P r i n t • S o f t w a r e • O n l i n e • B o o k s J o u r n a l o f C h e m i c a l E d u c a t i o n

Laboratory courses are an ever-present form of teaching in chemistry, despite little evidence for their impact upon student learning. The chemistry community is challenged to consider the evidence basis for laboratory teaching commensurate with the significant investment of cost and time to provide this instruction.

Research on learning in the undergraduate chemistry laboratory necessitates an understanding of students' perspectives of learning. Novak's Theory of Meaningful Learning states that the cognitive (thinking), affective (feeling), and psychomotor (doing) domains must be integrated for meaningful learning to occur. The psychomotor domain is the essence of the chemistry laboratory, but the extent to which the cognitive and affective domains are integrated into the laboratory is unknown. For meaningful learning to occur in the undergraduate chemistry laboratory, students must actively integrate both the cognitive domain and the affective domains into the "doing" of their laboratory work. The Meaningful Learning in the Laboratory Instrument (MLLI) was designed to measure students' expectations before and after laboratory courses and experiences, in both the cognitive and affective domains, within the context of conducting experiments in the undergraduate chemistry laboratory. The MLLI was pilot-tested and modified based on an analysis of the pilot study data. The revised, 31-item MLLI was administered online both at the beginning and end of a semester to both general and organic chemistry laboratory students. Evidence for both the validity and reliability of the data, as well as comparisons between general and organic chemistry students' responses, are discussed.

Faculty perspectives of the undergraduate chemistry laboratory were the focus of a study to articulate the goals, strategies, and assessments used in undergraduate teaching laboratories. Data were collected via semistructured interviews with faculty (N = 22) from community colleges, liberal arts colleges, comprehensive universities, and research institutions engaged in teaching or supervising undergraduate laboratories. The goals for general chemistry, organic chemistry, and upper-division laboratories are described and compared among faculty who have received NSF-CCLI (now called NSF-TUES) grants to implement changes in laboratory and those who have not. Problems and limitations to success in laboratory are also reported, and the impact of these obstacles on student achievement and laboratory curricula is discussed.

Forty chemistry faculty from American Chemical Society-approved departments were interviewed to determine their goals for undergraduate chemistry laboratory. Faculty were stratified by type of institution, departmental success with regard to National Science Foundation funding for laboratory reform, and level of laboratory course. Interview transcripts that were coded and analyzed using the lens of meaningful learning reveal the importance of cognitive and psychomotor goals relative to affective learning, particularly in organic chemistry and upper-division chemistry laboratory courses. This research reveals that the undergraduate chemistry laboratory offers multiple opportunities for faculty to articulate learning goals across the cognitive, affective, and psychomotor domains. Furthermore, these goals are accessible across the undergraduate chemistry curriculum from general chemistry through organic chemistry and into a wide array of upper-division laboratories. In this study, faculty showed a decreasing emphasis on affective goals in organic chemistry and upper-division courses. Whether affective goals should be a part of the organic and upper-division chemistry curriculum remains a question for faculty to discuss.

Teachers use multiple representations to communicate the concepts of bonding, including Lewis structures, formulas, space-filling models, and 3D manipulatives. As students learn to interpret these multiple representations, they may develop misconceptions that can create problems in further learning of chemistry. Interviews were conducted with 28 high school physical science, high school chemistry, and general chemistry students. The interviews focused on identifying student understanding of, and misconceptions about, covalent and ionic bonding representations through analysis of both student-created and expert-generated representations. Misconceptions about bonding representations were identified regarding four themes: (i) periodic trends, (ii) electrostatic interactions, (iii) the octet rule, and (iv) surface features. The Bonding Representations Inventory (BRI) was developed to quantify the prevalence of these misconceptions. The BRI was administered to 1072 high school chemistry, advanced placement chemistry, and general chemistry students across the United States. Content validity was determined through expert validation of the items, and concurrent validity was established by comparing the three groups of students. Reliability was determined through individual item analysis and through Ferguson's δ. Suggestions are offered for using the BRI in high school and general chemistry classrooms to inform the teaching of both bonding and representations.

No abstract

No abstract