches(Expository,N=98;GuidedInquiry,

N=194;ProblemSolving,N=157).Thediscussionofthesesurveyshasbeenstructuredto

considerthefindingsatabroadlevel,beforegraduallynarrowingthefocustoidentifykeysub-

themes.Theoverarchingbroadthemesareidentifiedbeforeinspectingthedistributionof

positiveversusnegativeresponsesineachofthesethemes,beforefinallyidentifyingthe

specificsub-themes.Thethreeteachingapproaches,Expository,GuidedInquiry,andProblem

Solving,havebeenabbreviatedtoEX,GI,andPSrespectively.Statisticallysignificant


123

differencesatthep<0.05levelwerefoundinanumberofthequestionsposedtostudents

throughthesurvey.Theseincluded:

Question1–Thislearningformatwasanengagingexperience.

Question2–Thelearningobjectiveswereclearlydefined.

Question4–Ifurtherdevelopedmypracticalskillsinthelaboratorybycompletingthe

experimentinthisformat.

AsdiscussedinChapter5,twopost-hocanalysistestswereavailableforuse:theGames-

HowelltestandtheTukeyHSDtest.WhichtestisusedisdeterminedviaLevene'stestfor

homogeneityofvariances.Forthosecomparisonsofvarianceswherethesignificancevalue

wasgreaterthan0.05,thehomogeneityofvariancesassumptionhasbeenabidedbyandthe

TukeyHSDtestmaybeused.Forviolationsofthisassumption,theGames-Howelltestisused.

AsummaryofthestatisticalanalysisforthisexperimentcanbefoundinTable27.Post-hoc

comparisonsusingtheTukeyHSDtestforQuestion1indicatedthatthemeanscorefor

ProblemSolving(µ=7.36,σ=1.79)wassignificantlydifferenttobothExpository(µ=6.61,σ=

2.01)andGuidedInquiry(µ=6.85,σ=1.79).TheeffectsizeforQuestion1was0.03,i.e.a

smalleffect.Post-hoccomparisonsusingtheTukeyHSDtestforQuestion2indicatedthatthe

meanscoresforbothExpository(µ=7.56,σ=1.96)andGuidedInquiry(µ=7.46,σ=1.91)

weresignificantlydifferenttoProblemSolving(µ=6.91,σ=2.16).TheeffectsizeforQuestion

2was0.02,i.e.asmalleffect.Post-hoccomparisonsusingtheTukeyHSDtestforQuestion4

indicatedthatthemeanscoreforProblemSolving(µ=8.07,σ=1.54)wassignificantly

differenttoGuidedInquiry(µ=7.63,σ=1.70).TheeffectsizeforQuestion4was0.01,i.e.a

smalleffect.


124

Table27.Post-hocoutputofcomparisonsofstudents'surveyresponsesyieldingstatisticallysignificantdifferencesata95%confidenceintervalfortheOxidationofBenzylAlcohol:SynthesisofBenzoicAcidexperiment


Question1 Tukey 0.03

(small)




(small)


GuidedInquiry>ProblemSolving 0.031


(small)



Despitethefindingsdisplayedabove,thesmalleffectsizeforeachinstancewherestatistically

significantdifferenceswerefoundimpliesthatthesedifferencesarenegligible.Thisisnotto

saythatnodifferencesexist.Ratherfurtherfine-tuningofthequestionsbeingaskedanda

largersamplesizeareneededsothatthesedifferencesmayeventuallybecomemoredistinct

outcomes.Toconsiderthesefindingshowever,twoclearoutcomesareapparent.Firstly,

studentsindicatedthatProblemSolvingasalearningexperiencewasmoreengagingthanboth

ExpositoryandGuidedInquiry.Thiscouldbeattributedtothenatureofeachteachingmethod

andasanaturalprogressiongivenbothExpositoryandGuidedInquiryprovideamore

structuredapproachtotheprocedures,whereasProblemSolvingrequiresstudentstodevelop

theirownmethod.Thesecondoutcomerelatedtotheclarityofthelearningobjectives.The

outcomeobservedheredirectlycontraststhefindingabove,asstudentsindicatedthatthe

clarityoflearningobjectivesforbothExpositoryandGuidedInquirywashigherthanthatof


125

ProblemSolving.Aninterestingoutcomealsoobservedindicatedstudentsfelttheirpractical

skillswerefurtherdevelopedintheProblemSolvingapproachthanwithGuidedInquiry.


Fortheanalysisofthestudentfree-responsecomponentofthesurvey,fiveoverarching

themeswereidentified.

• Interactionwithothers

• Laboratoryprocesses

• Engagementwithinformation

• Overalllaboratoryexperience

• Miscellaneous

Expository,GuidedInquiry,andProblemSolvingwillbeabbreviatedtoEX,GI,andPS

respectively.InFigure25aretheproportionsofthesecomments,bothpositiveandnegative,

ofeachofthesethemes.Usingthisdataallowscomparisonbetweentheteachingmethodsto

determinewhatelementsofthelaboratorywereofmostinteresttothestudents.When

consideringtheproportionsobservedfortheOxidationofBenzylAlcohol:SynthesisofBenzoic

AcidexperimentinFigure25,thereisacleardifferencebetweeneachteachingapproach.For

example,aswetransitionfromExpositorytoGuidedInquirytoProblemSolving,weobserve

anincreaseinresponsesdiscussingtheengagementwithinformationtheme,athemewhich

encompassestheinformationprovidedinthelaboratorymanual,pre-readings,lecture

material,andanyinformationprovidedduringthelaboratory.Astheengagementwith

informationthemeproportionincreases,wecannoteacorrespondingdecreaseintheoverall

laboratoryexperiencetheme;athemethatencompassesallgeneralcommentsaboutthe

studentsexperienceinthatlaboratorywithnospecificsgiven.Thethreeremainingthemes,


126

interactionwithothers,laboratoryprocess,andmiscellaneousthemesallremainedatasimilar

volume.

Figure25.TotaldistributionoftypesofsurveycommentsfortheOxidationofBenzylAlcohol:SynthesisofBenzoicAcidexperiment(Expository,N=215;GuidedInquiry,N=211;ProblemSolving,N=131).

Tobetterunderstandtheresponsesfromeachstudentcohortitisimportanttoincreasethe

depthofanalysisforeachofthesethemesandtoidentifyspecificelementsthatstudents

foundimportanttogiveasresponses.Twosub-themeswerecommonamongstallthree

teachingapproaches.Thefirstwasconcernforboththelengthofwaitingtimesthroughthe

experimentandthelengthoftheexperimentitself.Giventhenatureofasyntheticexperiment,

oftenstepsrequireheating,cooling,ortimeforareactiontooccurwhichmayrequire

studentstowait.Thesecondsub-themeidentifiedrelatedtotheconnection,orlackthereof,

betweenthelecturematerialandthelaboratoryexperiment.Studentsindicatedthatthe

chemistryconceptsweremoredifficulttograspduetoalackofdefinitiveconnectionbetween

theoryandpractice.

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%

Percen

tageRespo

nse

EX

GI

PS


127

Figures26through28continuethisexplorationintothesub-themesofeachbroad

overarchingthemebydetailingtheproportionofpositivetonegativeresponsesforeach

broadtheme.Inaddition,sub-themesspecifictoeachteachingapproachhavebeenidentified

andwillbediscussed.

Figure26isthebreakdownofeachofthebroadoverarchingthemesintothepositiveversus

negativeresponseproportions.Onethemeseemsdistinctlyskewedinfavouroneway;the

engagementwithinformationthemeappearstoahigherproportion(approximately80%)of

negativecommentsincomparisontopositivecommentswithinthistheme.

Figure26.TheproportionofpositiveversusnegativecommentsfortheoverarchingthemesintheExpository(N=215)versionoftheOxidationofBenzylAlcohol:SynthesisofBenzoicAcidexperiment.

Table28givesinsightintothesub-themesthatwereidentifiedspecifictothisteaching

approachiteration.Anumberofpositivesub-themeswereidentifiedfortheExpository

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Per

cent

age

Res

pons

e

%Posiive

%Negaive


128

versionoftheOxidationofBenzylAlcohol:SynthesisofBenzoicAcidexperiment.Thesesub-

themesvariedacrossanumberofelementswithinalaboratoryrangingfromtheclarityofthe

laboratorymanualinitscurrentform,specifichands-onproceduresappliedwithinthis

experiment,andofparticularinterest,theapplicationoftheorytoalaboratoryenvironment.

Manyofthepositivesub-themesobservedindicatesthatthestrengthofthisteaching

approachistoprovideanexperiencethatmatcheswhatispresentedwithinthestructure.

Wherethispotentiallybecomesanissueistheexpansionintolinkingthislaboratorywiththe

widerbodyofchemistryconceptsavailableandprovidingspaceforstudentstodeveloptheir

knowledgeoutsideofthespecificsinthatexperiment.Thenegativesub-themesidentified

indicatesthatthestudentconcernsweremostlydirectedtowardsimprovingaspectsoutside

thescopeoftheexperimentitself.Forinstance,theavailabilityofpre-readingorbackground

informationforthepurposeofpreparationandgreaterunderstanding,andalackofpre-and

post-experimentstructure.Themajorityofresponsesrelatingtopre-andpost-laboratory

structurerelatedtothelackofactivitiesortheopportunitytoengagewithdemonstratorsor

lecturerswithrespecttopreparationandreflectionupontheexperiment.Thispointin

particularraisesaconcernwiththenatureoftheExpositoryteachingapproach,giventhe

structuredproceduresandtemplatesfordiscussionoftheexperiment,studentsmayfeel

thereislittlespacetodeveloporexpandtheirknowledge.Inadditiontothis,therecouldbe

littletonoincentiveforstudentstoprepareforthelaboratorysessiongiventhetransparency

ofthisexperiment.


129

Table28.Sub-themesobservedfortheExpositoryversionoftheOxidationofBenzylAlcohol:SynthesisofBenzoicAcidexperiment

Positive

• Theproceduralinstructionswere

clearandeasy

• Specifichands-oncomponentsofthe

laboratory;small-scaletests,

recrystallization,oxidation,werea

positiveexperience

• Interactionwiththedemonstrators

wasbeneficialandenjoyable

• Theapplicationoflecturematerialsto

alaboratoryenvironment

• Theintendedlearningoutcomeswere

clearandachieved

• Theindividualnatureofthework

involvedinthisexperiment.

Negative

• Theavailabilityofequipmentand

reagents

• Furtherbackgroundinformationon

boththereagentsandthereactions

• Thelackofstructureofbothpre-and

post-experiment.

Oneparticularstudentcommentofinterestraisinganimportantaspectofthelaboratory,but

standingoutsideofthesub-themesidentified,was:

“Ithinkweshouldbeencouragedtoaskquestions.Atthispointwearedeincentified

toimproveourunderstandingthroughthetutoraswelosemarksforit.Ithinkwe

shouldhaveaminorpretestbasedonprocedureandbasicbackgroundtheory,then

haveamajorposttestafterthelabtocheckourunderstanding.eg20%pretest,40%

onposttest,40%foryield(notforthelittlehelpweneed).”


130

Acommonmisconceptionthathasbeennotedbydemonstratorsonmultipleoccasionsisthe

perceptionbystudentsthatassessmentisbasedupontheamountofassistancegivenwithin

thelaboratoryenvironment.Thereisasmallamountoftruthinthatdemonstratorsmust

ascertainthedepthofunderstandingofeachstudentinadditiontotheirperformancewithin

thelaboratory.Questions,however,areencouragedsolongasthesequestionsare

constructiveormeaningful.Astudentwhorequirescontinualassistancethroughoutthe

laboratoryandstrugglestograspthefundamentalaspectsofanexperimentwillofcourse

scorealowergradethanastudentwhosequestionsdemonstrateanunderstandingofthe

contentandfurtherstillexpandsintonewconcepts.Oneinterestingfacetofthissurvey

responseliesintheproposedmarkingschemetogiveamoreformalstructuretopre-and

post-experimentactivities,aconceptthatwasobservedasoneofthenegativesub-themesfor

thisexperiment.

Figure27showsthreeinterestingchangestotheresultsobservedfortheExpositoryiteration

inFigure26whenconsideringtheproportionsfortheGuidedInquiryinstancepresented

within.WhilsttheExpositoryiterationindicatedanexcessofnegativecommentsforthe

engagementwithinformationthemeandequalfootingforthelaboratoryprocesstheme;the

GuidedInquiryiterationappearedtoreversetheseresults,withanexcessofnegative

commentsonthelaboratoryprocessandanapproximatelyequalamountofpositiveand

negativecommentsfortheengagementwithinformationtheme.Thefinalpointofinterestlie

intheresponsescollectedfortheoveralllaboratoryexperience.GuidedInquiryasateaching

approachreceivedpurelypositiveresponsesforthiscategory.


131

Figure27.TheproportionofpositiveversusnegativecommentsfortheoverarchingthemesintheGuidedInquiry(N=211)versionoftheOxidationofBenzylAlcohol:SynthesisofBenzoicAcidexperiment.

OneofthekeyfeaturesforaGuidedInquiryapproachasateachingtoolisthedevelopmentof

understandingthroughouttheexperiment.Assuch,thequestionsinterspersedthroughoutthe

procedurewereakeyelementtoguidestudentstowardsglimpsesoftheunderlyingconcepts

andprinciples.Table29showsarethesub-themesidentifiedfortheGuidedInquiryversionof

thisexperiment.Perhapsunsurprisingly,giventhepossibilityofnothavingexperiencedthis

teachingapproachbefore,bothapositiveandnegativesub-themewasidentifiedconcerning

thequestionsintroducedintotheprocedure.Thepositiveresponsesweredirectedtowards

theinterestgeneratedbythepresenceofthesequestionsanduponcompletion,anincreasein

thedevelopmentofeachstudentsunderstanding.Whetherthisisperceivedoractual

understandingcannotbedeterminedaswillbediscussedfurtherlater.Theremainingpositive

sub-themeswerequitevaried,indicatinganumberofpositiveelementswithinthelaboratory

experience.Theseincluded:thelecturematerialsbeingconnectedtotheconceptswithinthe

laboratoryexperiment,thedemonstrators,andthedevelopmentofpracticalskills.The

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Per

cent

age

Res

pons

e

%Posiive

%Negaive


132

negativeresponsesfocusedupontheincreasedsenseofpressurestudentsfeltwhen

completingtheexperiment.Despitethemajorityofthesequestionsbeingdrawnfromwhat

waspreviouslythepost-experimentdiscussion,studentsstillfelttherewasanoticeable

increaseintheworkloadexpected.Theremainingnegativesub-themes,exceptingthe

responsesconcerningtheclaritywithinthelaboratorymanual,raisedsomethought-provoking

ideasandconcerns.Alargeproportionofstudentscommentedonalackofbackground

information,aresponseobservedwithinmanyoftheiterationsundertakenaspartofthis

study.Furthertothisconcern,someofthestudentcommentsindicatedapotentialsolution

throughtheinclusionofonlinetutorialsandhow-tovideosasadditionalresources.Onecrucial

concernthathasbeenobservedinseveralinstancesthroughoutChapters5and6,liein

studentsmisinterpretationandexperienceswithassessmentwithinthelaboratory

environment.Thekeyelementwithineachresponseislargelythelackofclarityintheprocess

andinterpretationofassessment.Thiswasconfusingforthestudentsandperceivedas

confusingforthedemonstrators.Responsesfromthedemonstratorsthemselvesindicated

thattheGuidedInquiryapproachtothisexperimentimprovedtheengagementofstudents

andassistedwithfillingthewaitingtimesthatwereaconcernfortheExpository.Furthermore,

thepresenceofthesequestionsassistedwiththeassessmentprocessandofferedmore

opportunitiestodiscussthechemistryconceptsandtechniquesappliedinthisexperiment.


133

Table29.Sub-themesobservedfortheGuidedInquiryversionoftheOxidationofBenzylAlcohol:SynthesisofBenzoicAcidexperiment

Positive

• Engagementwiththequestions

interspersedthroughoutthe

procedure.Studentsdescribedthese

questionsasanopportunitytobetter

developunderstanding.

• Lecturematerialslinkedtothe

laboratoryexperiment.

• Demonstratorswereengagedwith

assistingandapproachable.

• Developmentofpracticalskills.

Negative

• Questionsinterspersedthroughout

theprocedureincreasedthepressure

tocompletetheexperiment.

• Interestintheprovisionofonline

tutorialsorhow-tovideos.

• Thelaboratorymanualwasunclear

andquestionswerenotprominent.

• Misconceptionsconcerning

laboratoryassessment.Clarityfor

bothstudentsanddemonstrators.

ContrarytoboththeExpositoryandGuidedInquiryapproaches,theproportionsofpositive

andnegativeresponsesfortheProblemSolvingapproachfoundinFigure28,indicatedamore

balancedvolumeofresponsesforthelaboratoryprocessandengagementwithinformation

themes.Theinteractionwithothersthemewasoncemoreequalinproportion,mirroringthe

proportionsfoundinbothExpositoryandGuidedInquiry.Theoverallexperiencethemewas

entirelycomposedofpositiveresponses,whilstthefewcommentsinthemiscellaneoustheme

werenegative.


134

Figure28.TheproportionofpositiveversusnegativecommentsfortheoverarchingthemesintheProblemSolving(N=131)versionoftheOxidationofBenzylAlcohol:SynthesisofBenzoicAcidexperiment.

Thesub-themesfortheProblemSolvingapproachiterationoftheSynthesisofBenzoicAcid

experimentarewithinTable30.Thetotalresponsesforthisapproachwerevaried,leadingtoa

smallernumberofsub-themesbeingidentified.Bothpositivesub-themesidentifiedoutcomes

oftenassociatedwithProblemSolvingactivities;thebenefitsofwritingtheirownprocedures

andanincreasedfocusuponself-directedlearning.Asmaybeexpected,despitethenumber

ofresponsesconcerningthewritingoftheirownmethod,asimilarnumberofnegative

responsesweregivenwithregardstothisprocessbeingconfusing.Whetherthisisderived

fromalackofexperiencewiththeconstructionofamethodforexperimentsorfroma

genuinedislikeisindeterminableatthisstage.Inaddition,thestudentcohortindicatedthat

furtherbackgroundinformationisrequiredforthisteachingapproach.Manyreasonswere

givenforthis;theunderlyingthemehowever,suggestedthatwithfurtherinformationand

betterpriorunderstanding,thepreparationoftheirmethodswouldcomewithease.Finally,

studentsfoundthattheirinteractionswithdemonstratorswasconsiderablydifferentto

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Per

cent

age

Res

pons

e

%Posiive

%Negaive


135

regularlaboratoryexperiences,withdemonstratorsbeingdescribedaslessapproachableand

evasiveintheirresponsestoquestions.Thedemonstratorsthemselvesnotedanincreased

needfordirectiontogetthestudentsstartedandmotivatedfortheexperiment.The

conclusionsdrawnbymanydemonstratorssuggestedthatdesigningasuitableProblem

Solvingactivityforsynthesislaboratories,particularlyforfirstyearstudents,wasperhaps

moredifficultthanitwasworth.Thebenefitshowever,wereclearwithdemonstrators

observinganotableimprovementintheengagementofstudentswithwhyanexperiment

occursincontrasttosimplyfollowinginstructions.

Table30.Sub-themesobservedfortheProblemSolvingversionoftheOxidationofBenzylAlcohol:SynthesisofBenzoicAcidexperiment

Positive

• Theopportunitytowritetheirown

proceduregavestudentsthechance

toprepareandtakeownershipofthe

experiment.

• Selfdirectedlearningateach

student’sownpace.

Negative

• Writingtheirmethodwasconfusing.

• Thedemonstratorswereperceivedas

lessapproachableandevasive.

• Thelaboratorymanualwasconfusing.

Studentswouldlikemorebackground

informationincludingmechanisms

anddiagrams.


Usingthesamestatisticalanalysismethodasthatforthecomparisonofteachingapproaches

(Expository,N=104;GuidedInquiry,N=238;ProblemSolving,N=226)forthestudent-

completedsurvey,statisticallysignificantdifferencesatthep<0.05levelwerefoundinthe


136

averagesfortheoverallgrade,andalsoinallthreecriteria.Figure29comparesthethree

teachingmethodsforthetotalgradeandtherespectivecriteria.

TotalGrade

Criterion1


Figure29.ComparisonofgradesbetweenteachingmethodsfortheOxidationofBenzylAlcohol:SynthesisofBenzoicAcidexperimentinKRA001.Truevalues:Criterion1-20,Criteria2and3-40scaledtopercentagewithpercentageerrorrepresentedaserrorbars.

Twopost-hoctestswereavailableforuseinthisanalysis:theGames-Howelltestandthe

TukeyHSDtest.Levene'stestforhomogeneityofvarianceswasusedtodeterminewhichtest

wasappropriateforeachcomparison.Forthosecomparisonsofvarianceswherethe

significancevaluewasgreaterthan0.05,thehomogeneityassumptionhasnotbeenviolated

andtheTukeyHSDtestmaybeused.Forviolationsofthisassumption,theGames-Howelltest

0

20

40

60

80

100

EX GI PSPe

rcen

tageRespo

nse

0

20

40

60

80

100

EX GI PS

Percen

tageRespo

nse

0

20

40

60

80

100

EX GI PS

Percen

tageRespo

nse

0

20

40

60

80

100

EX GI PS

Percen

tageRespo

nse


137

isused.AsummaryoftheanalysisofthecomparisonofgradesfortheOxidationofBenzyl

Alcohol:SynthesisofBenzoicAcidexperimentiscontainedwithinTable31.Post-hoc

comparisonsusingtheTukeyHSDtestforCriterion1indicatedthatthemeanscorefor

ProblemSolving(µ=18.57,σ=1.85)wassignificantlydifferenttoExpository(µ=17.91,σ=

2.10).TheeffectsizeforCriterion1was0.01,i.e.asmalleffect.Post-hoccomparisonsusing

theGames-HowelltestforCriterion2indicatedthatthemeanscoresforbothExpository(µ=

32.63,σ=2.91)andProblemSolving(µ=33.34,σ=3.53)weresignificantlydifferenttoGuided

Inquiry(µ=31.67,σ=4.01).TheeffectsizeforCriterion2was0.04,i.e.asmalleffect.Post-

hoccomparisonsusingtheGames-HowelltestforCriterion3indicatedthatthemeanscorefor

ProblemSolving(µ=33.42,σ=3.05)wassignificantlydifferenttobothExpository(µ=32.53,σ

=2.71)andGuidedInquiry(µ=30.95,σ=4.18).Additionally,Expositorywassignificantly

differenttoGuidedInquiry.TheeffectsizeforCriterion3was0.09,i.e.amediumeffect.Post-

hoccomparisonsusingtheTukeyHSDtestfortheoverallGradeindicatedthatthemeanscore

forProblemSolving(µ=85.33,σ=6.69)wassignificantlydifferenttobothExpository(µ=

83.07,σ=6.50)andGuidedInquiry(µ=80.79,σ=8.00).Additionally,Expositorywas

significantlydifferenttoGuidedInquiry.TheeffectsizefortheoverallGradewas0.07,i.e.a

mediumeffect.


138

Table31.Post-hocoutputofcomparisonsofstudents'overallgradeyieldingstatisticallysignificantdifferencesata95%confidenceintervalfortheOxidationofBenzylAlcohol:SynthesisofBenzoicAcidexperiment



(small)



(small)




(medium)




Grade Tukey 0.07

(medium)





Ofthesecomparisons,theGradevariableisofmostinterestgiventhemediumeffectsize.This

wouldsuggestthedifferencesobservedbetweentheteachingapproachesareofsignificance.

Whenplacedwithinthecontextoftheassessedvaluesawardedstudents,boththeProblem

SolvingandExpositoryaveragegradeswereintheHDregion,withtheGuidedInquiryaverage

gradeapproachingaHD.


139


Toallowenoughtimeforstudentstocompletethepost-laboratoryquiz,allquizzesforthe

fourexperimentsforKRA113werelimitedtothreequestionstocoverthekeyconceptsand

principles.

Summariesofthepost-laboratoryquizquestionsfortheOxidationofBenzylAlcohol:Synthesis

ofBenzoicAcidexperimentare:

Question1–Determiningtheoxidationproductsofavarietyofstartingmaterials.

Question2–Demonstrateanunderstandingofcrystalgrowthandthereasoning

behindrecrystallization.

Question3–Combinationofconversionandyieldcalculations.

Toassessthesequestionsforanalysis,responseswerejudgedasoneofthefollowing:correct,

partiallycorrect,incorrect,ordidnotattempt.Thisapproachallowedameanstocomparethe

teachingapproacheswithouthavingtoassignspecificnumbervaluesforeachquestionand

furthermoreallowedcomparisonbetweenexperimentsforthelevelofunderstandinggained

fortheirrespectivequestions.InFigure30arethepercentageofcorrect(blue)andpartially

correct(red)responsesforeachquestion.Incorrectanddidnotattemptresponseswere

omittedtoallowclarityintheanalysisofthisdata.


140

Question1

Question2 Question3

Figure30.Percentageofcorrect(blue)andpartiallycorrect(red)responsestoquestionscontainedwithinthepost-experimentquizfortheOxidationofBenzylAlcohol:SynthesisofBenzoicAcidexperiment(Expository,N=130;GuidedInquiry,N=220;ProblemSolving,N=104).

TheresultspresentedwithinFigure30indicateacleartrendthroughallthreequestions.Both

ExpositoryandProblemSolvingapproachesyieldednearidenticalstandardsforthe

understandingdemonstratedbystudentsforeachconceptandtechniquecoveredinthe

experiment.TheGuidedInquiryapproachhowever,ineachsuggestedaminorimprovement

onbothExpositoryandProblemSolvingapproachesacrossallquestions.Whenconsidering

themisconceptionsormiscalculationsattributingtotheproductionofpartiallycorrect

responses,allthreeteachingapproachestendedtowardssimilarmistakes.Question1

requiredstudentstopredicttheoxidationproductsfromavarietyofstartingmaterials;the

majorityofstudentsdemonstratedabasicunderstandingofoxidationofalcoholgroupsto

ketonesorcarboxylicacidsbutoftenmisidentifiedthenumberofcarbonsandthenatureof

oxidationinmodifyingthefunctionalgroupratherthanthecarbonskeleton.Thediscussions

providedbystudentsforQuestion2todescribetheprocessofrecrystallizationwereofa

sufficientstandardtodiscussimpropercrystalformationthroughagitation,butoftenlacked

0

20

40

60

80

100

EX GI PS

PercentageResponse

0

20

40

60

80

100

EX GI PS

PercentageResponse

0

20

40

60

80

100

EX GI PS

PercentageResponse


141

descriptionsoftheimportanceofslowcooling.Finally,Question3posedtheworkingsofa

hypotheticalstudentincorrectlycalculatingtheiryield.Studentsarerequiredtofirstrepeat

thecalculationandthenindicatewherethehypotheticalstudenthadgonewrong.Themost

commonmistakeforthisquestionwasduetothecorrectyieldbeingcalculatedbutan

incorrectexplanationofthesourceofthehypotheticalstudent'serror.

6.2.1.5SummaryofResults

ThedirectedLikert-stylequestioncomponentofthestudentcompletedsurveyyieldedseveral

statisticallysignificantdifferencesbasedonanalysisoftheresponsesreceived.TheProblem

SolvingresponsesforQuestion1,Thislearningformatwasanengagingexperience,were

significantlyhigherthanthoseofbothExpositoryandGuidedInquiryresponses.Incontrastto

thisfinding,analysisofresponsesforQuestion2,Thelearningobjectiveswereclearlydefined,

indicatedthatProblemSolvingwassignificantlylowerthanthoseofExpositoryandGuided

Inquiry.Question4,Ifurtherdevelopedmypracticalskillsinthelaboratorybycompletingthe

experimentinthisformat,showedstatisticallysignificantdifferencesindicatingthatProblem

SolvingasateachingapproachscoredsignificantlyhigherthantheGuidedInquiryapproach.

Despitethesedifferencesbeingobserved,theeffectsizeofallthreecomparisonsareofa

smallsize,andarethereforetobeconsideredcarefullybeforedrawingconclusions.

Alternatively,byrepeatingthesemeasurementsorincreasingthesamplesize,changesin

effectsizemaybeobserved.

Theothercomponenttothestudentcompletedsurvey,thefree-textentryspaces,yielded

someinterestingoutcomes.Atthebroadestlevelwithbothpositiveandnegativeresponses

combinedanddividedintothefivebroadthemesasdiscussedinSection6.2.1.2,differences

betweentheteachingapproacheswereapparent.Perhapsmostthoughtprovokingisthe


142

similarityintheproportionofcommentsfortheGuidedInquiryandProblemSolving

approaches.Bothpresentedalargecomponent(over50%)ofcommentsthatwerewithinthe

engagementwithinformationtheme,amediumcomponent(approximately25%)of

commentswithinthelaboratoryprocess,andtherestofthecommentsdistributedamongst

theremainingthemes.Bycontrast,theExpositoryteachingapproachhadasignificant

increaseforresponsesontheoveralllaboratoryexperiencewithacorrespondingdecreasein

responsesfortheengagementwithinformation.Closerinspectionoftheproportionsof

positiveandnegativeresponsesandthesub-themesobservedwithinthebroadthemes,

indicatedsomeinterestingoutcomesfromeachteachingapproach.Allthreeteaching

approachesweresimilarwithregardstotwokeysub-themes:thewaitingtimesincurred

throughthesyntheticsteps,andthedisjointbetweenlecturematerialsandthechemistry

topicscoveredinlaboratories.TheExpositoryteachingapproachwhilstappearingtoengage

studentsforthelaboratoryprocessesundertakenandallowingtransparencyoftheintended

learningoutcomes,appearedtobelimitedinthedevelopmentofunderstanding.Thiswas

apparentthroughthenumberofresponsesfromstudentsrequestingfurtherinformationfor

thepurposeofunderstandingwhattheyhadachieved.TheGuidedInquiryapproachin

comparisonappearedtoremedysomeoftheconcernsfromstudentswithregardstothe

engagementwithinformation.Thepresenceofthequestionsinterspersedthroughoutthe

laboratoryproceduregavestudentstheopportunitytofurtherdeveloptheirunderstandingof

thechemistrycontent,despitetheperceivedincreaseinworkloadandsubsequentincreaseof

pressurefeltbystudents.Complementingthis,thedemonstratorsnotedadefinitive

improvementintheengagementofstudentswiththechemistryconceptsandprinciples

underlyingthisexperiment.Furthermoreitwasnoticedthatthewaitingtimesnormally

associatedwiththislaboratorypriortothisstudywereremedied.TheProblemSolving

approachgavethemostbalancedproportionsbetweenpositiveandnegativecommentsfor


143

theinteractionwithothers,laboratoryprocess,andengagementwithinformationthemes.

Wheninvestigatingthespecificresponsesgiven,onlyasmallnumberofsub-themeswere

identified.TheseincludedexpectedbenefitsanddisadvantagesinusingProblemSolvingasa

teachingapproach,anenhancedpreparationforthelaboratory,andthepositiveexperienceof

self-directedlearningcoupledwithanequalnumberofstudentswhodislikedtheworkload

demandofpreparingamethod.Asub-themeleadingonfromthisidentifiedaneedforfurther

backgroundinformationincludingmechanismsanddiagramstoaidinthestudent's

preparationandunderstandingofthechemistryconceptsandprincipleswithinthis

experiment.Oneconcerningsub-themehowever,wasthatstudentsfeltthattheir

demonstratorswerelessapproachableandevasiveinregardstoquestionsontheprocessor

concepts.Giventhebreadthofresponsesacrossallthreeteachingapproaches,noone

teachingapproachappearedtostandabovetheothersfromthedatacollectedfromthe

surveyinstrument.

Theanalysisofthegradesgivenbydemonstratorsforeachstudentsperformanceduringthe

laboratoryyieldedmultiplestatisticallysignificantdifferencesbetweenallthreeteaching

approaches.Insummary,ProblemSolvingwassignificantlyhigherthanbothExpositoryand

GuidedInquiry;additionallyExpositorywassignificantlyhigherthanGuidedInquiry.Theeffect

sizeofthesecomparisonshoweverwassmalltomedium;thereforeindicatingthe

meaningfulnessoftheseresultsisreduced.

Thecomparisonoftheresponsesgivenbythestudent-completedquizwasperhapsthemost

informativewithregardstowhichteachingapproachwasprovidingtheoptimallearning

environment.Forallquizquestions,GuidedInquiryhadanincreasednumberofstudents


144

answeringeithercorrectly,orpartiallycorrectly.NoapparentdifferencesbetweenExpository

andProblemSolvingwereobserved.

Giventheresultsdiscussedabove,noteachingapproachclearlystandsaboveacrossthe

variousaspectsofthelaboratoryinvestigated.Basedonthestudentopinions,bothGuided

InquiryandProblemSolvingwereflawedbutgeneratedapositiveoverallexperience.Based

onthestudent-completedquiz,GuidedInquirywouldmostlikelygivethemostconsistent

positiveexperiencebalancedwiththedevelopmentofunderstandingforthechemistry

conceptsandprinciples.WhilstProblemSolvingwaswarmlyreceived,theapplicationofthis

teachingapproachforasynthesisexperimentwasparticularlychallengingfordemonstrators

tomanageandwouldrequireconsiderableadjustmenttomaximiseitspotential.


145

6.2.2OrganicFunctionalGroups

TheOrganicFunctionalGroupsexperimentfocusesupontwomajorgoals:theinvestigationof

thechemicalreactivityofcertainfunctionalgroups,andthedevelopmentofobservational

skillstoidentifyandinterpretchemicalreactions.Usingaseriesoftestseachstudentwill

investigatetestsfordifferentfunctionalgroupstoobservebothpositiveandnegativeresults,

culminatingintheidentificationofanunknownsampleusingthesametests.


Aone-waybetweengroupsanalysisofvariancewasconducteduponthethreeteaching

approaches(Expository,N=117;GuidedInquiry,N=169;ProblemSolving,N=76).

Statisticallysignificantdifferencesatthep<0.05levelwerefoundinallofthequestionsposed

tostudents.Theseincluded:

Question1–Thislearningformatwasanengagingexperience.

Question2–Thelearningobjectiveswereclearlydefined.

Question3–Thelearningobjectiveswerefulfilledthroughcompletionofthis

experiment.

Question4–Ifurtherdevelopedmypracticalskillsinthelaboratorybycompletingthe


Question5–Theworkloadexpectedwasacceptable.

Question6–Ideepenedmyunderstandingofchemistrythroughcompletionofthe


Question7–Iputeffortintocompletingthislearningprocedure.

Question8–Ifoundtheexperimentinthisformattobebothinterestingand

enjoyable.

Overallratingforexperimentinthisformat.


146

Levene'stestforhomogeneityofvarianceswasusedtodeterminetheappropriatepost-hoc

testforeachanalysis.AsummaryoftheanalysisofthecomparisonofgradesfortheOrganic

FunctionalGroupsexperimentisinTable32below.Post-hoccomparisonsusingtheGames-

HowelltestforQuestion1indicatedthatthemeanscoresforbothExpository(µ=7.80,σ=

1.54)andGuidedInquiry(µ=7.52,σ=1.64)weresignificantlydifferenttoProblemSolving(µ

=6.46,σ=2.32).TheeffectsizeforQuestion1was0.07,i.e.amediumeffect.Post-hoc

comparisonsusingtheGames-HowelltestforQuestion2indicatedthatthemeanscoresfor

bothExpository(µ=8.15,σ=1.51)andGuidedInquiry(µ=8.06,σ=1.54)weresignificantly

differenttoProblemSolving(µ=6.63,σ=2.25).TheeffectsizeforQuestion2was0.11,i.e.a

mediumeffect.Post-hoccomparisonsusingtheGames-HowelltestforQuestion3indicated

thatthemeanscoresforbothExpository(µ=8.04,σ=1.63)andGuidedInquiry(µ=7.92,σ=

1.54)weresignificantlydifferenttoProblemSolving(µ=6.68,σ=2.25).Theeffectsizefor

Question3was0.08,i.e.amediumeffect.Post-hoccomparisonsusingtheGames-Howelltest

forQuestion4indicatedthatthemeanscoresforbothExpository(µ=8.12,σ=1.65)and

GuidedInquiry(µ=7.82,σ=1.82)weresignificantlydifferenttoProblemSolving(µ=7.00,σ=

2.43).TheeffectsizeforQuestion4was0.04,i.e.asmalleffect.Post-hoccomparisonsusing

theGames-HowelltestforQuestion5indicatedthatthemeanscoresforbothExpository(µ=

8.34,σ=1.84)andGuidedInquiry(µ=8.43,σ=1.72)weresignificantlydifferenttoProblem

Solving(µ=6.04,σ=2.58).TheeffectsizeforQuestion5was0.19,i.e.alargeeffect.Post-hoc

comparisonsusingtheGames-HowelltestforQuestion6indicatedthatthemeanscoresfor

bothExpository(µ=7.86,σ=1.80)andGuidedInquiry(µ=7.81,σ=1.67)weresignificantly

differenttoProblemSolving(µ=6.93,σ=2.25).TheeffectsizeforQuestion6was0.04,i.e.a

smalleffect.Post-hoccomparisonsusingtheTukeyHSDtestforQuestion7indicatedthatthe

meanscoresforbothExpository(µ=8.45,σ=1.25)andGuidedInquiry(µ=8.40,σ=7.88)

weresignificantlydifferenttoProblemSolving(µ=7.88,σ=1.94).TheeffectsizeforQuestion


147

7was0.02,i.e.asmalleffect.Post-hoccomparisonsusingtheGames-HowelltestforQuestion

8indicatedthatthemeanscoresforbothExpository(µ=7.78,σ=1.87)andGuidedInquiry(µ

=7.83,σ=1.83)weresignificantlydifferenttoProblemSolving(µ=6.53,σ=2.48).Theeffect

sizeforQuestion8was0.07,i.e.amediumeffect.Post-hoccomparisonsusingtheGames-

Howelltestfortheoverallratingforthisexperimentindicatedthatthemeanscoresforboth

Expository(µ=8.14,σ=1.30)andGuidedInquiry(µ=7.88,σ=1.47)weresignificantly

differenttoProblemSolving(µ=6.57,σ=2.29).Theeffectsizefortheoverallratingwas0.12,

i.e.alargeeffect.


148

Table32.Post-hocoutputofcomparisonsofstudents'surveyresponsesyieldingstatisticallysignificantdifferencesata95%confidenceintervalfortheOrganicFunctionalGroupsexperiment


Question1 Games–Howell 0.07

(medium)

Expository>ProblemSolving <0.001



(medium)


GuidedInquiry>ProblemSolving <0.001


(medium)




(small)




(large)




(small)




(small)




(medium)



Overall Games–Howell 0.12

(medium)





149


Figure31displaystheproportionsofstudentcommentsforthestudent-completedsurvey

withinthebroadthemesinSection6.2.1.2.Allthreeteachingapproachesweredistributed

similarlytooneanother.Inallthreeapproximatelyhalfofthestudentcommentswere

concerningthelaboratoryprocess,aquarterwereconcerningtheengagementwith

informationandtheremainingcommentsdistributedamongstthetwothemes;interaction

withothersandtheoveralllaboratoryexperience.

Figure31.TotaldistributionoftypesofsurveycommentsfortheOrganicFunctionalGroupsexperiment(Expository,N=144;GuidedInquiry,N=141;ProblemSolving,N=96).

Threesub-themeswerecommonacrosstheteachingapproachescompared:thepositive

experienceofidentifyinganunknownusingtheskillsandconceptspracticedearlyinthe

experiment,thepresenceofclearinstructionswithinthelaboratorymanualandconcernsfor

laboratoryresourcesincludinggloves,reagents,equipment,andspace.Perhapsmost

interestinglywasthesharedsub-themeofclearinstructionswithinthelaboratorymanual.As

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

Percen

tageRespo

nse

EX

GI

PS


150

hasbeendiscussedinChapter5,thereweresub-themesidentifiedforProblemSolving

versionsofexperimentsthatrelatedtoalackofclarityfortheprocedurestructure.The

ProblemSolvingversionoftheOrganicFunctionalGroupsexperimentperhapsdifferedasthe

stepsforeachsmall-scaletestwasgivenaspartoftheintroductionandthestudent

componentrequiredthestructuringofsuitablepositiveandnegativeexamplesofeachtests.

Thetwoothersub-themescanbebothattributedtothenatureoftheexperimentitself.The

challengeofapplyingtheirteststodetermineanunknownisaprocedurethatwouldappealto

moststudents.Thedownsideofthisexperimenthowever,lieswiththelargenumberof

reagentsrequired,thereforecausingsomeconfusionwithequipmentandreagents.

Figure32showstheproportionsofpositiveandnegativecommentsmadeforeachbroad

themefortheExpositoryversionoftheOrganicFunctionalGroupsexperiment.Forthreeof

thethemes;interactionwithothers,laboratoryprocess,andengagementwithinformation,

thereareapproximatelyequalpositivetonegativecomments.Theoneexceptiontothiswas

fortheoveralllaboratoryexperienceresponses,whereallwerepositive.


151

Figure32.TheproportionofpositiveversusnegativecommentsfortheoverarchingthemesintheExpository(N=144)versionoftheOrganicFunctionalGroupsexperiment.

Thesub-themesidentifiedwithinTable33,highlightanumberofkeyaspectstothelaboratory

thatstudentsnoted.Ofthese,themajorityofthesub-themesidentifiedfocusedupon

laboratoryspecificaspectsoftheexperiment.Forexample,alargeproportionofstudents

foundtheuseofalargenumberofsmall-scaleteststobeausefulpracticeindeveloping

interestandmaintainingengagement.Anequalnumberofstudentsindicatedthatthe

presenceofsomanysmall-scaletestsresultedinanincreasedworkloadthatcontributed

negativelytothelaboratoryexperience.Furthermore,thereliabilitywasquestionedduetoa

lackofunderstandingofthenatureofthesetests.GiventhenatureoftheExpositoryteaching

approach,thisbeliefmaybeattributedtoalackofdevelopmentofunderstandingthrough

completionoftheprovidedinstructions.Tworesponsesfromstudentswereofparticular

interest.Thefirst:

“Systemonlyworkswheninconjunctionwithdemonstratorinteraction.Theextrainfo

fromthemhelpswithunderstandingthechemistryratherthanjustfollowingsteps.”

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Per

cent

age

Res

pons

e

%Posiive

%Negaive


152

Thesecondcommentofinterestrelatedtothecoursestructurecompletedbystudents:

“Byonlydoingtheseexperimentsonceaweek,anyunderstandingislostbythenext

week.”

Table33.Sub-themesobservedfortheExpositoryversionoftheOrganicFunctionalGroupsexperiment.

Positive

• Generalfeedbackrelatingtothe

overalllaboratoryexperience.

• Thevarietyofsmall-scaletestsused

• Thelengthofeachtestbeingshortin

conjunctionwithnowaitingtimesfor

equipmentandresources.

Negative

• Theunknownanalysiswasdifficult

and/orconfusing.

• Theworkloadwastoomuchforthe

timeperiodallocated.

• Insufficientbackgroundinformation

onhowthereactionsoccurand

generaltheory.

• Therepeatabilityofthetestsandthe

presenceoffalsepositivesand

negatives.

Figure33presentstheproportionsofpositivetonegativeresponsesfortheGuidedInquiry

iterationoftheOrganicFunctionalGroupsexperiment.Itprovidesanalmostexactreplicaof

theproportionsobservedfortheExpositoryiteration.Theoneexceptiontothiswasthe

presenceofseveralcommentsclassifiedasbeingwithinthemiscellaneoustheme.


153

Figure33.TheproportionofpositiveversusnegativecommentsfortheoverarchingthemesintheGuidedInquiry(N=141)versionoftheOrganicFunctionalGroupsexperiment.

Anumberofpositivesub-themeswereidentifiedfortheGuidedInquiryversionoftheOrganic

FunctionalGroupsexperiment(Table34).Twoofthesefocusedtowardsthespecificsofthis

experimentratherthantheteachingapproach.Thelargevarietyofinterestingtestsare

inherentlylinkedprovidinganexperiencewithworktodothroughout.Afurtheradvantageis

theavoidanceofwaitingtimesseenwithinotherexperiments.Perhapsthemostinteresting

positivesub-themerelateddirectlytotheteachingapproachwherestudentsfirstidentified,

beforerespondinginapositivefashiontothesemiself-directednatureofGuidedInquiry.

Thesecommentsincludedreferencetotheprovisionofastructuredprocedurewithafocuson

understandingaspectsoftheexperimentthroughouttheexperienceratherthanpiecingitall

togetherattheendenmasse.Theonenegativesub-themeidentifiedconflictedwithoneof

thecommonsub-themesfoundthroughoutallthreeteachingapproaches.Thecommentswith

concernsforthespaceallottedfortakingnotesandobservationsarelogisticalissuesthatcan

besolvedinthenextiterationofthisunit.Theclarityofinformationhowever,wasvagueon

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Per

cent

age

Res

pons

e

%Posiive

%Negaive


154

whetheritwasdirectedattheinformationgivenwithintheproceduralinstructionsoratthe

backgroundinformationprovidedabouteachtestandtheunderlyingchemistrythemes.

Table34.Sub-themesobservedfortheGuidedInquiryversionoftheOrganicFunctionalGroupsexperiment

Positive

• Alargevarietyofinterestingtests.

• Semiself-directednatureofthe

teachingapproach.

• Thedemonstratorswere

approachable.

• Noexcessivewaittimes,alwayswork

tocomplete.

Negative

• Clarityofinformationprovidedand

additionalspacewithinthelaboratory

manualneeded.

TocontrasttheproportionsobservedintheExpositoryandGuidedInquiry,theProblem

Solvingversionofthisexperimentdidnothaveequalproportionsforpositiveandnegative

responsesforalloverarchingthemes(Figure34).Bothinteractionwithothersandtheoverall

laboratoryexperiencewereskewedtoanapproximate70/30percentagefavouringpositive

responses.Conversely,boththelaboratoryprocessandengagementwithothersthemeswere

similarlyskewedfavouringnegativeresponses.


155

Figure34.TheproportionofpositiveversusnegativecommentsfortheoverarchingthemesintheProblemSolving(N=96)versionoftheOrganicFunctionalGroupsexperiment.

Onlyasmallnumberofsub-themeswereidentifiedfortheProblemSolvingversionofthe

OrganicFunctionalGroupsexperiment(Table35).Thetwopositivesub-themeswerestrongly

relatedtothenatureofProblemSolvingasalearningexperience.Asstudentswererequired

toconstructthefinerdetailsoftheexperimentmanystudentsrespondedtothispositivelyas

havinggreaterindependency.Thisindependencytherebyallowedgreaterengagementwith

thechemistrybeingundertaken.Furthermore,onefocusforthedemonstratorsinteaching

theProblemSolvinglaboratorywastodevelopanenvironmentwherestudentswouldseek

outdiscussionwithbothpeersanddemonstratorstohelpinformtheirexperimentdesign.As

withanystudentcohorthowever,foragroupofstudentswhomayenjoyonelearning

environment,therewillbeastudentgroupofanopposingopinionwhomaynothaveengaged

aswellormayhavesimplyhadadifferentexperience.AsseenintheExpositoryversionofthis

experiment,studentsindicatedthatthelargenumberoftestsincreasedtheworkloadtoo

much,causingtheexperimenttobestressfulandastruggletocomplete.

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Per

cent

age

Res

pons

e

%Posiive

%Negaive


156

Table35.Sub-themesobservedfortheProblemSolvingversionoftheOrganicFunctionalGroupsexperiment

Positive

• Independenceinengagingwiththe

experimentwithencouragementto

interactwithpeersand

demonstrators.

• Thislaboratorywasmoreengaging,

betterthanotherexperiments,and

studentssaidtheylearnedmore.

Negative

• Thenumberoftestsincreasedthe

workloadtoomuch.

• Alackofdirectionandguidancefrom

bothlaboratorymanualand

demonstrators.

Twocommentswereofparticularinterestwhenconsideringtheadvantagesand

disadvantagesofProblemSolvingastheteachingapproach.Thefirstrelatedtothelaboratory

experiencebeingapositiveone:

"Ibelievethatthe[practical]wassetoutwellwitheasytofollowinstructions,andI

believethatbeingabletoseethatthe[practical]hadrealworldfunctionsmadeit

engaging."

Thefirsthalfofthisresponsefallswithinoneofthepositivesub-themesalreadydiscussed

earlier.Thesecondhalfhowever,isoneofwhichlinkstoonetheprimarypurposesofthe

teachinglaboratory.Giventheteachinglaboratoryaimstodevelopthoseskillsthatwouldbe

usedoutsideofalearningenvironment,tofurtherexpandthattoapplicationsofthetests

beingundertaken,isanoutcomehighlydesiredbybothstudentsandteachers.Thesecond

commentconverselyraisesanimportantconsiderationforthosestudentswhomaynotbeas

easilyengagedwithaProblemSolvingenvironment:


157

"Ireallywanttolearnchemistry.ThismeansIneedtobetaught.Thisformatrequires

metoteachmyself.ItistotallyoperatinginthedarkandIdon’tfeellikeI’mgetting

mymoneysworth."

ThisresponseindicatesthatthepurposeofaProblemSolvingexperiencehasnotbeen

adequatelyconveyedtothestudentpriortotheirundertakingtheactivity.Asseenwithinthis

comment,thiscanhavedrasticeffectsontheirperceptionofthelaboratory.

Thedemonstratorsforthislaboratoryprovidedsomeinsightintotheirexperienceand

indicatedthatteachingthisProblemSolvinglaboratorywasamoredifficultchallengethanthe

regularlaboratories.Inparticular,theycommenteduponanincreasedworkloadforboth

themselvesandthestudents,andthatmoredirectionwasrequiredforstudentspriortothe

laboratory.Despitethis,somedemonstratorsreportedanincreasedengagementand

enjoymentofthechallengeinundertakingtheProblemSolvingversionofthisexperiment.


UsingthesamemethodsdiscussedinSection6.2.2.1,statisticallysignificantdifferencesatthe

p<0.05levelwerefoundinanumberofthecomponentsofgradesawardedtostudents.

Figure35comparestheoverallgradeandrespectivecriteriaforthethreeteachingapproaches

(Expository,N=199;GuidedInquiry,N=233;ProblemSolving,N=109).


158

TotalGrade

Criterion1


Figure35.ComparisonofgradesbetweenteachingmethodsfortheOrganicFunctionalGroupsexperimentinKRA113.Truevalues:Criterion1-20,Criteria2and3-40scaledtopercentagewithpercentageerrorrepresentedaserrorbars.

AsummaryofthestatisticallysignificantanalysesiswithinTable36.Post-hoccomparisons

usingtheTukeyHSDtestforCriterion2indicatedthatthemeanscoreforExpository(µ=33.42,

σ=3.59)wassignificantlydifferenttoGuidedInquiry(µ=32.07,σ=4.32).Theeffectsizefor

Criterion2was0.02,i.e.asmalleffect.Post-hoccomparisonsusingtheGames-Howelltestfor

Criterion3indicatedthatthemeanscoresforbothExpository(µ=33.65,σ=3.78)and

ProblemSolving(µ=33.09,σ=3.18)weresignificantlydifferenttoGuidedInquiry(µ=31.80,

σ=4.62).TheeffectsizeforCriterion3was0.04,i.e.asmalleffect.Post-hoccomparisons

usingtheGames-HowelltestfortheoverallGradeindicatedthatthemeanscoresforboth

0

20

40

60

80

100

EX GI PS

Percen

tageRespo

nse

0

20

40

60

80

100

EX GI PS

Percen

tageRespo

nse

0

20

40

60

80

100

EX GI PS

Percen

tageRespo

nse

0

20

40

60

80

100

EX GI PS

Percen

tageRespo

nse


159

Expository(µ=85.03,σ=8.08)andProblemSolving(µ=84.12,σ=6.68)weresignificantly

differenttoGuidedInquiry(µ=81.81,σ=9.23).TheeffectsizefortheoverallGradewas0.03,

i.e.asmalleffect.

Table36.Post-hocoutputofcomparisonsofstudents'overallgradeyieldingstatisticallysignificantdifferencesata95%confidenceintervalfortheOrganicFunctionalGroupsexperiment



(small)



(small)



Grade Games–Howell 0.03

(small)





TheOrganicFunctionalGroupsexperimentpost-laboratoryquizquestionswere:

Question1–Recognitionofmultipletypesofobservations.

Question2–Theoreticalproblemrequiringknowledgeofthetestsfromthe

experimenttodrawconclusionsonthefunctionalgroupsincompoundX.

Question3–UsingtheconclusionsfromQuestion2,identifythestructureofthe

compoundX.


160

AsdiscussedinSection6.2.1.4,Figure36comparesthethreeteachingapproachesforeach

questionwithblueindicatingthepercentageofcorrectresponsesandred,thepartiallycorrect

responses.

Question1

Question2 Question3

Figure36.Percentageofcorrect(blue)andpartiallycorrect(red)responsestoquestionscontainedwithinthepost-experimentquizfortheOrganicFunctionalGroupsexperiment(Expository,N=118;GuidedInquiry,N=210;ProblemSolving,N=74).

Noparticularteachingapproachappearstohaveadistinctadvantagefordeveloping

understandinginthekeyconceptsandtechniquesconsidered.Question1,probing

understandingofthetypesofobservationsthatcanbetaken,indicatesallthreeachievea

similarstandardwithrespecttocorrectresponses,withasmalladvantagefortheGuided

Inquirycohortwithrespecttothepartiallycorrectresponses.Question2,requiringstudents

tousethetheorybehindeachofthetestswithinthisexperiment,givesperhapsthegreatest

differencebetweenteachingapproaches.Whileonlyasmallpercentageofstudentsachieved

acorrectresponse,themajorityofstudentsgivingpartiallycorrectresponsesmeaningthey

understoodasufficientnumberoftheteststologicallyworkoutthecorrectanswer.The

componentsofresponsesthatwerenotcorrectwereawardedformisidentificationofpositive

0

20

40

60

80

100

EX GI PS

Percen

tageRespo

nse

0

20

40

60

80

100

EX GI PS

Percen

tageRespo

nse

0

20

40

60

80

100

EX GI PS

Percen

tageRespo

nse


161

andnegativeresultsforoneormoreofthetestsgivenwithinthequestion.Basedonthis,the

GuidedInquirycohorthadthemostsuccessinansweringthisquestion,closelyfollowedbythe

Expositoryteachingapproachcohort.Question3,requiringstudentstoselectthecompound

discussedinquestion2fromarangeofpossibilities,onceagainindicatedaslightadvantageto

thosewhocompletedtheGuidedInquiryexperiment.Alargenumberofthepartiallycorrect

responsesforallthreeteachingapproachesseemedtohaveattainedacorrectornearcorrect

answerforquestion2butchosenottoutilisethisinformationinansweringquestion3.


Thepost-laboratorysurveyprovidedstudentsanopportunitytogivefeedbackontheir

perceptionsontheteachingapproachundertakenandthegenerallaboratoryexperience.

DespiteanalysisoftheLikert-basedquestionsproducingstatisticallysignificantdifferencesin

allquestionsasked,theeffectsizeofthemajorityofthesecomparisonswereofasmallto

mediumsizeandarethereforenegligible.Threequestionshowever,indicatedthepresenceof

moresubstantialdifferences.Uponinvestigationofthesedifferences,adefinitivetrendwas

observed.BothExpositoryandGuidedInquirywaspreferableasateachingapproachto

studentsoverProblemSolvingwithregardsto:clarityofthelearningobjectives,the

acceptabilityoftheworkload,andtheoveralllaboratoryexperience.Thistrendisobserved

throughouttheremainderofthequestions,but,aspreviouslystated,theeffectsizesofthese

comparisonsreducetheirmeaningfulness.Whenconsideringtheresponsesmadebystudents

outsideoftheguidedquestions,anumberofthemeswereidentified.Atthebroadestlevelof

investigationthattheproportionofcomments,positiveandnegativecombined,foreach

teachingapproachweresimilar.Shiftingtothenextdepthofinvestigation,bothExpository

andGuidedInquiryhadanapproximatelyequalproportionofpositivetonegativecomments

withintheoverarchingthemesdiscussed.TheproportionsobservedfortheProblemSolving


162

iterationhowever,sawpositiveresponseswithregardstotheinteractionwithothersandthe

overalllaboratoryexperiencethemes.Thelaboratoryprocessandtheengagementwith

informationthemeshowever,werenegative.Individuallyeachteachingapproachhada

numberofsub-themesidentified.ThestrengthsofExpositoryasperceivedbythestudents

relatedmostlytothetimingswithinthelaboratoryandthevarietyofsmall-scaletestsused.In

contrast,studentsindicatedthattherewasalackofinformation,andduetothisundertaking

analysisofanunknowncompoundwasdifficultandconfusing.TheGuidedInquiryexperiment

appearedtoencompassthestrengthsdiscussedfortheExpositoryversion.Inaddition

studentspositivelycommentedontheself-directednatureoftheteachingapproach.

Furthermore,theonenegativesub-themeidentifiedwasphrasedinthecontextofexpanding

theirknowledgeratherthanamendingalackof.Finally,theProblemSolvingiterationofthe

OrganicFunctionalGroupsexperimentresultsindicatedasplitofstudentsfortheenjoyment

ofthislaboratory.Anumberofstudentsindicatedthatthelearningenvironmentprompteda

greaterdepthofengagementandenjoymentwiththecontent.Othersfoundtherequired

studentinitiativetobeconfrontingandconfusing.

Analysisoftheaveragegradesgiventostudentsthroughassessmentoftheirperformance

indicatedstatisticallysignificantdifferenceswerefoundinthecriteriaandtheoverallgrade.

Thesecomparisonshowever,hadsmalleffectsizesandarethereforenotreliable.Theaverage

gradeshowever,foreachteachingapproachallreachedanapproximatelyHighDistinction

level,80%.Thepost-laboratoryquizzescompletedbystudentstotestunderstandingofthe

keyconceptsandtechniquesusedwithinthelaboratorydidnotprovideadefinitiveconclusion

onwhichteachingapproachprovidedthebestlearningenvironment.Closerinspectionofeach

questionindicatedaslightadvantagemaybeapparentfortheGuidedInquirycohortof

students.Thesefindingsalignwiththestudentperceptionsoftheirunderstanding,Expository


163

studentsfoundthatalackofinformationwasimpedingtheirdevelopmentofunderstanding,

whereasthosestudentswithintheGuidedInquiryinstanceaskedforfurtherexpansiononthe

informationprovided.

Initially,thestudentresponseswithinthesurveyseemedtoindicateanadvantageofboththe

ExpositoryandGuidedInquiryinstancesovertheProblemSolvinginstance.Whilethismay

haveappearedtobethecaseatthesurfacelevel,uponcloserinspectionitbecameapparent

thatthepreferenceofstudentsfortheExpositoryteachingapproachliewithinthesimplicity

ofitsinstructions.ThestudentswithintheGuidedInquirycohorthowever,indicatedthatthe

increasedlevelofstudentinvolvementintheexperimentalprocedureledtotheperceptionof

agreaterlevelofunderstandingattained.Whilstanalysisofthedemonstratorawardedgrades

didnotresultinanyconclusiveevidence,thisfindingwasfurthersupportedbytheanalysisof

thepost-laboratoryquiz.Fromthisquiz,theGuidedInquiryteachingapproachdevelopedthe

understandingofthekeyconceptsandtechniquestoahigherstandardthanthatofthe

ExpositoryorProblemSolvingexperiments.Basedonthesefindings,GuidedInquiryappearsas

ateachingapproachofmostbenefitforthisexperiment.Aspecialmentionshouldbegivento

ProblemSolvingthatwasreceivedpositivelybyasignificantproportionofstudents

undertakingthelaboratory.Conversely,anequallysignificantproportionofstudentsfoundthe

ProblemSolvingexperiencetobeconfronting.Withmodificationandfine-tuningofthe

laboratorymanualandoverallexperience,ProblemSolvingcouldpotentiallybeappealingand

morebeneficialtothestudentcohort.


164

6.2.3Thermochemistry:EnthalpyofNeutralisation

TheThermochemistry:EnthalpyofNeutralisationsegmentcentresontheinvestigationof

Hess’sLawinapplicationtotheneutralisationofsodiumhydroxidepelletswithhydrochloric

acid.Duringthisexperimentstudentsconstructamakeshiftcalorimetertomeasurethe

enthalpyofboththecombinedprocessandindividualprocessesinthisneutralisation.The

focushowever,lieswithinthecalculationandinterpretationofthedatacollected.

6.2.3.1Studentperceptions-Survey

UsingthemethoddiscussedwithinSection6.2.1.1,aone-waybetween-groupsanalysisof

variancewasconducteduponthethreeteachingapproaches(Expository,N=87;Guided

Inquiry,N=121;ProblemSolving,N=53).Onestatisticallysignificantdifferenceatthep<

0.05levelwasfoundintheLikert-basedquestionsposedtostudentswithinthesurvey:

Question3–Thelearningobjectiveswerefulfilledthroughcompletionofthis

experiment.

Asdiscussedpreviously,Levene'stestforhomogeneityofvarianceswasusedtodeterminethe

appropriatepost-hoctest.Asummaryoftheanalysisofthecomparisonofgradesforthe

Thermochemistry:EnthalpyofNeutralisationexperimentisinTable37.Post-hoccomparisons

usingtheGames-HowelltestforQuestion3indicatedthatthemeanscoreforGuidedInquiry

(µ=8.19,σ=1.42)wassignificantlydifferenttoExpository(µ=7.50,σ=2.42).Theeffectsize

forQuestion3was0.02,i.e.asmalleffect.


165

Table37.Post-hocoutputofcomparisonsofstudents'surveyresponsesyieldingstatisticallysignificantdifferencesata95%confidenceintervalfortheThermochemistry:EnthalpyofNeutralisationexperiment



(small)

GuidedInquiry>Expository 0.050



Figure37showstheproportionsofresponses,bothpositiveandnegative,studentsprovided

outsideofthestructuredsurveyquestions.Afterassignmentofeachresponsetooneofthe

overarchingthemesdiscussedearlierinthisChapter,wecanseeadistinctdifferencebetween

theExpositoryteachingapproachandtheGuidedInquiryandProblemSolvingapproaches.

TheExpositoryproportionsareconsiderablyskewedtowardscommentsonthelaboratory

process.Incontrast,bothGuidedInquiryandProblemSolvingapproachessawadecreasein

commentsrelatingtothelaboratoryprocessandacorrespondingincreaseinthecomments

relatingtotheengagingwithinformationtheme.Thethreeremainingthemes,interaction

withothers,overalllaboratoryexperienceandmiscellaneous,wereindependentofthe

teachingapproachused.


166

Figure37.TotaldistributionoftypesofsurveycommentsfortheThermochemistry:EnthalpyofNeutralisationexperiment(Expository,N=71;GuidedInquiry,N=65;ProblemSolving,N=69).

Afterinvestigatingfurtherintotheresponsesprovidedbystudents,sub-themeswere

identifiedforeachteachingapproach.Throughcomparisonofthese,twosub-themeswere

identifiedasbeingcommonbetweenallthree.Thefirst,regardlessofteachingapproach,was

anoverallenjoyablestudentexperience.Thesecommentslistedabroadnumberofvague

reasonswiththefocusbeingupontheoveralllaboratory.Thesecondsub-themecommon

amongstallthreeteachingapproacheswasthenegativeperceptionofthequalityofthe

calorimeterused.Thecalorimeterinquestionisconstructedfromtwostyrofoamcupsand

withcarecanbeaneffectivetoolforthemeasurementofenthalpy.Thehighnumberof

studentresponseshowever,quotingpoorqualitycalorimetersasthecauseoffaultyresultsor

alackofunderstandingwassurprising.Whetherthisperceptionisinitiatedfromthematerials

used,theinformationwithinthelaboratorymanual,orthroughcommunicationwith

demonstratorsorpeersisuncertain.Oneexampleofaprevioussimilarresponsefrom

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

Percen

tageRespo

nse

EX

GI

PS


167

studentsconcerning"simple"equipmenthasbeenpresentedbyCrisp,Kable,Read,and

Buntine(2011).

Figure38increasesthedepthofanalysisbyinspectingtheproportionsofpositiveandnegative

responsesforeachoftheoverarchingthemes.Itisapparentthatcertainaspectswithinthe

Expositoryteachingapproachwerefavouredbystudentsoverothers.Theinteractionwith

others,engagementwithinformationandoveralllaboratoryexperiencethemeswereall

skewedinfavourofpositiveresponses.Theexceptionwasthelaboratoryprocesstheme,with

analmostentirelynegativeresponsefromstudents.

Figure38.TheproportionofpositiveversusnegativecommentsfortheoverarchingthemesintheExpository(N=71)versionoftheThermochemistry:EnthalpyofNeutralisationexperiment.

Asdiscussedpreviously,anumberofsub-themeswereidentifiedthatwerenotcommon

acrossallthreeteachingapproaches.Thesub-themes,bothpositiveandnegative,thatwere

identifiedfortheExpositoryversionofthisexperimentareshowninTable38.Onesub-theme

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Per

cent

age

Res

pons

e

%Posiive

%Negaive


168

istheclarityofthemethodwithinthelaboratorymanualthatwasidentifiedasbothapositive

andnegativetheme.Inspectionofthevolumeofresponsesforeachhowever,showsa

discrepancywithnegativecommentsbeinginexcess.Thediscontentwiththeinformation

withinthelaboratorymanualincludednotonlythebackgroundinformation,butalsothe

discussionquestionsposeduponcompletionoftheexperiment.Whetherthiswasduetoa

lackofdevelopmentofunderstandingoftheprinciplesbehindthisexperiment,orduetoa

misinterpretationofthemethodsisuncertain.Perhapsthemostintriguingsub-theme

identifiedrelatedtothestudents'perceptionofHess'sLaw.Hess'sLawstatesthatthe

individualenthalpiesinaseriesofreactionswillequaltheenthalpyofthecombinedreactions.

Throughobservationswithinthelaboratoryandanalysisofthecommentsmadeonthe

surveys,itbecameclearthatstudentsinterpretedHess'sLawtomeanthecompared

enthalpiesmustbeexactlyequal,completelydisregardingthepotentialforexperimental

uncertaintywithinthelaboratory.ThisdemonstratesalackofunderstandingnotonlyofHess's

Law,butalsoofthenatureandcomplicationsofpracticallaboratorywork.


169

Table38.Sub-themesobservedfortheExpositoryversionoftheThermochemistry:EnthalpyofNeutralisationexperiment

Positive

• Thestepbystepinstructionscoupled

withthecleartemplatestorecord

data.

• Workinginpairs.

Negative

• Themethodandinformation

providedinthelaboratorybooklacks

clarity.

• Thequestionsaskedinthediscussion

wereconfusing.

• Thelengthoftheexperimentwastoo

longandwasnotengaging.

• Hess'sLawdidnotworkandthe

individualenthalpiesdidnotexactly

matchthatofthecombinedenthalpy.

Anumberofindividualresponsesstoodoutfromthesurveyresponses,thoughthesedidnot

fitwithinanyofthesub-themesidentified.Onepositivecommentthathasbeenobserved

throughoutmultipleexperimentswasthepointthatusingnewequipmentandlearningnew

techniqueswerecriticalforengagingandgeneratinginterestfromstudentsintheexperiment

beingundertaken.

Thereweretwocommentshowever,thatraisedsomeconcernswiththeinteractionswith

demonstratorsandthequalityofthelaboratoryexperienceitself:

"Ifeltmydemonstratordidnotcompletelyunderstandthecourseofcalculations.

Theyevensaid“Idon’tknow”whenIapproachedthemwithaquestion.Thismadeit

hardtofeelIcouldaskmorequestionstofurthermyunderstanding."


170

"Iambeingverydiscouragedfromcontinuingwithchembecauseoftheselabs."

Whilstthesemaybeinterpretedas'once-off'occurrences,thefirstresponseinparticularlyis

alarming.Alargeamountofeffortisputintothetrainingandmaintainingofdemonstrator

qualitythroughouteachsemester.Furthermore,akeyfocusofthechemistryteaching

laboratoriesistoengageandintereststudents,potentiallyforthemtoprogressthroughto

secondandthirdyearchemistryunits.Itispreciselybecauseoftheseconcernsthatitisso

importanttocontinuallyreflectupontheteachingpracticesusedandaimtomaintainahigh

standardofteachingwhilstbeingawareofthechangingneedsofstudents.

Figure39showstheGuidedInquiryversionoftheThermochemistry:EnthalpyofNeutralisation

experimentproportionsofpositivetonegativeresponsesfortheoverarchingthemes.Similar

totheExpositoryiteration(Figure39),boththeinteractionwithothersandlaboratoryprocess

themesremainedlargelyunchangedatthislevel.Theengagementwithothersandoverall

laboratoryexperiencethemeshowever,shiftedconsiderablytowardsaclosebalanceof

positivetonegativeresponses.


171

Figure39.TheproportionofpositiveversusnegativecommentsfortheoverarchingthemesintheGuidedInquiry(N=65)versionoftheThermochemistry:EnthalpyofNeutralisationexperiment.

Forthemostpart,thesub-themes,withinTable39,identifiedfortheGuidedInquiryversion

relatedtothosethemesfoundwithintheExpositoryversiondiscussedforTable38.Adivideof

opinionswasobservedwithrespecttothequalityofinstructionsandstructureinthe

laboratorymanual,thoughtheoverallproportionsforGuidedInquiry(Figure39)werefar

morebalancedthanseeninExpository(Figure38).Onepointofinterestwasthenotablelack

ofresponsesconcernedwiththeapplicationofHess'sLawtoapracticalsituation.Where

ExpositorysawalargenumberofstudentsmisunderstandingHess'sLawandthenatureofan

experimentalenvironment,theGuidedInquirycohortdidnotseemtohavethisproblem.

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Per

cent

age

Res

pons

e

%Posiive

%Negaive


172

Table39.Sub-themesobservedfortheGuidedInquiryversionoftheThermochemistry:EnthalpyofNeutralisationexperiment

Positive

• Theinstructionsandtableswithinthe

laboratorymanualwereclear.

• Interactionwithbothdemonstrators

andpeers.

Negative

• Toomuchworktogetthrough.

• Inconsistencieswithinlaboratory

bookforbothquestionsandtables.

Oneparticularresponsewasgivenwithregardstotheinformationwithinthelaboratory

manualthatmayberelatedtotheoftenseenconcernwithhowmuchbackgroundinformation

iswithinthelaboratorymanual.

"Someinformationonwhiteboardsandnotinthe[practical]notes.Thisleadsto,in

theheatofthemomentofforgettingthisinfo.Itwouldbeusefulifallinforequiredis

inthe[practical]book."

Recordinginformationandnoteswithinalaboratorymanualorbookisakeyelementto

conductingworkinanexperimentalenvironment.Thiscommentwouldseemtoindicatean

overrelianceuponwhatisprovidedinthelaboratorymanual.Demonstratorprovided

informationisstaggeredasthelaboratoryprogressesbothtoavoidinformationoverload,and

asanexpansionrelevanttothatparticulargroup.Despitetheseefforts,itmaybenecessaryto

moreclearlystatetheimportanceofrecordingnoteswithintheirlaboratorymanual.

Fromthefeedbackreceivedfromdemonstrators,onetangentialresponsewithregardtothe

structureofteachingintothislaboratorywas:


173

"Insteadofmeaskingquestions,Isplittheminto2groupstothinktogetherandcome

upwithquestionscreatively.After5–10minuteseachoneinonegroupaskonefrom

theothergroup.Evaluationbasedonqualityofthequestionaskedandtheanswer."

Itiscommonandencouragedfordemonstratorstoholdapre-experimentgroupdiscussion,

anddependingontheexperimentholdseveralofthesemeetingstodiscussparticularaspects

orprocedures.Thisexpansiondescribedbythedemonstratorabovegivesapotentialavenue

forstudentstonotonlybechallengedonaspectsofthelaboratory,butalsochallenge

studentstogeneratequestionsbasedoffoftheirunderstandingofthelaboratory.

Figure40showstheProblemSolvingversionoftheThermochemistry:Enthalpyof

Neutralisationexperimentoncemoresawdifferencesintheproportionswhencomparedto

bothExpository(Figure38)andGuidedInquiry(Figure39).Theinteractionwithotherstheme,

similartobothExpositoryandGuidedInquiry,wasentirelypositive.Differenceswereobserved

intheotherthemesconsideredhowever.Bothlaboratoryprocessandtheoveralllaboratory

experiencethemesnearedanequalbalanceofpositivetonegativeresponses.The

engagementwithinformationthemeconverselyindicatedanincreaseinthepercentageof

negativecomments.ThislastpointinparticularisofinterestasprogressingfromExpository

throughtoProblemSolvingtherewasadefinitivetrendofincreasingnegativeresponsesfor

theengagementwithinformationtheme.


174

Figure40.TheproportionofpositiveversusnegativecommentsfortheoverarchingthemesintheProblemSolving(N=69)versionoftheThermochemistry:EnthalpyofNeutralisationexperiment.

Table40showsthesub-themesidentifiedfortheProblemSolvingversionofthisexperiment.

Anumberofbothpositiveandnegativesub-themeswereobserved.Inspectionoftheseshows

commonalityforanumberofsub-themeswiththeProblemSolvingexperiencespreviously

discussedthroughthisChapter.Forexample,studentresponsessuggestedthatthe

encouragementfortimemanagementandthedevelopmentoftheirownmethodwere

aspectsofthislaboratorythatstrengthenedtheexperience.Conversely,alargeproportionof

commentsfoundtheinstructionswithinthelaboratorymanualwerenotclear,andthat

additionalbackgroundinformationandpre-readingmaterialswereneeded.Thesearenot

necessarilyinsurmountablechallengestoaddressbutwouldrequireaconsiderable

redevelopmentoftheexpectationsstudentshaveforthelaboratoryexperience.Oneofthe

issuesinanumberofresponsesrelatingtoclaritywithinthelaboratorymanualwasthe

misinterpretationofwhatwasrequiredofstudentsbothpriorandduringtheexperiment

session.Onenegativesub-themeofparticularinteresthowever,statedthatstudentsfeltthat

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Per

cent

age

Res

pons

e

%Posiive

%Negaive


175

thelevelofchemistrywithinthisexperimentwastoolowandduetothiswasnotinteresting

orengaging.Theself-perceptionofunderstandingbecomessignificantwhencomparedtothe

resultsobtainedfromthepost-laboratoryquiz,whichshallbediscussedlaterinthisChapter.

Table40.Sub-themesobservedfortheProblemSolvingversionoftheThermochemistry:EnthalpyofNeutralisationexperiment

Positive

• Thelayoutwithinthelaboratory

manualwasclear.

• Individualtimemanagement.

• Learningandpracticingtheequations

andcalculationsforthisexperiment.

• Writingtheirownmethod.

Negative

• Theinstructionswithinthelaboratory

manualwerenotclear.

• Thechemistryinthisexperimentwas

notinterestingortooeasy.

• Morebackgroundinformationand

pre-laboratoryreadingmaterials.

Onecommonpointoffeedbackobtainedfromthedemonstratorswasthatthefundamental

mathematicswereaconsiderableproblemforalargenumberofstudents.Theseincluded

basicalgebra,calculatoroperationsandunitsofmeasurement.


Statisticallysignificantdifferencesatthep<0.05levelwerefoundinanumberofthe

componentsofgradesawardedtostudents.Figure41showsbelowisthecomparisonofthe

threeteachingapproaches(Expository,N=188;GuidedInquiry,N=230;ProblemSolving,N=

79)forboththeoverallgradeandtherespectivecriteriafortheThermochemistry:Enthalpyof

Neutralisationexperiment.


176

TotalGrade

Criterion1


Figure41.ComparisonofgradesbetweenteachingmethodsfortheThermochemistry:EnthalpyofNeutralisationexperimentinKRA113.Truevalues:Criterion1-20,Criteria2and3-40scaledtopercentagewithpercentageerrorrepresentedaserrorbars.

Thepost-hoctestforeachcomparisonwasselectedusingLevene'stestforhomogeneityof

variances.AsummaryofthestatisticallysignificantcomparisonsareinTable41.Post-hoc

comparisonsusingtheGames-HowelltestforCriterion2indicatedthatthemeanscorefor

ProblemSolving(µ=33.57,σ=2.72)wassignificantlydifferenttoGuidedInquiry(µ=32.34,σ

=3.76).TheeffectsizeforCriterion2was0.01,i.e.asmalleffect.Post-hoccomparisonsusing

theGames-HowelltestforCriterion3indicatedthatthemeanscoreforProblemSolving(µ=

34.29,σ=2.72)wassignificantlydifferenttobothExpository(µ=33.16,σ=3.50)andGuided

Inquiry(µ=32.11,σ=3.72).AdditionallyExpositorywassignificantlydifferenttoGuided

0

20

40

60

80

100

EX GI PS

Percen

tageRespo

nse

0

20

40

60

80

100

EX GI PS

Percen

tageRespo

nse

0

20

40

60

80

100

EX GI PS

Percen

tageRespo

nse

0

20

40

60

80

100

EX GI PS

Percen

tageRespo

nse


177

Inquiry.TheeffectsizeforCriterion3was0.05,i.e.asmalleffect.Post-hoccomparisonsusing

theTukeyHSDtestfortheoverallGradeindicatedthatthemeanscoreforProblemSolving(µ

=86.43,σ=5.70)wassignificantlydifferenttoGuidedInquiry(µ=82.85,σ=6.81).Theeffect

sizefortheoverallGradewas0.03,i.e.asmalleffect.

Table41.Post-hocoutputofcomparisonsofstudents'overallgradeyieldingstatisticallysignificantdifferencesata95%confidenceintervalfortheThermochemistry:EnthalpyofNeutralisationexperiment.



(small)



(small)




Grade Tukey 0.03

(small)




Thepost-laboratoryquizquestionsfortheThermochemistry:EnthalpyofNeutralisationare:

Question1–Requiresstudentstogiveanexplanationofthecalorimeterusedinthis

experiment,inadditiontoitspurposeandanyflawsassociated.

Question2–Explainingfromwhatsourceenergyisderivedwhenthereleaseof

energyisobserved.


178

Question3–StudentsmustexplainHess’sLawandhowitwasappliedinthis

experiment.

AsdetailedinSection6.2.1.4,Figure42belowcomparesthethreeteachingapproachesfor

eachquestion.Thebluepercentageindicatesthecorrectresponsesreceivedwhilstthered

indicatespartiallycorrectresponses.

Question1

Question2 Question3

Figure42.Percentageofcorrect(blue)andpartiallycorrect(red)responsestoquestionscontainedwithinthepost-experimentquizfortheThermochemistry:EnthalpyofNeutralisationexperiment(Expository,N=87;GuidedInquiry,N=185;ProblemSolving,N=52).

Unfortunately,duetoaprintingerror,thedatasetfortheQuestion3responsesinGuided

Inquirywascompromisedandthereforenocomparisoncouldbemade.Atfirstinspection,

Figure43indicatessimilaritiesbetweeneachquestion,withaslightincreaseforProblem

Solvingineachcase.Question1hadoneoutcomeofparticularinterest.Nearlyallstudents

withintheGuidedInquirycohortgavearesponsethatwasonlypartiallycorrect.TheGuided

Inquiryresponsesalmostallcorrectlyexplainedthepurposeofacalorimeter,butfailedto

identifytheflawsassociatedwiththecalorimeterused.BoththeExpositoryandProblem

0

20

40

60

80

100

EX GI PS

Percen

tageRespo

nse

0

20

40

60

80

100

EX GI PS

Percen

tageRespo

nse

0

20

40

60

80

100

EX GI PS

Percen

tageRespo

nse


179

Solvingcohortsindicatedamixtureofcorrect,partiallycorrect,andincorrectresponsesfrom

studentswhocouldcorrectlyidentifyboththepurposeandflawsofthecalorimeterused.The

mostcommonmistakemadebythoseawardedapartiallycorrectresponsewasafailureto

identifyflawsinthecalorimeter.Anumberoftheresponsesgivenquotedflawssuchas"bad

quality"or"cheapcalorimeter"thatweretreatedasinsufficient.Question2,requiring

studentstoexplainthesourceofenergyduringthesereactions,hadsimilarproportionsof

responsetypesforallthreeteachingapproaches.ItcouldbecautiouslystatedthattheGuided

InquiryresponseswereofahigherstandardthanbothExpositoryandProblemSolving,with

Expositorybeingthoseoflowest.Toconsidertheresponsesthemselves,asignificantnumber

ofresponsesforallthreeteachingapproacheswerepartiallycorrectduetoaidentifyingthe

sourceoftheenergyasthereactantsandproductsratherthanspecifyingtheformationand

breakingofbonds.Asmentionedpreviously,theGuidedInquiryresponsesforQuestion3were

compromisedandsocomparisontotheotherteachingmethodswasnotpossible.Comparing

ExpositoryandProblemSolvinghowever,indicatedaslightincreaseinthenumberofcorrect

andpartiallycorrectresponsesfortheProblemSolvingcohort.Oncemore,themisconceptions

responsibleforpartiallycorrectresponsesweresimilarforbothteachingapproaches,andin

thisparticularcaserelatedtostudentsspecifyingthatHess'sLawmustapplyasanexact

summationoftheenthalpies.Correctresponseswerethosewhoelaboratedontheimpactof

outsideinfluencesonthepracticalapplicationofHess'sLaw.


Thepost-experimentalsurveyresponsesfortheThermochemistry:EnthalpyofNeutralisation

experimentyieldedonlyonestatisticallysignificantdifferencefortheLikert-stylecomponent

ofthesurvey.TheGuidedInquirycohortindicatedthatthelearningobjectiveswerefulfilledto

ahigherstandardincomparisontotheExpositorycohortsperception(Question3).Theeffect


180

sizeforthisstatisticallysignificantdifferencewasofsmallsize,andisthereforequestionablein

itsmeaningfulness.Analysisofthelessstructuredcomponentofthepost-experimentalsurvey

providedinsightintoanumberofthemesindicatingdifferencesbetweentheteaching

approaches.Whenconsideringthebroadthemesidentifiedwithinthecombinedpositiveand

negativewrittenresponses,onemajorshiftwasnotedbetweenteachingapproaches.The

Expositorycohortwrittenresponseshadalargeproportionofcomments(57%)focusedupon

thelaboratoryprocessesusedwithintheexperiment.BothGuidedInquiryandProblem

Solvingcohortssawanapproximate20%shiftofcommentsfromlaboratoryprocessestothe

engagementwithinformationtheme.Giventhatthesebroadthemesarepresentedasthe

combinedpositiveandnegativeresponses,furtheranalysiswasrequiredtoidentifythemore

subtledifferences.Afteridentifyingsub-themesforeachteachingapproach,anumberof

thesesub-themeswerecommonamongstallthree,andcouldbeattributedtocharacteristics

ofthisparticularexperimentinitscurrentform.Thefirstofthesetwocommonthemeswere

responsesfromstudentsindicatinganoverallenjoymentofthelaboratoryexperience.Whilst

thesecommentswerevague,themajorityindicatedthelaboratoryprocesseswereenjoyable

toundertakeandcontributedlargelytotheoverallexperience.Thesecondcommontheme

wastheperceptionofstudentsinallthreeteachingapproachesthatthequalityofthe

calorimetersusedwasinsufficientandinappropriateforauniversitylaboratoryclass.The

reasonsgivenfortheseresponseswereoftenduetoamisconceptionontheireffectiveness

andlieatthesurfacelevelinterpretationbystudents.Eachteachingapproachhadanumber

ofsub-themesidentifiedonlywithinthatversionoftheexperiment.Onemajornoteof

interestfortheExpositoryteachingapproachwastheproportionsofpositivetonegative

responsesobservedforeachofthebroadthemes.Interactionwithothers,engagementwith

information,andtheoveralllaboratoryexperiencethemeswereheavilyweightedbypositive

responses,whereasthelaboratoryprocessthemehadalargemajorityofnegativeresponses.


181

Thestrengthsofthisteachingapproach,Expository,asperceivedbystudentslayinthestep-

by-stepnatureoftheprocessandtheabilitytoworkinpairs.Anumberofnegativesub-

themeswereidentified.Severalofthesehowever,weresmallinnumber.Theseincluded

discontentwithboththeinformationprovidedinthelaboratorymanualandthequestions

posedinthediscussioncomponentoftheexperiment.Offarlargerquantitywereresponses

indicatingthelengthoftheexperimentwasinappropriate(toolong)andfurthermore,not

engagingtocomplete.Onesub-themeofparticularinterestindicatedamisunderstandingby

studentsofapplyingHess'sLawinanexperimentalenvironment.

Asdiscussedearlier,theGuidedInquiryapproachsawaconsiderableshiftintheproportionof

commentsfromthelaboratoryprocesstotheengagementwithinformation.Thiswasalso

reflectedinthesub-themesidentifiedforeachofbroadthemes.Interestingly,boththe

engagementwithinformationandoveralllaboratoryexperiencewereweightedsimilarlyfor

positivetonegativeresponses.Interactionwithothersandthelaboratoryprocessesthemes

hadsimilarpositivetonegativeproportionstotheExpositorystyle.SimilartotheExpository

approach,thestrengthsofGuidedInquiryasateachingapproachweretheinstructionsand

tableswithinthelaboratorymanualandtheinteractionwithothers,thistimeincludingthe

demonstrators.Studentsindicatedhowever,thatthesheervolumeofworkwastoomuchfor

thetimeframeallotted.Inaddition,studentsnotedanumberofinconsistenciesinthe

laboratorymanual,andthepresenceofthesecausedsomeconfusion.Onesub-themeof

particularinterestabsentfromthisteachingapproachwastheapplicationofHess'sLaw.No

responsesfromstudentsindicatedthatHess'sLawwasaproblem,averydifferentresponseto

thatsceneforthecohortwhoundertooktheExpositoryinstance.


182

TheProblemSolvinginstanceoftheThermochemistry:EnthalpyofNeutralisationexperiment

oncemoreshiftedintheproportionsofpositivetonegativecommentswhencomparedtothe

ExpositoryandGuidedInquirystyles.DifferenttotheExpositoryandGuidedInquiry

approaches,thelaboratoryprocessbroadthemesawafarmorebalancedproportionof

positivetonegative,whereasanincreaseinthenegativecommentsrelatingtothe

engagementwithinformationthemewasobserved.Anumberofstrengthswereidentifiedfor

thisteachingapproach,ofwhichseveralrelatedirectlytocharacteristicsofaProblemSolving

activity.Theseincludedafocusuponindividualtimemanagement,writingtheirownmethod,

andpreparationthroughpracticeoftheequationsusedinthisexperiment.Foundtobeasub-

themeforbothpositiveandnegativeresponses,theclarityoftheinstructionswithinthe

laboratorymanualwasraised.Twoothernegativesub-themeswereidentified,thoughupon

closerinspectionthesethemescanbeinterpretedinapositivelight.Firstly,studentsindicated

thatthechemistrywithinthisexperimentwastooeasyandthereforenotparticularly

interesting.Whilstthisisanegativeoutcome,thiswasnotobservedforeitherExpositoryor

GuidedInquiryinstancesandcouldimplythatstudentswerebetterpreparedforthe

experiment.Secondly,studentsrequestedmorebackgroundinformationandpre-laboratory

readingmaterials.Takenatasurfacelevelthiswouldappeartobeanegativeoutcome.When

consideringthecontextwithintheseresponseshowever,itbecomesapparentthatthe

studentsrequestedfurtherinformationtoexpandupontheirknowledgebase.Asopposedto

suggestingtherewasainsufficientinformationfortheexperiment.Thisfurtherinterestinthe

chemistrybehindtheexperimentisthetypeofengagementthatisneededtodrawstudents

intothefield,ratherthanbrowsingatasurfacelevel.

Theanalysisofthegradesawardedtoeachstudentcohortfoundanumberofstatistically

significantdifferenceslieinboththeindividualcriterionandtheoverallgrade.Upon


183

calculatingtheeffectsizesofthesegradesandplacingthesedifferencesintothecontextof

overallgrades,thattheseresultswerelargelyirrelevant.

Finally,turningtothecomparisonoftheresponsesforthepost-experimentalquiz,someminor

differenceswereobserved.AsmentionedinSection6.2.3.4,theGuidedInquiryinstanceof

thisquizlackeddataforQuestion3,thereforemakingitdifficulttodrawconclusionsforthe

strengthofthisteachingapproach.ConsideringtheExpositoryandProblemSolving

approacheshowever,thereappearstobeaclearadvantagefortheProblemSolvingapproach

inallthreequestions.Asnoquantitativeanalysiswasconductedforthiscomparison,the

advantageismerelysuggestive.

Takingthesefindingsintoconsideration,itseemsclearthatinmostrespects,theExpository

approachwaslesseffectiveasateachingapproachthanboththeGuidedInquiryandProblem

Solvingapproaches.ThestrengthsofExpositoryseemedtotargetsurfaceleveloutcomes,

whereasinGuidedInquiryandProblemSolvingthestudentsengagedwiththechemistry

behindtheexperimentaltechniquesused.ComparingGuidedInquirytoProblemSolving,the

majordifferences,ashighlightedinpreviousexperiments,laywithinthestudentresponsesto

thepost-experimentalsurvey.Basedoffofthese,ProblemSolvingseemedtohavenotonly

themostsuccess,butfurthermorethehighestpotentialfortheimprovementofthis

experimentinfutureyears.


184

6.2.4DeterminationoftheFreezing-PointDepressionConstantforCyclohexane

TheDeterminationoftheFreezing-PointDepressionConstantforCyclohexaneexperimentis

splitintotwomaincomponents.Thefirstemphasisisuponhands-onfundamentalskillswhere

studentsmonitorthetemperatureofvaryingcompositionsofcyclohexaneandnaphthalene,

andgraphthesetemperaturechanges.Thesecond,andmoreimportantaspect,isthe

interpretationofthisdatatoidentifyandcalculatethefreezing-pointdepressionconstant.


AsdiscussedinSection6.2.1.1,aone-waybetween-groupsanalysisofvariancewasconducted

uponthedatacollectedfortheLikert-basedquestionsofthissurvey(Expository,N=99;

GuidedInquiry,N=137;ProblemSolving,N=49).Statisticallysignificantdifferencesatthep<

0.05levelwerefoundinonlyoneofthequestionsposedtostudentswithinthesurvey:

Question3–Iputeffortintocompletingthislearningprocedure.

Levene'stestforhomogeneityofvarianceswasusedtodeterminetheappropriatepost-hoc

test(Section6.2.1.1).Asummaryoftheanalysisofthecomparisonofgradesforthe

DeterminationoftheFreezing-PointDepressionConstantforCyclohexaneexperimentisin

Table42.Post-hoccomparisonsusingtheGames-HowelltestforQuestion3indicatedthatthe

meanscoreforExpository(µ=7.93,σ=2.19)wassignificantlydifferenttoProblemSolving(µ

=7.10,σ=2.26).TheeffectsizeforQuestion3was0.03,i.e.asmalleffect.


185

Table42.Post-hocoutputofcomparisonsofstudents'surveyresponsesyieldingstatisticallysignificantdifferencesata95%confidenceintervalfortheDeterminationoftheFreezing-PointDepressionConstantforCyclohexaneexperiment



(small)



6.2.4.2StudentPerceptions–Surveycomments

Thecombined,bothpositiveandnegative,responsesprovidedfromeachteachingapproach

havebeenassignedtooverarchingthemesandareinFigure43.Somedifferencesbetweenthe

threeteachingapproachescanbeobserveduponinspectionoftheproportionsobservedin

eachoverarchingthemes.BothExpositoryandProblemSolvingareweightedmoreheavilyfor

theengagementwithinformationthanGuidedInquiry.Acorrespondingincreasecanbe

observedforthelaboratoryprocessresponsesfortheGuidedInquiryinstance.Thethree

remainingthemesweremostlyunchanged,exceptingsomeminorshiftsfortheinteraction

withothersandoveralllaboratoryexperiencethemes.


186

Figure43.TotaldistributionoftypesofsurveycommentsfortheDeterminationoftheFreezing-PointDepressionConstantforCyclohexaneexperiment(Expository,N=114;GuidedInquiry,N=76;ProblemSolving,N=78).

Breakingtheseoverarchingthemesdowntoinvestigatethepresenceofsub-themes,both

positiveandnegativeresponsesyieldedanumberofthemesspecifictoeachteaching

approach.Onesub-themewasidentifiedasbeingcommonamongstallthreeteaching

approaches;anegativesub-themerelatingtothepresenceoflongwaitingtimesduringthis

laboratory,resultedinstudentsfindingtheexperimenttobeboringandnotanengaging

experience.Giventhenatureoftheexperiment,monitoringchangeintemperaturerates

whenfreezingmixtures,itisnotsurprisingtofindabacklashfromthestudentsconcerningthis.

Shiftingourfocustothenextlevelofdepth,Figure44detailstheproportionofpositiveand

negativecommentsforeachoverarchingthemewithintheExpositoryinstanceofthis

experiment.Immediatelyapparentareboththeinteractionwithothersandoveralllaboratory

experiencethemesbeingmostlycomposedofpositiveresponses.Thelaboratoryprocessasan

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

Percen

tageRespo

nse

EX

GI

PS


187

overarchingthemeisfarmorebalanced,withaslightfavouringofnegativeresponses.The

engagementwithinformationthemeisfurtherweightedtowardsnegativeresponses.

Figure44.TheproportionofpositiveversusnegativecommentsfortheoverarchingthemesintheExpository(N=114)versionoftheDeterminationoftheFreezing-PointDepressionConstantforCyclohexaneexperiment.

Uponfurtherinspection,anumberofsub-themescanbeidentifiedincludingbothpositiveand

negativethemes.Bothpositiveandnegativesub-themesfortheExpositoryteachingapproach

havebeensummarisedwithinTable43.Ascanbeexpectedforthisteachingapproach,alarge

numberofstudentsindicatedapreferenceforthestraightforwardnatureofthisexperience,

andfurthermorethemathematicsandgraphsutilisedasapartofthelaboratory.Ashasbeen

observedinanumberoftheexperimentsconsideredwithinthisstudy,ahighnumberof

positiveresponsesrelatedtoworkinginpairswereobserved.Turningtothenegativesub-

themesobserved;onesub-themecontrastswithstudentsindicatingadislikeforthegraphs

requiredaspartofthisexperiment.Thenegativesub-themerelatingtoalackofdiscussionor

questionsthroughouttheexperimentwasofparticularinterest.AsdiscussedinChapters1and

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Per

cent

age

Res

pons

e

%Posiive

%Negaive


188

2,oneofthedrawbacksofExpositoryasateachingapproachisthelackofdiscussionor

probingthroughoutanexperiment.Seeingthisrecognisedbystudentsasanegativeoutcome

forthisprocedurewouldindicateaninteresttodeepentheirunderstandingoftheexperiment.

Furthermore,thiscouldalleviatethecommonnegativesub-themediscussedearlieroflengthy

waitingtimesduringthisexperiment.Finally,alargenumberofstudentsdetailed

dissatisfactionwithhavingtoundertaketheexperimentpriortoreceivingtherelevantlectures

onthismaterial.Thisarrangementwasanunfortunateoutcomeofacademicavailabilitiesin

thatparticularyear,sowouldnotbecharacteristicofanormallaboratory.Thecallforpre-

readingmaterialswaslargelytiedtotheprevioussub-theme.

Table43.Sub-themesobservedfortheExpositoryversionoftheDeterminationoftheFreezing-PointConstantforCyclohexaneexperiment.

Positive

• Themathsandgraphsutilisedwithin

thisexperiment.

• Simpleandstraightforward

instructionsandexperiment.

• Overalllaboratoryexperience.

• Workinginpairs.

Negative

• Therequiredgraphs.

• Morediscussionandquestionsposed

throughouttheexperimentrather

thantheend.

• Discontentwithlaboratoryconcepts

nothavingbeencoveredinprior

lectures.

• Morepre-readingmaterialsrequired.

TheGuidedInquiryinstanceoftheDeterminationoftheFreezing-PointDepressionConstant

forCyclohexaneexperiment,whenbrokenintothepositivevsnegativeproportionswithin

Figure45,paintsafarmorebalancedpicturethanthatofExpositoryabove.Withthe


189

exceptionofthelaboratoryprocesstheme,thethemesofinteractionwithothers,engagement

withinformation,andtheoveralllaboratoryexperiencearealmosteven.Thelaboratory

processthemeitselfisheavilyweightedtowardsnegativeresponses.

Figure45.TheproportionofpositiveversusnegativecommentsfortheoverarchingthemesintheGuidedInquiry(N=76)versionoftheDeterminationoftheFreezing-PointDepressionofCyclohexaneexperiment.

Thepositiveandnegativesub-themesidentifiedfortheGuidedInquiryinstanceofthis

experimentaresummarisedwithinTable44.Ofthese,onlyasmallnumberofpositivesub-

themeswereidentified.Thecontentofthesesub-themeswerebroadlydistributedindicating

thatfeaturessuchastheworkloadrequired,linkagewiththelecturematerials,groupwork,

andtheoveralllaboratoryexperiencewerepositive.Thenegativesub-themeswerefarmore

numerousandspecifiedanumberofdislikedaspectswithinthelaboratory.Thesesub-themes

encompassedrequestedchangestothelaboratorymanualformorespaceforrecording

informationandtheprovidedinformationcontainedwithinthemanual,theremovalofall

graphingsectionsentirely,alackofengagementwiththechemistryconcepts,andperhaps

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Per

cent

age

Res

pons

e

%Posiive

%Negaive


190

mostworryingly,negativeinteractionswiththedemonstrators.Inspectingtheseconcernsfor

thedemonstrators,theresponsesindicatedthatanumberofdemonstratorsappearedtolack

inknowledgeand/orconfidenceforthechemistrybeingstudiedwithinthisexperiment.Upon

considerationoftheotherexperimentsconsideredwithinthisstudy,thisthemewasnot

observedelsewisesocouldbeattributedtoananomalyfromnormalpractice.Onefurther

negativesub-themeindicatedalackoflinkagebetweenthelecturematerialsandthe

experimentthatdirectlycontrastswiththepositivesub-themealsoobserved.Thiscouldbe

duetoanumberoffactorsincludingtheengagementforeachstudentwithinlecturesessions

orafailuretoconnectthematerialsfromeachwithoneanother.


191

Table44.Sub-themesobservedfortheGuidedInquiryversionoftheDeterminationoftheFreezing-PointDepressionConstantforCyclohexaneexperiment

Positive

• Overalllaboratoryexperience.

• Appropriateworkload.

• Linkedwithlecturematerials.

• Workinginpairs.

Negative

• Greaterdetailintheexplanationof

method.

• Moreroomforrecordingdataand

graphs.

• Toomanywaitingperiodsledtothe

experimentbeingboring.

• Theexperimentdidnotlinkwiththe

lecturematerials.

• Minimiseorremovethegraphing

sectionsofthisexperiment.

• Theinteractionwithdemonstrators

wasnoteffectiveduetoalackof

knowledgeand/orconfidence.

• Thisexperimentwasnotengaging.

OnecommentmadebyastudentsummedupthestrengthsoftheGuidedInquiryapproach:

"Prelabquestionsrelevanttomethodandthatareengaging.Applyingdatacollected

tocalculationshelpedmeunderstandthelearningobjectives.Thesimplicityofthe

experimentallowedmoreenergytobespentonunderstandingtheconcept.Having

explanationsanddiagramsprintedbeforetheexperimentmethodandcalculations

page."


192

Anumberofthepointsraisedinthiscommentalignnicelywiththepositivesub-themes

detailedinTable45.Anotherperspectivefromanotherstudenthighlightsalternative

perspectivetoundertakingthisexperimentandtheareasthatcancreatestumblingblocks,

sometimesbeforetheexperimentevenbegins:

"Iwouldliketoseeafullyworkedexampleofeachexperimentwiththerelevant

calculations.Thiswouldbeusefulforlearninghowtodoprelabs,butIneededto

googlestufftounderstandsomeinformation.Iwouldliketoseemoreinfoand

workedexamplesinthelabmanuals."

Providingafullworkedexampleofeachexperimentisatfirstadifficultconcepttoconsideras

itwoulddefeatthepurposeofstudentsdevelopingthoseskillstoundertakethese

experiments.Consideringthisabitfurtherhowever,ingivingtheseexperimentstostudents

weassumethattheyhavethenecessaryfundamentalskillstoresearchandpreparefor

laboratories.Inthosecaseswherestudentslackthoseskills,theyareenteringthelaboratories

immediatelydisadvantaged.Theinclusionoffurtherpre-readinginformationorpreparatory

informationisathemethathasbeenobservedonanumberoftimes,whetherduetoalackor

forthosestudentswishingtoexpandupontheircurrentknowledge.

Figure46indicatesconsiderableshiftsinthepositivevsnegativeproportionsfortheProblem

Solvinginstanceofthisexperiment.Infact,theproportionsobservedforthisteaching

approachcloselyresemblethosefortheExpositoryteachingapproach.Boththeinteraction

withothersandtheoveralllaboratoryoverarchingthemeswereentirelypositiveandthe

laboratoryprocessandengagementwithinformationthemesheavilyweightedtowards

negativeresponses.


193

Figure46.TheproportionofpositiveversusnegativecommentsfortheoverarchingthemesintheProblemSolving(N=78)versionoftheDeterminationoftheFreezing-PointDepressionConstantforCyclohexaneexperiment.

Table45summarisesthepositiveandnegativesub-themesidentifiedfortheProblemSolving

instanceofthisexperiment.Characteristicofthisteachingapproachanumberofthesesub-

themescorrespondwithcommonlyobservedthemes,includingpositiveresponsestowriting

theirownmethodandinteractionswithbothpeersanddemonstrators,andnegative

responsessuchasthemethodbeingunclear.Contrarytopreviousexperimentsconsideredin

thisstudyasProblemSolvingversions,positivesub-themesrelatingtoastraightforward

experienceandcalculationswereobserved.Theremainingnegativesub-themesareamixture

ofeasytofixandperhapsmoredifficulttoaddress.Problemssuchasmoreroomforrecording

dataandgraphsandmoreinformationrequireonlyanadjustmenttothelaboratorymanual.

Minimisationofwaitingperiodsduringthelaboratorywouldbemoredifficult.Asthese

waitingperiodscouplewithmeasurementtakingandcontinualagitationofthemixture,it

wouldbedifficulttointroduceextracontenttoengagestudents.

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Per

cent

age

Res

pons

e

%Posiive

%Negaive


194

Table45.Sub-themesobservedfortheProblemSolvingversionoftheDeterminationoftheFreezing-PointDepressionConstantforCyclohexaneexperiment.

Positive

• Writingtheirownmethod.

• Theexperimentwasstraightforward.

• Theinteractionwithpeersand

demonstrators.

• Thecalculationsundertakeninthis

experiment.

Negative

• Themethodwasunclear.

• Moreinformation,specificallyvalues

suchasmassandmolecularweight.

• Moreroomforrecordingdataand

graphing.

• Toomanywaitingperiodsledtothe

experimentbeingboring.

Furthertothethemesobservedthroughanalysisofthestudentresponses,anumberof

demonstratorscommentedonthedifficultiesalargeproportionofstudentshadwhentackling

themathematicalproblems.

6.2.4.3StudentPerformance–Grade

Aone-waybetween-groupsanalysisofvariancewasconducteduponthedatacollectedfor

boththecriteriausedtogradeandthecombinedtotalgrade.Statisticallysignificant

differencesatthep<0.05levelwerefoundintheaveragesforeachofthethreecriteria,and

alsointheoverallgradegiventostudents.Figure47summarisestheaveragesforthisdatafor

eachteachingapproach(Expository,N=196;GuidedInquiry,N=225;ProblemSolving,N=47).


195

TotalGrade

Criterion1


Figure47.ComparisonofgradesbetweenteachingmethodsfortheDeterminationoftheFreezing-PointDepressionConstantforCyclohexaneexperiment.Truevalues:Criterion1-20,Criteria2and3-40scaledtopercentagewithpercentageerrorrepresentedaserrorbars.

Theappropriatepost-hoctestwasdeterminedusingthemethodsdiscussedinSection6.2.1.1.

AsummaryofthestatisticallysignificantdifferencesdeterminedarewithinTable46.Post-hoc

comparisonsusingtheTukeyHSDtestforCriterion1indicatedthatthemeanscoresforboth

Expository(µ=18.60,σ=1.81)andGuidedInquiry(µ=18.70,σ=2.43)weresignificantly

differenttoProblemSolving(µ=17.34,σ=2.76).TheeffectsizeforCriterion1was0.03,i.e.a

smalleffect.Post-hoccomparisonsusingtheGames-HowelltestforCriterion2indicatedthat

themeanscoresforbothExpository(µ=34.00,σ=3.52)andProblemSolving(µ=33.68,σ=

2.55)weresignificantlydifferenttoGuidedInquiry(µ=31.80,σ=4.12).Theeffectsizefor

0

20

40

60

80

100

EX GI PS

Percen

tageRespo

nse

0

20

40

60

80

100

EX GI PS

Percen

tageRespo

nse

0

20

40

60

80

100

EX GI PS

Percen

tageRespo

nse

0

20

40

60

80

100

EX GI PS

Percen

tageRespo

nse


196

Criterion2was0.08,i.e.amediumeffect.Post-hoccomparisonsusingtheGames-Howelltest

forCriterion3indicatedthatthemeanscoresforExpository(µ=34.59,σ=3.32)was

significantlydifferenttobothGuidedInquiry(µ=32.06,σ=3.90)andProblemSolving(µ=

31.87,σ=5.56).TheeffectsizeforCriterion3was0.10,i.e.amediumeffect.Post-hoc

comparisonsusingtheTukeyHSDfortheoverallGradeindicatedthatthemeanscorefor

Expository(µ=87.18,σ=7.44)wassignificantlydifferenttobothGuidedInquiry(µ=82.56,σ

=7.59)andProblemSolving(µ=82.89,σ=6.91).TheeffectsizefortheoverallGradewas0.08,

i.e.amediumeffect.

Table46.Post-hocoutputofcomparisonsofstudents'overallgradeyieldingstatisticallysignificantdifferencesata95%confidenceintervalfortheDeterminationoftheFreezing-PointDepressionConstantforCyclohexaneexperiment.



(small)




(medium)




(medium)



Grade Tukey 0.08

(medium)





197


Thepost-laboratoryquizgiventostudentsuponcompletionoftheDeterminationofthe

Freezing-PointDepressionConstantforCyclohexaneexperimentwascomposedofthe

followingquestions:

Question1–Definethedifferencebetweenmolarityandmolality.

Question2–Backcalculationusingaprovidedfreezingpointconstanttofindmass.

Question3–Demonstratingunderstandingofhowfreezingpointchangeswitha

differentsubstanceadded.

Thequizresponsesweremarkedascorrect,partiallycorrect,incorrect,ordidnotattempt.

Figure48comparestheresponsesforeachquestionacrossallthreeteachingapproaches

whereblueindicatescorrectresponsesandredindicatespartiallycorrectresponses.

Question1

Question2 Question3

Figure48.Percentageofcorrect(blue)andpartiallycorrect(red)responsestoquestionscontainedwithinthepost-experimentquizfortheDeterminationoftheFreezing-PointDepressionConstantforCyclohexaneexperiment(Expository,N=99;GuidedInquiry,N=206;ProblemSolving,N=73).

0

20

40

60

80

100

EX GI PS

PercentageResponse

0

20

40

60

80

100

EX GI PS

PercentageResponse

0

20

40

60

80

100

EX GI PS

PercentageResponse


198

Theresultsobtainedfromanalysisoftheresponsesforthepost-experimentalquizvaried

drasticallybetweeneachquestionposedaspartofthequiz.Question1relatedtothe

differencebetweenmolalityandmolarity.Whenconsideringthecombinedcorrectand

partiallycorrectindicatedsimilarlevelsofattainmentforallthreeteachingapproaches.To

considerjustthecorrectresponses,howeveritbecomesapparentthattheProblemSolving

hadfarbettersuccesswithdevelopingknowledgeofthisdistinction.Thesourceofthese

partiallycorrectresponseswastheidentificationofjustoneofthetwotermsintermsofunits

andfailuretoidentifythesecond.Thisvariedbetweenbothmolalityandmolarity.Contrasting

stronglytoQuestion1,Question2indicatedareversalofthistrendwiththeExpositorycohort

appearingtohavethehighestsuccess,withalargenumberofstudentsachievingpartially

correctanswers.Despitethis,theGuidedInquirycohortobtainedthehighestpercentageof

correctresponses.Misconceptionsforthisquestionvaried,butwereultimatelyallcalculation

errorsregardingunitconversionorminormisapplicationofequations.Thethirdandfinal

questioncausedagreatdealofconfusionforanumberofstudentsintheGuidedInquiryand

ProblemSolvingapproaches.Surprisingly,thestudentswithintheExpositoryinstanceattained

afarhigherpercentageofstudentssubmittingcorrectresponses.


Bringingtogethertheresultsobtainedfromanalysisofthisexperiment,anumberofkey

featuresstoodout.Theanalysisofthestructuredcomponentofthepost-experimental

identifiedonestatisticallysignificantdifferencefortheamountofeffortcontributedby

studentswheretheExpositorycohortwashigherthanProblemSolving.Uponcalculationof

theeffectsizeofthiscomparisonhowever,itwasdeterminedthiseffectsizewassmalland

thereforenegligible.


199

Theanalysisoftheunstructuredcomponentofthepost-experimentalsurveyyieldedamuch

largerquantityofdifferencesbetweentheteachingapproaches.Comparingatthebroadest

levelforthecombinedpositiveandnegativeoverarchingthemesidentified,onenotableshift

betweenteachingapproachesoccurred.BothExpositoryandProblemSolvingwereweighted

heavilytowardscommentswithintheengagementwithinformationthemewhereasthe

GuidedInquiryapproachsawadecreasewithintheengagementwithinformationanda

correspondingincreasewithinthelaboratoryprocessbroadtheme.TheExpositoryapproach

wascharacterisedbythemescommonlyfoundwithinExpositoryexperiences.Thesethemes

includedthestraightforwardnatureoftheexperimentandcalculationsassociatedwithwhilst

hinderedbyalackofdepthforthediscussionofconceptsandoutcomesthroughoutthe

experiment.TheGuidedInquiryapproachidentifiedafarlargernumberofnegativesub-

themescentredaroundthelaboratorymanual,thelackofengagementwithintheexperiment,

andthequalityoftheinteractionwithdemonstrators.Balancingthis,studentsoftheGuided

Inquirycohortpraisedanumberofbroadcomponentswithinthelaboratoryexperience

includingtheexpectedworkload,linkagewiththelecturematerials,groupwork,andthe

overalllaboratoryexperience.Finally,theanalysisoftheProblemSolvingapproachsub-

themesidentifiedanumberofpositiveandnegativethemes.StrengthsofthisProblemSolving

approachincludedstudentsenjoyingwritingtheirownmethodandfindingthisexperienceto

beastraightforwardoneincludingboththeexperimentandthecalculations.Conversely,some

studentsfoundthemethodtobeunclearandthewaitingperiodsduringthisProblemSolving

experimentledtoboredomandalackofengagement.Theremainingtwosub-themesrelated

toeasilyfixedlaboratorymanualcomponentsincludingsomebasicinformationonmassesand

molecularweightsandtheinclusionofmorespaceforrecordingdataandgraphing.


200

Theanalysisofthegradesawardedtoeachstudentcohort,asdeterminedbytheir

correspondingdemonstrators,yieldanumberofstatisticallysignificantdifferencesinboththe

individualcriteriaandtheoverallgrade.Despitethesedifferences,theeffectsizeforthese

comparisonsliewithinasmalltomediumeffectsize.Furthermore,astheaveragegradeofall

threeteachingapproachesliewithinthestandardrequiredforaHighDistinction,the

differencesfoundwereconsideredtrivial.

Fromthecomparisonofthepost-experimentalquizforthethreeteachingapproaches,

differenceswereobservedineachquestion.Question1appearedtoberelativelybalanced

betweenthethreeteachingapproaches,withtheonedifference,ProblemSolving,beinga

muchhigherproportionofstudentsachievingacorrectresponsewhenidentifyingthe

differencebetweenmolalityandmolarity.ForbothQuestions2and3,theExpositoryteaching

approachresponseswereconsiderablyhigherthanthoseofboththeGuidedInquiryand

ProblemSolvingapproaches.Questions2and3relatingtofreezingpointconstantcalculation

andhowfreezingpointschangewithachangeinmixturerespectively.

Whenplacingthesefindingswithinthelargerpictureofwhichteachingmethodwouldbe

mostappropriateforthisexperiment,itbecomesapparenttherearestrengthsand

weaknessesassociatedwitheach.Boththestructuredsurveycomponentandthegrades

analysisdidlittletoindicateapreferredteachingapproach.Thepreferenceasdictatedbythe

unstructuredsurveycomponentindicatedabroadvarietyofopinionsoneachteaching

approach,withboththeExpositoryandProblemSolvingapproachesappearingtobethemost

preferredteachingapproaches.TheExpositoryapproachappearedtobeapositiveexperience

forstudentsbutthesesamestudentsreportedthatnotenoughdepthwasprovidedduring

theirexperience.ThecohortoftheProblemSolvingapproachreportedhowever,similar


201

strengthstoExpositoryincludingtheenjoymentofwritingtheirownmethods.Thenegative

sub-themesidentifiedweremostlythosethatcanbeeasilyremediedwithminorlaboratory

manualadjustments.Whenconsideringthepost-experimentalquiz,theoutcomesobserved

hereappearmoredefinitivewiththeExpositoryapproachcohortattainingahigherlevelof

understandingforQuestions2and3.Withtheseinmind,whilstProblemSolvingappearedto

havesomestrengths,basedonthepreferenceandobservedunderstandingofthestudent

cohorts,theExpositoryapproachseemedtobemostfavoured.

6.3FinalThoughts

Chapter6hasdetailedtheresultsobtainedfromtheanalysisoffouroftheexperiments

completedwithinthelaboratorycourseundertakenbystudentsaspartoftheFirstYear

chemistryunit,KRA113Chemistry1A.Experimentswerechosentorepresentanumberof

differenttypesofexperimentsincludinghands-on,observational,calculationsbased,and

interpretation.Eachteachingapproachwasimplementedinaseparateyear:GuidedInquiryin

2013,ProblemSolvingin2014,andExpositoryin2015.Thebenefitsofthisapproachalloweda

singleimplementationforeachapproachwithalargesamplesizeforeachgroup,

approximately200studentsundertakingeachexperiment.Thisrelieduponthepreviously

discussedassumptionthatstudentcohortsfromyeartoyeararecomparable.Tocollectdataa

numberofinstrumentswereusedincludingapost-experimentalstudent-completedsurvey,a

post-experimentalquiz,andademonstratorawardedgradebasedoffoftheperformanceof

studentsduringthelaboratory.SimilartotheresultsobservedinChapter5fortheFoundation

Chemistryunit,thetwoinstrumentsofmostusewerethepost-experimentalsurveyandquiz.

Table47providestherecommendedteachingapproachforeachexperiment:


202


NameofExperiment TypeofExperiment RecommendedTeachingApproach

OxidationofBenzylAlcohol:

SynthesisofBenzoicAcid

Hands-on/Observation GuidedInquiry

OrganicFunctionalGroups Observation/Interpretation ProblemSolving

Thermochemistry:Enthalpyof

Neutralisation

Calculation/Interpretation ProblemSolving

Determinationofthe

Freezing-PointDepression

ConstantforCyclohexane

Interpretation/Calculation Expository

TheanalysisoftheresultsobtainedfromtheOxidationofBenzylAlcohol:SynthesisofBenzoic

Acidexperimentwereunclearforaparticularteachingapproachbeingthemostappropriate

forthisexperimenttype(Hands-on/Observation).Whetherduetothecohortitselforthe

natureoftheexperimentbeingarelativelyfundamentalexperiment,theGuidedInquiry

approachappearedtobepotentiallythemostconsistentlypositiveexperienceandwould

thereforebetherecommendation.

TheOrganicFunctionalGroupsexperiment(Observation/Interpretation)outcomesindicated

thattheteachingapproach,ofmostbenefitwastheGuidedInquiryapproachwithstrengths

lyinginallthreeinstrumentsusedforanalysisoftheteachingapproachesencompassingclarity

oftheexperiment,enjoyment,andthedevelopmentofunderstandingforthechemistry

conceptsandtechniques.TheProblemSolvingapproachwasfoundtobeappropriatebya


203

componentofthecohortundertakingthisexperiment,whileanequallylargegroupfoundit

difficulttoengagewiththerebyinitscurrentformnotsuitableforrecommendation.

TheanalysisoftheThermochemistry:EnthalpyofNeutralisationexperiment

(Calculation/Interpretation)quicklyremovedExpositoryasapotentialteachingapproachfor

thislaboratory.TheGuidedInquiryandProblemSolvingteachingapproachesbothdisplayed

potentialtobehighlybeneficialwithProblemSolvingmorepreferredthroughthepost-

experimentalsurveythanGuidedInquiry.Basedoffofthesefindings,theProblemSolving

approachwasdeterminedtobeofmostbenefit.

TheDeterminationoftheFreezing-PointDepressionConstantforCyclohexaneexperiment

(Interpretation/Calculation)indicatedmixedresultswithbothExpositoryandProblemSolving

approachesbeingpreferredbystudentsbasedonthepost-experimentalsurvey.When

consideringthepost-experimentquizandtheunderstandingofkeyconcepts,theExpository

approachseemedofmostbenefitandisthereforetherecommendedapproachforthis

experiment.

6.3.1ConcludingThoughts

Toconsiderthesefindingswithinthebroadercontextofthefulllaboratorycourseundertaken

withinKRA113,thetrendobservedwithinChapter5fortheFoundationChemistryunit

KRA001hasnotbeenfollowedhere.EachKRA113experimenttypeseemsmuchmoretailored

toparticularteachingapproaches,ratherthanfollowingagradualincreaseintheamountof

studentownershipforeachexperiment.Oneexplanationforthismaylieindemographicsof

thestudentsundertakingtheKRA113unit.Themajorityofstudentsundertakingthisunithave


204

recentlycompletedapre-tertiarylevelchemistryunit,andhavethereforeobtainedsome

familiarityandexperienceinachemistrylaboratory.Thiswouldindicatethatwhen

undertakingthelaboratorycourseinthisunit,studentswouldbemoreconcernedwiththe

specificsofeachexperimentratherthanthefundamentalstakenforgrantedbythosewith

experiencesuchasrecognisingequipmentandidentifyingtheirfunctions.Basedonthese

resultsitwouldthenbeplausibletosuggesttheteachingapproachesfoundtobemost

appropriateforthesetypesofexperimentswouldbetransferrabletoexperimentsutilising

similarskills,i.e.hands-on,calculations,interpretation,andobservations.

205

Chapter7–Results:SecondandThirdYearChemistry

Movingintopost-firstyearchemistrystudies,significantchangesoccurtoboththenatureof

theunitsundertakenandthestudentcohortitself.Thestudentcohortinfirstyearconsists

mostlyofthoseundertakingchemistryasapre-requisiteforstudyinotherareasorasan

elective.Fromaninitialstudentcohortofapproximately250studentsforfirstyear,thesecond

yearcohortreducestobetween50to100acrossseveralunits,andisfurtherreducedmoving

intothirdyear.Giventhisreductioninclassnumbers,theunitsshifttoaccommodatethisby

providinggreaterone-on-oneinteractionbetweenstudentsandtheirlecturersand

demonstrators.Thechemistrylaboratoryexperimentstransitionfromfastpacedthree-hour

laboratoriestomultiplefour-hourlaboratorysessionseachweekwithopportunitiesfor

lengthierexperiments.

Twounitswereconsideredfromtherangeofunitsofferedwithinbothsecondandthirdyear

chemistry:KRA223ChemicalAnalysis,andKRA342CatalysisandReactionProcesses,

respectively.OfthesetwounitsthreeexperimentsfromKRA223andoneexperimentfrom

KRA342wereselectedforinvestigation.AswasdiscussedwithinChapter3,theapproach

takentocollectingdataontheseexperimentswereaimedtowardsqualitativedata.

7.1KRA223ChemicalAnalysis

7.1.1UnitObjectives

Oneofthemajordifferencesbetweenthefirstyearchemistryunitsofferedversustheunits

offeredinsecondandthirdyearisthenarrowingofscope.KRA223ChemicalAnalysis

(UniversityofTasmania,2015c)focusesupontheanalysisofaqueoussystemsrelevantto

206

topicsofcurrentinterest,includingenvironmental,industrial,andforensicsciencestonamea

few.Aspartofthisunit,trainingandpracticeinalargenumberofanalyticaltechniquesis

undertakenwhilstbuildinguponfundamentalskillstaughtinfirstyear.Someofthese

analyticaltechniquesincludespectrophotometricmethods(AAS,UV/visible,fluorimetry),

chromatography(IC,LC,GC),andelectrochemistry(potentiometry,ionselectiveelectrodes)

(UniversityofTasmania,2015c).Inadditiontothesespecifictechniques,alargefocusisupon

thecollectionandreportingofaccurateresultsandtheconsequentialstatisticalanalysis.

7.1.2UnitOperation

Thelaboratorycourseforthisunithasbeendesignedsuchthateachexperimentfocusesupon

asingleorsmallnumberofanalyticalinstrumentsand/ortechniques.Giventhelimited

numberofinstrumentsandequipmentavailable,studentsareassignedanordertocomplete

theavailableexperiments.Despitethisstructure,anumberofstudentswill,attimes,

undertakethesameexperiment.Onedisadvantageofthisrotationalapproachtothe

laboratorycourseisthedisconnectionbetweenlecturematerialsandthecorresponding

experiments.Onaverageastudentundertakingthisunitmaybeexpectedtocompleteoneto

twoexperimentswithouttheinformationprovidedthroughlectures.Asidefromspecialised

equipmenthowever,mostpracticalskillsrequiredofstudentshavebeenintroducedthrough

thefirstyearchemistryunits,KRA113andKRA114.

7.1.3LaboratoryExperimentDetails

DeterminationofCopperandArsenicinTreatedWoodbyAtomicAbsorptionSpectroscopy

Thisexperimentfocuseduponthreekeytechniques:performinganextractionofcopperand

arsenicfromasamplethroughtheuseofconcentratednitricacid,thepreparationofaseries

207

ofaccuratestandards,andtheuseofanatomicabsorptionspectrometer.Thisexperimentis

completedupontwoduplicatesamplestogiveinsightintotheprecisionattainedinthis

experience.

EDTATitrationofCalciumandMagnesiuminNaturalWaters

Forthisexperiment,studentsarerequiredtopracticetheirhands-onskillswhenpreparing

accuratesamples.Coupledwiththis,titrationsareusedtofirstdeterminethecombined

concentrationofbothcalciumandmagnesiumionsintheunknownsampleandafollowing

titrationisusedafterprecipitatingmagnesiumhydroxidetoselectivelyidentifythe

concentrationofcalciumions.Throughcalculationandinterpretationaquantitativevalueis

foundforthepresenceofbothcalciumandmagnesiumionsfoundwithintapandseawater

samples.

SpectrophotometricDeterminationofPhosphateinNaturalWaters

Thespectrophotometricdeterminationofphosphateinnaturalwatersexperimentrequires

studentstocarefullyprepareacalibrationseriesofphosphatesamplesbeforemeasuringthe

absorbanceusingaspectrophotometer.Afterconstructionofthiscalibrationcurve,botha

controlandwaste-watersamplearemeasuredusingthesametechniquetoallowcalculation

oftheconcentrationofphosphatepresentinthewastewatersample.

7.1.4Results

ItwasdecidedduringtheprojectdesignthatthebenefitofusinganExpositorybasedteaching

approachwouldnotbesuitableforhigheryearsofstudy.ThereforeonlyGuidedInquiryand

ProblemSolvingversionsoftheseexperimentswouldbeinvestigated.TheGuidedInquiry

208

versionoftheseexperimentswasimplementedinSemester2,2014asindividualexperiments

withinthelaboratorycourse.BeforetheimplementationoftheProblemSolvingversionsin

Semester2,2015,changesweremadetothestructureofthelaboratorycourse.Theoutcome

ofthesechangesresultedintheEDTATitrationofCalciumandMagnesiuminNaturalWaters

andSpectrophotometricDeterminationofPhosphateinNaturalWatersexperimentsbeing

combinedintoonemini-project.Similartothis,theDeterminationofCopperandArsenicin

TreatedWoodbyAtomicAbsorptionSpectroscopyexperimentwaspairedwithanexperiment

notconsideredinthisstudy,GravimetricDeterminationofCalcium.Thesetwoinstancesof

implementationwillbediscussedinturn.

The2014GuidedInquiryapproachwasimplementedanddatawasreceivedfrom10students

ofthe35totalstudentsundertakingthatunit.Abroadvarietyoffeedbackwasreceived

throughthepost-experimentalsurveyprovidedtostudents.Despitethepresenceoftwo-

tieredresponsequestions,whereanumbervalueisselectedinresponsetoaquestionanda

follow-upjustificationquestionisposedtoelaborateonthatchoice,studentsseemedhesitant

toprovidemorethanabriefjustificationoftheirresponse.AsthephosphateandEDTA

experimentswerequitecloseinmethodology,anumberofstudentswereconfusedontheuse

ofthesurveyandcompletedoneforbothexperimentscombined.Whenaskedwhetherthe

learningexperiencewasanengagingone,theresponsesreceivedvariedindetailwithsome

studentsenjoyingthemorerealisticapplicationoftechniquestheyhadbeentaught.For

example:

"Arealworldapplicationthatwasapplicabletootherpeople,notjustchemistswas

good.Itwasalsoenjoyablebecausetheexperimentwasnottoocomplicatedto

understand."

209

Whereasotherstudentsquotedmoresuperficialstrengthsofthisexperimentsuchasthe

presenceofobservablechangesusingindicators:

"Theindicatorsgavethepracticalamore'easytorelateto'andunderstandablefeel'

and,

"Usingequipment,aschildishasitiswhentheindicatorslookreallycool,Iwas

engaged."

Whenaskedwhethertheyfeltthelearningobjectiveshadbeenobtainedthroughcompletion

ofthisexperimenthowever,thefocusoftheresponsesshifteddrastically.Severalstudents

indicatedthatthemajorityofunderstandinggainedwasattainedthroughcompletionofthe

post-experimentalreportratherthantheprocess;thisoutcomeisatoddswiththeintended

learningexperiencetobedeliveredbyaGuidedInquirylaboratory:

"Learningobjectiveswereonlyachieveduponconclusionofreport.Alotofhourswere

neededtocomplete,notveryeffectiveuseoftime."

and,

"Reporttakesfartoomuchtimetocomplete,particularlyresearchingexpectedvalues,

andformulatoexplainreactions.Peoplewhoarelikelytobestrugglingprobablywill

benotabletocompleteobjectivesbeforetheygiveup."

Shiftingthequestioningtowardshowstudentsperceivedtheirlearninggainsintermsoftheir

practicalin-laboratoryskills,theresponsesallagreedwithoneanother,quotingthepracticeof

previouslylearntskills,titrationsandstandardspreparation,beinganimportantaspectof

theselaboratories.Whenaskedtheirthoughtsontheworkloadexpected,oncemorethe

lengthoftimerequiredtocompletethepost-laboratoryreportwasthefocus.Severalstudents

210

quotedperhapsunrealistictimeframesexpectedforcompletion,thoughthisemphasisesthe

pressuresstudentsfeltatcompletingthis:

"Thereportparttookfartoolong,atleast24hours,possibly36hoursoffullontime

wasdevotedtocompletionofreport.Researchingexpectedvaluestakesupa

significantamountofthistime,findingresultsthataresimilarandcomparable.This

wasverypainful."

and,

"Iwasabletocompletetheexperimentwhichisunusualbutitfeelsasifyoualways

havetorush.Thattakesawayalotofenjoymentandresultsinterriblefindings.The

fullreporttakesfartoolonganditscompletionaffectsallothersubjects.Ithastaken

atleast24hourstowriteandresearchandcausedsomestress.Also,if[practicals]

werequickertocomplete,someimportantquestionscouldbeansweredbefore

leavingthelaboratory.Reflection."

OneresponsedrewparticularattentiontotheGuidedInquirynatureofthisexperience

specificallywithrespecttointroductionofquestionsandpointsofinterestthroughoutthe

procedure:

"Itwasunclearthatsomequestionshadtobecompletedbeforethelab(asusually

questionsstrewnthroughoutIincludeinmydiscussion).Wedidn'thavetimetofinish

eventhoughIthoughtwewereworkingwellandthereweretoomanyquestionsto

includeindiscussionifyouaddressedallofthemthroughoutthemethod."

Apositiveoutcomewasobservedwhenaskingstudentswhethertheywouldfeelcomfortable

inrepeatingthisexperiment.Nearlyallstudentsrespondedthattheyfeltthatthisexperience

hadbuiltuponandrefinedtheirpreviousskillsandwouldthereforebeeasytorepeat.A

211

numberofthesestudentsstillquotehesitanceinrepeatingthereportcomponentofthis

laboratorysession.Toconsidertheresponsesholistically,thefeedbackfromthestudent

cohortindicatedthatthetwomainpointsofinterestforthemlieinthespecifichands-onskills

beingusedandtheworkloadrequirementsofcompletingareportpost-laboratory.Littletono

mentionwasseenwithregardstotheteachingapproachotherthanoccasionalremarksonthe

in-laboratoryexperiencebeingapositiveone.

TheDeterminationofCopperandArsenicinTreatedWoodbyAtomicAbsorptionSpectroscopy

experimentdifferedfromboththePhosphateandEDTAexperimentsinthatitrequiredthe

useofacompletelyunfamiliarpieceofinstrumentation.Thisdifferencewasobservedquite

rapidlywithstudentsquotingthelearningofanduseoftheAASbeingakeyfeatureinmaking

thisanengagingexperience:

"ThefireintheAASandthedifferentflamesfromparticularcathodebulbs.Havingthe

AASexplainedmadeusingitfarmoreinteresting."

and,

"Thefactthatwehadtolookupthebackgroundinformationintheprelabgaveusthe

opportunitytogainabetterunderstandingofthenewequipmentthatwewouldbe

using."

Studentsfurtherexpandedonthisindicatingthattheuseofpreviouslyknownskillscoupled

withanewtechniqueenhancedtheirlearningofchemistryconcepts:

"Someoftheskills(dilutions,pipettes,etc)Ihadalreadydevelopedbutthisformatdid

enablemetofeelmuchmorecomfortableusingtheAASandhelpedmefeellikeIhad

agreaterunderstandingofitsconcepts."

212

Despitethisengagementwiththeuseofanewinstrumentation,whenaskedwhetherthey

wouldfeelconfidentinrepeatingthisexperiment,manystudentsexpressedconcernwith

beingabletooperatetheAASbythemselves.Giventhatthisisasingleinstanceofutilisingthe

instrumentthough,itistobeexpectedthattheconfidencemaynotbebuiltquiteyet.

MirroringtheresultsdiscussedpreviouslyforthePhosphateandEDTAexperiments,manyof

theinterestingorenjoyablecomponentsofthisexperimentasdefinedbystudentsrevolved

aroundobservablechanges.Onenoteofconcernfromstudentswasthelackofrealworld

contextforthisexperiment.Despitetheuseoftreatedwoodasasampleforanalysis,students

feltthattheresultsbeingobtainedwerenotplacedinacontexttheycouldengagewithand

struggledtoseethepointofthisactivity.

TheimplementationoftheProblemSolvingversionsoftheseexperimentsinSemester2of

2015didnotgotoplanunfortunately.Whilstthelaboratoryproceduresandmethodshad

beencloselymoderatedbytheauthorsofthispaperandacademicsteachingintothisunit,the

resultinglaboratorieswerefoundtobenearimpossibleforthestudentsofthiscohort.

Whetherduetoanexceptionofthatparticularcohortorthemethodsdevelopedforthisstudy,

theexperimentcausedsuchconfusionandstressthatadecisionwasmadebytheunit

coordinatorofthisunittoprovidethemethodspreviouslyusedtoallowstudentstocomplete

theexperiment.Duetothis,littletonodatawasobtainedontheProblemSolving

implementation.Someoftheconcernsprovidedbystudentslistedtheinformationinthe

laboratorymanualastoovagueandtheyhadnotrealisedthatamethodshouldhavebeen

preparedpriortoattendingthelaboratory.Thisresultedinthemajorityofstudentsspending

laboratorytimeconstructingamethodandresearchingratherthancompletingtheexperiment.

Giventhesestumblingblocks,theavenueformovingforwardwouldbethereconsiderationof

themethodspreviouslydevelopedlookingtowardsre-implementationinfutureyears.

213

7.2KRA342CatalysisandReactionProcesses

7.2.1UnitObjectives

TheKRA342unitofferedinthirdyearchemistryfocusesupontheapplicationofcontemporary

organometallicchemistryandadvancedcomputationalchemistrytothestudyofcatalysisand

reactionprocesses(UniversityofTasmania,2015d).Inadditiontothetheorycoveredwithin

thesetopics,emphasisuponthedesignandimplementationofhigh-levelchemistry

techniquesandlaboratoryskillsisplacedthroughthelaboratorycourse.

7.2.2UnitOperation

ThisunitisofferedonlywithinSemester2eachyearandconsistsof3hoursofface-to-face

contactthroughlecturesthroughoutthesemesteranda4-hourlaboratorysessionweeklyfor

10weeks.Anumberofexperimentsarecompletedthroughoutthislaboratorycourse,the

orderbeingallocatedtoensureanevendispersionofequipmentandinstrumentsamongst

students.Thelengthofeachexperimentvariesdependingontheabilityofthestudentandthe

processesrequiredrangingfromonesessionthroughtopotentiallythree.

7.2.3LaboratoryExperimentDetails

PalladiumCrossCouplingReactions

ThePalladiumCrossCouplingReactionsexperimentisapseudogroupmini-projectcompleted

overtwoweeks.Thisexperimentisdesignedtoreplicatetheprocessesthatmaybe

undertakeninaresearchlaboratory.Assuch,thefirstweekisfocuseduponaseriesofmicro-

scalesynthesestoinvestigatetheeffectivenessofanumberofpotentialreagentsfora

particularreaction.Anadaptedgaschromatographymethodisutilisedtomonitorthe

progressofeachofthesereactionsafterasettimeperiod.Eachindividualstudenttests

214

severalofthesereactionswithdifferentsubstratesbeforecollatingthesefindingsand

determiningthesubstratethatgavethehighestconversion.Thesecondweekofthis

experimentrequiresstudentstodevelopascaledupversionoftheirchosenexperimentwith

anemphasisonoptimisingtheconditionstoobtainapurecompoundinhighyield.Inthe

preparationofthescaled-upreaction,studentswererequiredtodesigntheconditionsforthe

reactionandthetechniquesfortheisolationoftheirproduct.Anabbreviatedlaboratory

reportisrequireduponcompletionoftheexperimentwithdiscussionbeingmadeonthe

chemistryconceptswithinthisexperimentinadditiontomethodology,references,and

appendices.

7.2.4Results

ThePalladiumCrossCouplingReactionsexperimentunderwentmultiplechangesthroughout

thisstudyresultinginalackofconsistentdataforthecomparisonoftheteachingapproaches

consideredatthislevel.Thefirstformofthisexperimentwasimplementedin2013andaneed

formodificationwasquicklyrecognisedintheformofguidingstudentsintheirapproachto

theexperiment.Afterconsiderablerevisionoftheexperiment,aplantovalidatethe

experimentwasdeveloped.Theprimaryauthorofthisthesisandanacademicinvolvedinthe

teachingofthisunitattendedthe2014AdvancingSciencebyEnhancingLearninginthe

Laboratory(ASELL)NationalWorkshopheldinPerth,Australia.Eachexperimentpresentedat

theASELLNationalWorkshopwaspresentedtoamixtureofpeersandstudents.Usingthe

feedbackobtainedfromthisexperience,theexperimentwasoncemoreadjustedandreleased

tothestudentsin2014withtheintentiontocollectdatafromthiscohortofstudents.Dueto

thelownumberofstudents,lessthan20,undertakingthisunitandalackofinterestby

studentsincompletingthesurveyinstruments,nodatawasobtainabletoquantifythe

215

outcomesofthisexperimentseffectiveness.Observationsofthisexperimentfromboththe

primaryauthorandthedemonstratorsteachinginthelaboratoryindicatedstudents

respondedpositivelytothemoreauthenticresearchexperience,particularlyrecognisingthe

multi-stageapproachtakeninobtainingaproduct.Oneproblemidentifiedanecdotallywas

thatstudentswerenotcomfortabletodesigntheexperimentwithoutsomeguidanceanddid

notreferbacktopreviouslaboratories,lecturematerials,orliterature.Whilstthelaboratory

manualdidnotexplicitlycitepreviousexperiencesasaresource,itisexpectedofthirdyear

studentstohaveinitiativeandautonomywhenapproachingexperiments.Movingforward

fromthis,futureimplementationswillbemonitoredtocontinuethedevelopmentofthis

experiment.

7.3FinalThoughts

Theinvestigationintothe2ndand3rdyearlevelsofchemistryteachinglaboratorieswas

undertakenasanexpansionuponthemainbodyofresearch,thefoundationandfirstyear

levellaboratories.ThedecisiontoremoveExpositoryasoneoftheteachingapproaches

consideredinthisstudyenabledthetworemainingteachingapproachs,GuidedInquiryand

ProblemSolving,tobeexaminedingreaterdetail.Duetoanumberofunforeseen

circumstances,thiswasafacetoftheprojectthatdidnotproceedasplannedandtherefore

theintendedoutcomesevolvedovertime.Threeexperimentsfromthe2ndyearunitKRA223,

ChemicalAnalysis,werestudiedovertwoyearstoinvestigatethestrengthsofbothGuided

InquiryandProblemSolving.WhilsttheGuidedInquiryimplementationappearedtoprovide

insightintowhatthestudentsfeltwasapositivelaboratoryexperience,therecognitionofthe

specificteachingapproachwasminimalincomparisontotheresultsobservedatthe

foundationandfirstyearlevels.TheProblemSolvingimplementationsufferedfrom

216

considerablesetbacksandissuesandeffectivelyresultedinnodatabeingcollected.Thekeyto

improvinguponthisformofinvestigationwouldbegeneratinginterestandengagementfrom

thestudentstoparticipate.Onepotentialapproachtothiswouldbetointegrateareflection

andfeedbackintothelaboratoryreportsstudents’produce.Theinclusionofthisreflection

andfeedbacksectionwouldguaranteeanincreaseinresponsesandcouldbetiedexplicitlyto

facetsoftheexperimentthatweresuccessfulorunsuccessful.

Oneexperimentfromthe3rdyearunitKRA342,CatalysisandReactionProcesses,was

developedtorepresentaProblemSolvingactivity.Whenstaffandstudentsalikenotedthe

potentialofthisexperiment,itwasdecidedtofocusupontherefinementofthisexperiment

asanexemplarofanauthenticresearchProblemSolvingactivity.

Thetakeawaymessagedrawnfromthiscomponentofthestudyistheconsiderablepotential

fortheseexperienceswhendevelopingtheselaboratoriesatahigherlevel.Undertakingthese

modificationsordevelopmentshowever,shouldbeaprimaryfocusofaseparatestudyasthe

complexityofimplementingalternativeteachingapproachesincreasesdramaticallymoving

throughtolateryearsofstudy.

Chapter8-Conclusions

217

Chapter8–Conclusions

Theprocessoflearninganddevelopingknowledgehasbeenexplainedusinganumberof

modelsthroughtheyears(Perkinson,1984)beforereachingthecurrentmodelofchoice,

Constructivism(Savery&Duffy,2001).Constructivismwaschosentounderpinthisstudydue

toitsphilosophythatstudentsarecentralwithinaclassroomandtheirinteractionwiththeir

surroundingsenablesthedevelopmentofnewknowledge.Whenappliedwithinthechemistry

teachinglaboratory,thisalignsparticularlywellwiththerichenvironmentavailablefor

customisation.ReviewsbyDomin(1999)and,GarnettandGarnett(1995)highlighthowever,a

numberofconcernswithboththechemistryteachinglaboratoryandtheresearchbeing

conductedintothisareaofteaching.Thestudycompletedwithinthisdissertationintendedto

addresstheseconcernsthroughacross-sectionalcasestudy(Cohenetal.,2011;Freebody,

2003;Yin,2006)ofalternativeteachingapproachesinthechemistryteachinglaboratory.At

thebeginningofthisdissertationanumberofresearchquestionswereposedthatdrovethe

directionandintendedoutcomesforthisstudy.Thesequestionswereguidedbytheoutcomes

ofasystematicreviewcompletedaspartofthisdoctoratestudyuponthe15yearsof

chemistryteachinglaboratoryresearchsinceDomin'sseminalreview(1999).Thesequestions

were:

1. Whataretheadvantagesanddisadvantagesofimplementingalternativeteaching

approacheswithinthechemistryteachinglaboratory?

2. Doteachingapproachesaligndifferentlywiththetypeofexperimentsbeing

undertaken(wheretypereferstothenatureofthatexperimentbeing,forexample,

observationalorinterpretationbased)?

3. Willacombinationofteachingapproachesbemoreeffectivethanasingleteaching

approachinthedevelopmentofachemistrylaboratorycourse?


218

Throughtheuseofamixed-methodsapproach(Cohenetal.2011),thesequestionshavebeen

answeredacrossanumberofchemistryunitsofferedattheUniversityofTasmania.Eachof

theseresearchquestionswereansweredinpart:

1. Theadvantagesofimplementingalternativeteachingapproacheslaywithinthe

identificationofteachingapproacheswherestudentswerenotonlymoreengaged,

butalsobetterunderstoodthecontent.Byrecognisingthesealternativeteaching

approacheswegraduallyimprovetheteachingqualitywithinthechemistryteaching

laboratory.Thedisadvantagesofimplementingtheseapproachesarelargelythe

negativeimpactthatispossibleforteachingapproachesthatarenotcompatiblewith

experiments.

2. ItwasfoundthattheFoundationChemistryunitKRA001,andtheFirstYearchemistry

unitKRA113haddifferentoutcomestothisquestion.KRA001alignedwithagradual

increaseofthelevelofinquiry.Whereas,KRA113hadoncorrelationacrossthe

laboratorycourseandinsteadalignedspecificteachingapproachestoexperiment

types.

3. Withoutadoubtacombinationofteachingapproacheswasmoresuccessfulbasedon

theresultsobtainedfromthisstudy.Furtherimplementationisrequiredtomeasure

consistencyacrosscohortshowever.

Attheiressencehowever,theseresearchquestionsaimtoidentifywhichofthethreeteaching

approaches(Expository,GuidedInquiry,andProblemSolving)ismostappropriatewithinthe

chemistryteachinglaboratoryforavarietyofexperiments.Thisprojectintendedtoobtainan

outcomenotonlyapplicableatthelocalscalebutalsotohaveglobalimplicationsforother

teachinginstitutions.Byinvestigatingthetypeofexperimentbeingundertaken(forexample

hands-on,observational,interpretationbased)itwasintendedthattheteachingapproach


219

mostsuitablefortheseexperimenttypeswouldbemoreapplicablethanlookingatthe

chemistrytopics.Infindingthemostappropriateteachingapproachitwasintendedto

optimisethelaboratoryexperienceforstudentsundertakingtheselaboratoriesinanumberof

areasincluding:engagementwithboththeexperimentandthechemistrycontent,enjoyment

ofthelaboratoryexperience,developmentoflaboratoryspecificskillsandchemistry

knowledge,andimprovingtheperceptionofchemistryforstudents.

Fourresearchaimswerechosenatthestartofthisstudy:

1. Thedevelopmentofan'optimised'laboratorycourseattheUniversityofTasmania;

2. Thedevelopmentofarigorousmethodologyfortheinvestigationandvalidationof

laboratoryteachingpractices;

3. Toexploretheadvantagesanddisadvantagesofalternativeteachingapproachesin

comparisontooneanother;and

4. Toinvestigatetherelationshipbetweenteachingapproachesandthetypesof

experimentsundertaken.

Theseresearchaimshavebeenaddressedthroughcompletionofthisdoctoratestudy.The

resultsobtainedfromeachexperimentprovidearecommendationforan'optimised'

laboratorycourse(ResearchAim1).Perhapsofmostimportanceonaglobalscaleisthe

approachtakentoundertakingthisstudy.Theflawsdiscussedandthesuccessfuloutcomes

achievedcanbothbeusedtoinformfuturestudieswithintheUniversityofTasmaniaandthe

widerChemistryEducationresearchcommunity(ResearchAim2).Finally,ResearchAims3and

4havebeenachievedanddiscussedwithregardstotheresearchquestions.


220

Thisstudycanbesummarisedintotwomaincomponents:thefirstandhigherfocus

componentcentreduponthefoundationandfirstyearchemistrylevelwherelargercohortsof

studentswereavailable.Thesecondinvestigatedtheeffectoftheseteachingapproachesat

higheryearsofstudywithasmallernumberofexperimentsandlimitedpoolofstudents.

Giventhedifferenceinsamplesizesthefoundationandfirstyearchemistryinvestigationwas

primarilyquantitativeinnature,whilstthehigheryearsofstudycollectedqualitative

information.Avarietyofexperimentswereselectedfromanumberofunitsofferedwithin

chemistryattheUniversityofTasmaniatorepresentarangeofexperimenttypes.Eachpre-

existingexperimentchosenwasthenbrokendowntoitscoreconceptsandrebuiltto

representeachoftheteachingapproachesconsidered,aprocesspreviouslyusedbyPullenet

al.(2014).Overthecourseoffouryearstheseexperimentswerethenimplementedwiththe

studentcohortsofeachyeartocollectdataontheirperceptions,abilities,andperceptions

withinalaboratoryenvironment.

Theoutcomesobtainedvariedinthedegreetowhichtheymettheintendedoutcomesinitially

hopedforattheoutsetofthisstudy.Inparticular,theimplementationatthefoundationand

firstyearchemistryunitlevelappearedtobewellreceivedbystudentswithinsightintowhich

teachingapproacheswereofmostbenefit.Somedifferencesexistedbetweenthefoundation

andfirstyearunitshowever.Thefourexperimentsselectedfromthefoundationchemistry

unitspannedthelaboratorycourse,totalingsixexperiments.Theresultssuggestedthatthe

particulartypeofexperimentseemedtobeunrelatedtothetypeofteachingapproachused.

Rather,thestudentsindicatedafarstrongertrendtowardshavingagradualincreaseinthe

amountofstudentinputforeachexperimentoverthecourseoftheunit.Thisisconsistent

withthepositionofHmelo-Silver,DuncanandChinnwhoposittheuseofscaffoldingto

supportoutcomesininquiryandproblem-basedlearning(2007).Withinthestudycompleted


221

forthisthesisitcanbeseenintheinitialexperimentsbeingundertakenasstructured

Expositoryexperiencesandmovingforwardwiththelaboratorycoursegraduallyshifting

throughdeepeninglevelsofinquiryuntilthefinalexperimentwouldbeundertakenasa

ProblemSolvingactivity.Thisdifferedsubstantiallyfromthefirstyearlaboratoryexperiments

consideredwherenogradualtrendwasobserved.Theresultsobtainedforeachfirstyear

experimentsuggestedthataparticularteachingapproachwassuitedtothatexperimenttype.

Forexample,theOrganicFunctionalGroupsexperimentbeingobservationcentricranbestas

aGuidedInquiryactivitywhereastheDeterminationoftheFreezing-PointDepressionConstant

forCyclohexaneasaninterpretationexperimentwaspreferredasanExpositoryexperience.To

considerthedifferencebetweenfoundationandfirstyear,thefirstandmostapparent

differencelieswithinthedemographicsofthestudentsundertakingeachunit.Foundation

chemistrystudentsbeingmostlycomposedofstudentswithnoexperienceinlaboratoriesor

returningafteranumberofyearscouldneedthatgradualinclinetoallowdevelopmentof

confidenceinbothlaboratoryskillsandprocedures.Firstyearstudentshowever,mostly

consistofthosewithrecentlaboratoryexperienceandthereforeeitherhaveorbelievethey

havethoseskillsnecessarytofunctioninalaboratory.

Thesecondandthirdyearcomponentofthisstudyunderwentconsiderablesetbacksthrough

theimplementationofeachexperiment.Whilstthesecondyearexperimentsappearedtobe

wellreceivedasGuidedInquiryactivities,theProblemSolvingversionsoftheseexperiments

failedtoengagethestudentsandwereeventuallyabandonedduringtheirimplementation.

Thethirdyearexperimentutilisedadifferentmethodologytothatoftheotherexperiments

consideredwheninvestigatingalternativeteachingapproaches.ThePalladiumCrossCoupling

Reactionsexperimentwasnotapre-existingexperimentandwasthereforedevelopedfrom

scratchwiththeintentionthatmultipleversionswouldbedeveloped.Uponimplementation


222

however,itwasnotedthatthepotentialinthisexperimentwaswellworthrefiningand

developingasasingleinstanceratherthanasacomparison.Throughmultipleiterationsand

theuseofevaluationfromanexternalbody,anexemplarofanauthenticresearchlaboratory

experimentwasdeveloped.

Lookingintothefuturewiththefindingsfromthisstudyinmindanumberofthoughtscome

tomind.Toexpandbeyondthescopeofthisstudy,severalapproachescouldbeundertaken:

• Usingtheproposedversionsofeachexperiment,continuedcollectionofdatawould

giveinsightintothesustainabilityoftheseexperimentmodels.

• Thesecondyearexperimentswouldrequireexpansionintoagreaternumberof

experimentsandafarmorecomplexdevelopmentphasetobetterinvestigatethe

benefitsofalternativeteachingapproaches.Furtherthis,itwouldbeimperativeto

increasetheresponseratefromstudentstobolsterthesamplesizeanalysed.

• Withthesuccessobservedinthethirdyearexperiment,furtherdevelopmentintothis

iswarranted.

Withtherecommendationsforeachlaboratoryprovidedtothoseacademicscoordinatingthe

chemistryunitsattheUniversityofTasmania,itishopedthatcontinuedimplementationof

theseoptimisedexperimentsoccursinfutureyearsattheUniversityofTasmania.

References

223

References

SystematicReviewReferences

Bender,T.A.,Booth,J.,&Walker,E.B.(2013).FastanalyticalseparationswithHigh-Pressure

LiquidChromatography.JournalofChemicalEducation,90(8),1061-1063.

Berg,A.R.,Bergendahl,C.B.,Lundberg,B.,&Tibell,L.(2003).Benefitingfromanopenended

experiment?Acomparisonofattitudesto,andoutcomesof,anexpositoryversusan

open-inquiryversionofthesameexperiment.InternationalJournalofScience

Education,25(3),351-372.

Billett,S.(2009).RealisingtheeducationalworthofintegratingworkexperienceinHigher

Education.StudiesinHigherEducation,34(7),827-843.

Blonder,R.,Mamlok-Naaman,R.,&Hofstein,A.(2003).Analyzinginquiryquestionsofhigh-

schoolstudentsinagaschromatographyopen-endedlaboratoryexperiment.

ChemistryEducationResearchandPractice,9,250-258.

Browne,L.M.,&Blackburn,E.V.(1999).Teachingintroductoryorganicchemistry:Aproblem-

solvingandcollaborative-learningapproach.JournalofChemicalEducation,76(8),

1104-1107.

Byrd,H.,&O'Donnell,S.E.(2003).Ageneralchemistrylaboratorytheme:Spectroscopic

analysisofaspirin.JournalofChemicalEducation,80(2),174-176.

Costa,N.E.,Pelotte,A.L.,Simard,J.M.,Syvinski,C.A.,&Deveau,A.M.(2012).Discovering

green,aqueousSuzukicouplingreactions:Synthesisofethyl(4-phenylphenyl)acetate,

abiarylwithanti-arthriticpotential.JournalofChemicalEducation,89(8),1064-1067.

Davis,D.S.,Hargrove,R.J.,&Hugdahl,J.D.(1999).Aresearch-basedsophomoreorganic

chemistrylaboratory.JournalofChemicalEducation,76(8),1127-1130.

References

224

Domin,D.S.(2007).Students'perceptionsofwhenconceptualdevelopmentoccursduring

laboratoryinstruction.ChemicalEducationResearchandPractice,8(2),140-152.

Gaddis,B.A.,&Schoffstall,A.M.(2007).Incorporatingguided-inquirylearningintothe

organicchemistrylaboratory.JournalofChemicalEducation,84(5),848-851.

Garner,C.M.(2005).Anazulene-baseddiscoveryexperiment:Challengingstudentstowatch

forthe"FalseAssumption".JournalofChemicalEducation,82(11),1686-1688.

GreenW.,Elliott,C.,&Cummins,R.H.(2004)."Prompted"inquiry-basedlearninginthe

introductorychemistrylaboratory.JournalofChemicalEducation,81(2),239-241.

Hopkins,T.A.,&Samide,M.(2013).Usingathematiclaboratory-centeredcurriculumto

teachgeneralchemistry.JournalofChemicalEducation,90(9),1162-1166.

Hunter,C.,Wardell,S.,&Wilkins,H.(2000).Introducingfirst-yearstudentstosomeskillsof

investigatorylaboratorywork.UniversityChemistryEducation,4(1),14-17.

Iimoto,D.S.,&Frederick,K.A.(2011).Incorporatingstudent-designedresearchprojectsin

thechemistrycurriculum.JournalofChemicalEducation,88(8),1069-1073.

Kable,S.H.,&Read,J.R.(2007).Educationalanalysisofthefirstyearchemistryexperiment

'ThermodynamicsThink-In':anACELLexperiment.ChemistryEducationResearchand

Practice,8(2),255-273.

Kampourakis,C.,&Tsaparlis,G.(2003).Astudyoftheeffectofapracticalactivityonproblem

solvinginchemistry.ChemicalEducationResearchandPractice,4(3),319-333.

Kelly,O.C.,&Finlayson,O.E.(2007).Providingsolutionsthroughproblem-basedlearningfor

theundergraduatefirstyearchemistrylaboratory.ChemicalEducationResearchand

Practice,8(3),347-361.

Kelly,O.C.,&FInlayson,O.E.(2009).Ahurdletoohigh?Students'experienceofaPBL

laboratorymodule.ChemicalEducationResearchandPractice,10(1),42-52.

References

225

KjonaasR.A.,&Tucker,R.J.F.(2008).Adiscovery-basedexperimentinvolvingrearrangement

intheconversionofalcoholstoalkylhalides.JournalofChemicalEducation,85(1),100

-101.

Laredo,T.(2013).Changingthefirst-yearchemistrylaboratorymanualtoimplementa

problem-basedapproachthatimprovesstudentengagement.JournalofChemical

Education,90(9),1151-1154.

Leyral,G.,Bernaud,L.,Manteghetti,A.,&Filhol,J.(2013).Microwavesynthesisofa

fluorescentrubypowder.JournalofChemicalEducation,90(10),1380-1383.

Long,R.D.(2012).Usinggroup-inquirytostudydifferingreactionconditionsintheE2

eliminationofcyclohexylhalides.JournalofChemicalEducation,89(5),672-674.

Seery,M.K.,McDonnell,C.,&O'Connor,C.(2007).Developingpracticalchemistryskillsby

meansofstudent-drivenproblembasedlearningmini-projects.ChemicalEducation

ResearchandPractice,8(2),130-139.

Mohrig,J.R,Colby,D.A.,&Hammond,C.N.(2007).Onthesuccessfuluseofinquiry-driven

experimentsintheorganicchemistrylaboratory.JournalofChemicalEducation,84(6),

992-998.

Newton,T.A.,Tracy,H.J.,&Prudenté,C.(2006).Aresearch-basedlaboratorycoursein

organicchemistry.JournalofChemicalEducation,83(12),1844-1849.

Nielsen,S.E.,Scaffidi,J.P.,&Yezierski,E.J.(2014).Detectingartforgeries:Aproblem-based

RamanSpectroscopylab.JournalofChemicalEducation,91(3),446-450.

Sandi-Urena,S.,Cooper,M.M.,Gatlin,T.A.,&Bhattacharyya,G.(2011).Students'experience

inageneralchemistrycooperativeproblembasedlaboratory.ChemicalEducation


References

226

Slade,M.C.,Raker,J.R.,Kobilka,B.,&Pohl,N.L.B.(2014).AResearchmodulefortheorganic

chemistrylaboratory:Multistepsynthesisofafluorousdyemolecule.Journalof

ChemicalEducation,91(1),126-130.

Teixiera,J.M.,Byers,J.N.,Perez,M.G.,&Holman,R.W.(2010).Thequestion-driven

laboratoryexercise:AnewpedagogyappliedtoagreenmodificationofGrignard

Reagentformationandreaction.JournalofChemicalEducation,87(7),714-716.

Tomasik,J.H.,Cottone,K.E.,Heethuis,M.T.,&Mueller,A.(2013).Developmentand

preliminaryimpactsoftheimplementationofanauthenticresearch-based

experimentingeneralchemistry.JournalofChemicalEducation,90(9),1155-1161.

Tribe,L.,&Kostka,K.(2007).Peer-developedandpeer-ledlabsingeneralchemistry.Journal

ofChemicalEducation,84(6),1031-1034.

Tsaparlis,G.,&Gorezi,M.(2007).Additionofaproject-basedcomponenttoaconventional

expositoryphysicalchemistrylaboratory.JournalofChemicalEducation,84(4),668-

670.

Vyvyan,J.R.,Pavia,D.L,Lampman,G.M.,&Kriz,G.S.(2002).Preparingstudentsforreserach:

Synthesisofsubstitutedchalconesasacomprehensiveguided-inquiryexperience.

JournalofChemicalEducation,79(9),1119-1121.

Walker,J.P.,Sampson,S.,&Zimmerman,C.O.(2011).Argument-driveninquiry:An

introductiontoanewinstructionalmodelforuseinundergraduatechemistrylabs.


Wilczek-Vera,G.&Salin,E.D.(2011).Understandingfluorescencemeasurementsthrougha

guided-inquiryanddiscoveryexperimentinadvancedanalyticallaboratory.Journal


Witteck,T.,Most,B.,Kienast,S.,&Eilks,I.(2007).Alessonplanon'methodsofseparating

matter'basedontheLearningCompanyApproach-Amotivatingframeforself-

References

227

regulatedandopenlab-workinintroductorysecondarychemistrylessons.Chemical

EducationResearchandPractice,8(2),108-119.

Xu,H.,&Talanquer,V.(2013).Effectofthelevelofinquiryonstudentinteractionsin

chemistrylaboratories.JournalofChemicalEducation,90(1),29-36.

Yang,S.(2007).Howmanyatomiclayersofzincareinagalvanizedironcoating.Journalof


Zoller,U.,&Pushkin,D.(2007).MatchingHigher-OrderCognitiveSkills(HOCS)promotiongoals

withproblem-basedlaboratorypracticeinafreshmanorganicchemistrycourse.

ChemicalEducationResearchandPractice,8(2),153-171.

GeneralReferences

Abraham,M.R.,Cracolice,M.S.,PalmerGraves,A.,Aldhamash,A.H.,Kihega,J.G.,PalmaGil,J.

G.,&Varghese,V.(1997).Thenatureandstateofgeneralchemistrylaboratory

coursesofferedbycollegesanduniversitiesintheUnitedStates.JournalofChemical

Education,74(5),591-594.

Allinson,C.W.,&Hayes,J.(1996).TheCognitiveStyleIndex:Ameasureofintuition-analysis

fororganizationalresearch.JournalofManagementStudies,33(1),119-135.

AmericanChemicalSociety.(2015).ACSguidelinesandevaluationproceduresforbachelor's

degreeprograms.Washington,DC:Author.

AmericanEducationalResearchAssociation(n.d.).Whatiseducationresearch?Retrievedfrom

http://www.aera.net/EducationResearch/WhatisEducationResearch/tabid/13453/Def

ault.aspx.

References

228

Anderson,G.,&Arsenault,N.(2004).Fundamentalsofeducationresearch(2ndEd.).London:

RoutledgeFalmer

Anderson,R.D.,&Mitchener,C.P.(1993).ResearchonScienceTeacherEducation.InD.L.

Gabel(Ed.),HandbookofResearchonscienceteachingandlearning(pp.3-44).Don

Mills,Ontario:MacmillanPublishingCompany.

Arjoon,J.A.,Xu,X.,&Lewis,J.E.(2013).Understandingthestateoftheartformeasurement

inChemistryEducationResearch:Examiningthepsychometricevidence.Journalof

ChemicalEducation,90,536-545.

Ashmore,A.D.,Frazer,M.J.,&Casey,R.J.(1979).Problemsolvingandproblemsolving

networksinchemistry.JournalofChemicalEducation,56(6),377-379.

Barker,L.N.,Allen,J.B.,&Ramsden,J.H.(1986).Guidedinquirylaboratory.Journalof


Barrie,S.C.,Bucat,R.B.,Buntine,M.A.,BurkedaSilva,K.,Crisp,G.T.,George,A.V.,Jamie,I.

M.,Kable,S.H.,Lim,K.F.,Pyke,S.M.,Read,J.R.,Sharma,M.D.,&Yeung,A.(2015).

Development,evaluationanduseofastudentexperiencesurveyinundergraduate

sciencelaboratories:TheAdvancingSciencebyEnhancingLearningintheLaboratory

StudentLaboratoryLearningExperienceSurvey.InternationalJournalofScience

Education,37(11),1795-1814.

Bedgood,D.R.,Gardiner,M.,Yates,B.F.,Bridgeman,A.J.,Morrid,G.,Buntine,M.,Mocerino,

M.,...Zadnik,M.(2010).ThedevelopmentofteachingskillstosupportActive

LearninginUniversityScience(ALIUS).JournalofLearningDesign,3(3),10-19.

Benett,Y.(1993).Thevalidityandreliabilityofassessmentsandself-assessmentsofwork-

basedlearning.Assessment&EvaluationinHigherEducation,18(2),83-94.

Berg,A.R.,Bergendahl,C.B.,Lundberg,B.,&Tibell,L.(2003).Benefitingfromanopenended

experiment?Acomparisonofattitudesto,andoutcomesof,anexpositoryversusan

References

229

open-inquiryversionofthesameexperiment.InternationalJournalofScience

Education,25(3),351-372.

Biggs,J.B.,&Tang,C.(2011).Teachingforqualitylearningatuniversity.Retrievedfrom

http://www.eblib.com.

Billett,S.(2009).Realisingtheeducationalworthofintegratingworkexperienceinhigher

education.StudiesinHigherEducation,34(7),827-843.

Blonder,R.,Mamlok-Naaman,R.,&Hofstein,A.(2003).Analyzinginquiryquestionsofhigh-

schoolstudentsinagaschromatographyopen-endedlaboratoryexperiment.

ChemistryEducationResearchandPractice,9,250-258.

Bopegedera,A.M.R.P.(2011).Puttingthelaboratoryatthecenterofteachingchemistry.


Brew,A.,&Ginns,P.(2008).Therelationshipbetweenengagementinthescholarshipof

teachingandlearningandstudents'courseexperiences.Assessment&Evaluationin

HigherEducation,33(5),535-545.

Browne,L.M.,&Blackburn,E.V.(1999).Teachingintroductoryorganicchemistry:Aproblem-

solvingandcollaborative-learningapproach.JournalofChemicalEducation,76(8),

1104-1107.

Byrd,H.,&O'Donnell,S.E.(2003).Ageneralchemistrylaboratorytheme:Spectroscopic

analysisofaspirin.JournalofChemicalEducation,80(2),174-176.

Charles,C.M.(1988).Introductiontoeducationalresearch.WhitePlains,NY:LongmanInc.

Cohen,J.(1988).Statisticalpoweranalysisforthebehaviouralsciences(2ndEd.).Hillsdale,NJ:

Erlbaum.

Cohen,L.,Manion,L.,&Morrison,K.(2011).Researchmethodsineducation(7thEd.).New

York,NY:Routledge

References

230

Creswell,J.W.(2003).Researchdesign:Qualitative,quantitative,andmixedmethods

approaches(2ndEd.).ThousandOaks,CA:Sage

Crisp,M.G.,Kable,S.H.,Read,J.R.,&Buntine,M.A.(2011).Adisconnectbetweenstaffand

studentperceptionsoflearning:AnACELLeducationalanalysisofthefirstyear

undergraduatechemistryexperiment'investigatingsugarusingahomemade

polarimeter'.ChemistryEducationResearchandPractice,12,469-477

Dewey,J.(1938).Logic:Thetheoryofinquiry.NewYork,NY:HenryHolt

Ding,N.,&Harskamp,E.G.(2011).Collaborationandpeertutoringinchemistrylaboratory

education.InternationalJournalofScienceEducation,33(6),839-863.

Domin,D.S.(1999).Areviewoflaboratoryinstructionstyles.JournalofChemicalEducation,

76(4),543-547.

Domin,D.S.(2007).Students'perceptionsofwhenconceptualdevelopmentoccursduring

laboratoryinstruction.ChemicalEducationResearchandPractice,8(2),140-152.

Ellis,R.,&Allan,R.(2010).Raisingaspirationandwideningparticipation:diversity,scienceand

learningstylesincontext.JournalofFurtherandHigherEducation,34(1),23-33.

Fay,M.E.,Grove,N.P.,Towns,M.H.,&Bretz,S.L.(2007).Arubrictocharacterizeinquiryin

theundergraduatechemistrylaboratory.ChemicalEducationResearchandPractice,

8(2),212-219.

Felder,R.M.,&Brent,R.(2005).Understandingstudentdifferences.JournalofEngineering

Education,94(1),57-72.

Firth-Cousins,J.&McKimm,J.(2012).Whatiseducationalresearch?Retrievedfrom

http://www.faculty.londondeanery.ac.uk/e-learning/introduction-to-educational-

research/html2pdf

Freebody,P.(2003).Qualitativeresearchineducation.ThousandOaks,CA:Sage.

References

231

Gabel,D.(1999).Improvingteachingandlearningthroughchemistryeducationresearch:A

looktothefuture.JournalofChemicalEducation,76(4),548-554.

Gaddis,B.A.,&Schoffstall,A.M.(2007).Incorporatingguided-inquirylearningintothe

organicchemistrylaboratory.JournalofChemicalEducation,84(5),848-851.

Gallet,C.(1998).Problem-solvingteachinginthechemistrylaboratory:Leavingthecooks.


Garnett,P.J.,&Garnett,P.J.(1995).Refocussingthechemistrylab:Acaseforlaboratory-

basedinvestigations.AustralianScienceTeachersJournal,41(2),26-39.

Goldkuhl,G.(2012).Pragmatismvsinterpretivisminqualitativeinformationsystemsresearch.

EuropeanJournalofInformationSystems,21(2),135-146.

GreenW.,Elliott,C.,&Cummins,R.H.(2004)."Prompted"inquiry-basedlearninginthe

introductorychemistrylaboratory.JournalofChemicalEducation,81(2),239-241.

Hart,C.,Mulhall,P.,Berry,A.,Loughran,J.,&Gunstone,R.(2000).Whatisthepurposeofthis

experiment?Orcanstudentslearnsomethingfromdoingexperiments?Journalof

ResearchinScienceTeaching,37(7),655-675.

Herrington,D.G.,&Nakhleh,M.B.(2003).Whatdefineseffectivechemistrylaboratory

instruction?Teachingassistantandstudentperspectives.JournalofChemical

Education,80(10),1197-1205.

Hmelo-Silver,C.E.,Duncan,R.G.,&Chinn,C.A.(2007).Scaffoldingandachievementin

problem-basedandinquirylearning:AresponsetoKirchner,Sweller,andClark(2006).

EducationalPsychologist,42(2),99-107.

Hofstein,A.(2004).Thelaboratoryinchemistryeducation:Thirtyyearsofexperiencewith

developments,implementation,andresearch.EducationResearchandPractice,5(3),

247-264.

References

232

Hopkins,T.A.,&Samide,M.(2013).Usingathematiclaboratory-centeredcurriculumto

teachgeneralchemistry.JournalofChemicalEducation,90(9),1162-1166.

Hunt,H.(1935).Demonstrationsasasubstituteforlaboratorypracticeingeneralchemistry.


Hunter,C.,Wardell,S.,&Wilkins,H.(2000).Introducingfirst-yearstudentstosomeskillsof

investigatorylaboratorywork.UniversityChemistryEducation,4(1),14-17.

Hutchings,B.(2006).Principlesofenquiry-basedlearning.Retrievedfrom

http://www.ceebl.manchester.ac.uk/resources/papers/ceeblgr002.pdf.

Iimoto,D.S.,&Frederick,K.A.(2011).Incorporatingstudent-designedresearchprojectsin

thechemistrycurriculum.JournalofChemicalEducation,88(8),1069-1073.

ImperialCollegeLondon(2015).Labs,lecturesandexams.Retrievedfrom

https://www.imperial.ac.uk/chemistry/undergraduate/course-structure-and-

content/labs-lectures-and-exams/.

Johnstone,A.H.,&Al-Shuaili,A.(2001).Learninginthelaboratory;somethoughtsfromthe

literature.UniversityChemistryEducation,5(2),42-51.

Jones,S.M.,Yates,B.F.,&KelderJ.(2011).Sciencelearningandteachingacademicstandards

statement.Sydney,Australia:AustralianLearningandTeachingCouncil

Kable,S.H.,&Read,J.R.(2007).Educationalanalysisofthefirstyearchemistryexperiment

'ThermodynamicsThink-In':anACELLexperiment.ChemistryEducationResearchand

Practice,8(2),255-273.

Kampourakis,C.,&Tsaparlis,G.(2003).Astudyoftheeffectofapracticalactivityonproblem

solvinginchemistry.ChemicalEducationResearchandPractice,4(3),319-333.

Kelly,O.C.,&Finlayson,O.E.(2007).Providingsolutionsthroughproblem-basedlearningfor

theundergraduatefirstyearchemistrylaboratory.ChemicalEducationResearchand

Practice,8(3),347-361.

References

233

Kelly,O.C.,&FInlayson,O.E.(2009).Ahurdletoohigh?Students'experienceofaPBL

laboratorymodule.ChemicalEducationResearchandPractice,10(1),42-52.

Kennelly,J.(2010).Methodologicalapproachtoassessingtheevidence.InA.K.Handler,J.

Kennelly,N.Peacock(Eds.)Reducingracial/ethnicdisparitiesinreproductiveand

perinataloutcomes:Theevidencefrompopulation-basedinterventions(pp.7-19).

NewYork,NY:Springer.

Kirschner,P.A.,Sweller,J.,&CLark,R.E.(2006).Whyminimalguidanceduringinstrutiondoes

notwork:Ananalysisofthefailureofconstructivist,discovery,problem-based,

experiential,andinquiry-basedteaching.EducationalPsychologist,41(2),75-86.

Kolensik,W.B.(1975).Humanismand/orBehaviorismineducation.Boston,MA:Allynand

Bacon.

Lagowski,J.J.(1990).Entrylevelsciencecourses:Theweaklink.JournalofChemical

Education,67(3),185

Lagowski,J.J.,Elliott,M.J.,&Stewart,K.K.(2002).Theroleofthelaboratoryinchemistry

education.JournalofChemicalEducation,85(1),145-149.

Laredo,T.(2013).Changingthefirst-yearchemistrylaboratorymanualtoimplementa

problem-basedapproachthatimprovesstudentengagement.JournalofChemical

Education,90(9),1151-1154.

Long,R.D.(2012).Usinggroup-inquirytostudydifferingreactionconditionsintheE2

eliminationofcyclohexylhalides.JournalofChemicalEducation,89(5),672-674.

Lyle,K.S.,&Robinson,W.R.(2001).Teachingscienceproblemsolving:Anoverviewof

experimentalwork.JournalofChemicalEducation,78(9),1162-1163.

Miles,M.B.,&Huberman,A.M.(1994).Qualitativedataanalysis:Anexpandedsourcebook

(2nded.).ThousandOaks,CA:Sage.

References

234

McInerney,D.M.,&McInerney,V.(2010).Educationalpsychologyconstructinglearning(5th

Ed).FrenchsForest,NSW:PearsonAustralia

Mohrig,J.R,Colby,D.A.,&Hammond,C.N.(2007).Onthesuccessfuluseofinquiry-driven

experimentsintheorganicchemistrylaboratory.JournalofChemicalEducation,84(6),

992-998.

Montes,L.D.,&Rockley,M.G.(2002).Teacherperceptionsintheselectionofexperiments.


Monteyne,K.,&Cracolice,M.S.(2004).What'swrongwithcookbooks?AreplytoAult.Journal


Newton,T.A.,Tracy,H.J.,&Prudenté,C.(2006).Aresearch-basedlaboratorycoursein

organicchemistry.JournalofChemicalEducation,83(12),1844-1849.

Nulty,D.D.(2008).Theadequacyofresponseratestoonlineandpapersurveys:whatcanbe

done?Assessment&EvaluationinHigherEducation,33(3),301-314.

O'Toole,P.,&Rice,J.(2010).Acallforchangeinscienceteachingatuniversities.Chemistryin

Australia,77(2),22-25.

Pavelich,M.,&Abraham,M.(1979).Aninquiryformatlaboratoryprogramforgeneral

chemistry.JournalofChemicalEducation,56(2),100-103.

Pickering,M.(1993).Theteachinglaboratorythroughhistory.JournalofChemicalEducation,

70(9),699-700.

Perkinson,H.J.(1984).Learningfromourmistakes.Westport,CT:GreenwoodPress.

Pullen,R.,Yates,B.F.,Dicinoski,G.W.(2014).Apreliminarystudy:Anevaluationand

redevelopmentofcurrentfirstyearlaboratorypractices.InternationalJournalof

InnovationinScienceandMathematicsEducation,22(7),23-34.

Read,W.T.(1941).Thecurriculumforthebachelorofsciencedegreeinchemistry.Journalof

ChemicalEducation,18(12),569-572

References

235

Reid,N.,&Shah,I.(2007).Theroleofthelaboratoryworkinuniversitychemistry.Chemistry

EducationResearchandPractice,8(2),172-185.

Ricci,R.W.,&Ditzler,M.A.(1991).Alaboratory-centeredapproachtoteachinggeneral

chemistry.JournalofChemicalEducation,68(3),228-231.

Sandi-Urena,S.,Cooper,M.M.,Gatlin,T.A.,&Bhattacharyya,G.(2011).Students'experience

inageneralchemistrycooperativeproblembasedlaboratory.ChemicalEducation


Savery,J.R.,&Duffy,T.M.(2001).Problembasedlearning:Aninstructionalmodelandits

constructivistframework.Availablefrom

http://wordpress.uark.edu/tfsc/files/2014/09/Problem-Based-Learning-.pdf

Seery,M.K.,McDonnell,C.,&O'Connor,C.(2007).Developingpracticalchemistryskillsby

meansofstudent-drivenproblembasedlearningmini-projects.ChemicalEducation


Slunt,K.M.,&Giancarlo,L.C.(2004).Student-centeredlearning:Acomparisonoftwo

differentmethodsofinstruction.JournalofChemicalEducation,81(7),985-988.

Taconis,R.,Ferguson-Hessler,M.G.M.,&Broekkamp,H.(2000).Teachingscienceproblem

solving:Anoverviewofexperimentalwork.JournalofResearchinScienceTeaching,

38(4),442-468.

Tobin,K.,Tippins,D.J.,&Gallard,A.J.(1994).Researchoninstructionalstrategiesforteaching

science.InD.L.Gabel(Ed.),HandbookofResearchonScienceTeachingandLearning

(pp.45-93).DonMills,Ontario:MacmillanPublishingCompany.

Tomasik,J.H.,Cottone,K.E.,Heethuis,M.T.,&Mueller,A.(2013).Developmentand

preliminaryimpactsoftheimplementationofanauthenticresearch-based

experimentingeneralchemistry.JournalofChemicalEducation,90(9),1155-1161.

References

236

UniversityofSydney(2015).Seniorchemistry.Retrievedfrom

http://sydney.edu.au/science/chemistry/studying-chemistry/undergraduate/senior-

chemistry.shtml.

UniversityofTasmania.(2011).Guidelinesforgoodassessmentpractice(Rev.Ed.).Retrieved

fromwww.teaching-

learning.utas.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0004/158674/GAG_v16_webversion.pdf

Hobart,Australia:Author.

UniversityofTasmania.(2015a).KRA001Chemistryfoundationunitoutline.Hobart,Australia:

Author.Availablefromauthoruponrequest.

UniversityofTasmania.(2015b).KRA113Chemistry1Aunitoutline.Hobart,Australia:Author.

AvailablefromAuthoruponrequest.

UniversityofTasmania.(2015c).KRA223Chemicalanalysisunitoutline.Hobart,Australia:

Author.AvailablefromAuthoruponrequest.

UniversityofTasmania.(2015d).KRA342Catalysisandreactionprocessesunitoutline.Hobart,

Australia:Author.AvailablefromAuthoruponrequest.

Vyvyan,J.R.,Pavia,D.L,Lampman,G.M.,&Kriz,G.S.(2002).Preparingstudentsforresearch:

Synthesisofsubstitutedchalconesasacomprehensiveguided-inquiryexperience.


Walker,J.P.,Sampson,S.,&Zimmerman,C.O.(2011).Argument-driveninquiry:An

introductiontoanewinstructionalmodelforuseinundergraduatechemistrylabs.


Weimer,M.(2006).Enhancingscholarlyworkonteaching&learning.SanFrancisco,CA:

Jossey-Bass.

Wellington,J.(Ed).(1989).Skillsandprocessesinscienceeducation.NewYork,NY:Routledge.

References

237

Wilczek-Vera,G.&Salin,E.D.(2011).Understandingfluorescencemeasurementsthrougha

guided-inquiryanddiscoveryexperimentinadvancedanalyticallaboratory.Journal


Yang,S.(2007).Howmanyatomiclayersofzincareinagalvanizedironcoating.Journalof


Yeung,A.,Pyke,S.M.,Sharma,M.D.,Barrie,S.C.,Buntine,M.A.,BurkedaSilva,K.,Kable,S.

H.,&Lim,K.F.(2011).TheAdvancingScienceofEnhancingLearningintheLaboratory

(ASELL)project:ThefirstAustralianmultidisciplinaryworkshop.InternationalJournal

ofInnovationinScienceandMathematicsEducation,19(2),51-72.

Yin,R.K.(2006).Casestudymethods.InJ.L.Green,G.Camilli,&P.B.Elmore(Eds.),Handbook

ofcomplementarymethodsineducationresearch(pp.111-122).

Zoller,U.,&Pushkin,D.(2007).MatchingHigher-OrderCognitiveSkills(HOCS)promotiongoals

withproblem-basedlaboratorypracticeinafreshmanorganicchemistrycourse.

ChemicalEducationResearchandPractice,8(2),153-171.

an evaluation and redevelopment of current laboratory ... · an evaluation and redevelopment of...

Documents