Conversation: Revisiting Meaningful Learning Outcomes in the General Chemistry Laboratory while Being
Mindful of the Practicality of Large-Scale Implementation
Colleen Taylor, Virginia State University
April Hines, Virginia Commonwealth University/ Randolph Macon College
Ashley Jordan, Virginia Tech
Abstract: The course design to be discussed was implemented for a summer second-half general chemistry lab
lecture with three sections of associated labs. Major changes were made in order to increase the level of learning
outcomes from a performance prospective (Elger, 2007). The design was initiated in consultation with an
undergraduate neuroscience major and a teaching assistant in a chemistry program from two institutions with
common laboratory course components and practices. The major changes implemented included: (1) the recording
of general laboratory procedures, eliminating laboratory handouts (2) the implementation of a performance grade (3)
a requirement for Excel data manipulation in lab and (4) inclusion of two practical open-inquiry exams to replace
paper tests. Rubrics were designed to assist in consistency and ease of grading for the teaching assistants. A survey
after the course with an 88% response rate indicated the following: (1) 100% of the students believed the practical
exams were more appropriate than the paper exams (2) 84% felt that not reading a handout during lab increased their
ability to focus on what was going on in lab experimentally (3) 96% reported feeling more confident about
performing under pressure because of their lab experience and (4) 82% reported an increase in their graphing and
problem solving skills. With the overwhelmingly positive feedback from the survey and standard course evaluations
one may expect that the students found the format easier than their previous experiences. Contrary to that
assumption, 91% reported being challenged to a higher level than they had been in their previous lab courses. This
design may provide a template for larger scale implementation of a more appropriate 100 level experience.
Literature Review
What defines meaningful learning in the chemistry laboratory seems to be a subject that spurs as much diversity of
opinion as does the idea of conceptual learning (Holme, Luxford & Brandriet, 2015; Bretz, Fay & Towns, 2013;
Bretz, 2001). Chemistry laboratory certainly must add something meaningful to the science major curriculum to
justify the time, expense and resources needed to maintain the practice (Hilosky, Sutman & Schmuckler, 1998).
Why not replace the labs with the use of virtual laboratories? Virtual labs can be quite effective having been shown
to meet learning outcomes without the practical component of the laboratory (Khanal, 2014; Climent-Bellido et al.,
2003). However, suggest that the “real” laboratory be eliminated in any program and you are likely to meet with
great resistance. Even if learning theory per say is not articulated by instructors of chemistry, most describe the
hands-on laboratory as a unique opportunity to address not just the cognitive domain but also affective and
psychomotor skills in a way that cannot be addressed solely in the classroom or online. Bretz, Fay and Towns
collected survey data of forty American Chemical Society approved departments revealing the cognitive, affective
and psychomotor outcomes according to their categorization.
Cognitive: The laboratory experience should…
 support the course content (make connections)
 connect content to everyday situations (range of content)
 provide conceptual understanding
 integrate other disciplines
 provide opportunities for critical analysis
 improve communication in the context of the scientific community
Affective: The laboratory experience should…
 be relevant to the future employment and other coursework
 promote collaboration and teamwork
 promote independence in the laboratory
Psychomotor: The laboratory experience should…
 allow development of laboratory technique
 provide experience in using laboratory equipment
There is sufficient literature to suggest that open or guided inquiry models better challenge the student and address
higher levels of learning (Xu & Talanquer, 2013; Dekorver, 2010). Attempts to implement these types of learning
experience on a large scale have met with great resistance. In fact, many schools do not use inquiry based techniques
and still require a good portion of the lab grade come from paper exams despite reporting that performance part of
the lab (affective/ psychomotor) are important components. The complication in reaching and measuring these many
outcomes is the need to provide consistency across many sections of laboratory and eliciting student motivation to
learn from the lab rather than go through the motions of completing a recipe.
Description of Topic to be Discussed
The primary focus of this discussion is whether or not current common design models of laboratory provide and
promote desired learning outcomes. How can changes be implemented across many sections of lab in a practical
way to address higher level learning outcomes and maintain consistency/ease in grading?
Goals and Objectives
Much as has been written in regard to flipping the classroom, yet the active chemistry lab, can still provide some of
the same “lecture” activities that are not effective in the class environment. The objective of this discussion is to
open a dialog on the design of the chemistry laboratory. We would like to produce a list of the barriers to
implementing more inquiry-based and active learning models that may assist institutions on more effectively
addressing the outcomes that are important to their science majors.
Facilitation Techniques
Ten minutes will be used to present two alternative course designs and the survey data for the students in the study.
The participating authors, an undergraduate student and a graduate student teaching assistant, will offer their
prospective on different laboratory experiences and how each experience aligns or does not align with the desired
course outcomes. The audience is asked to share their prospective on the purpose of the general chemistry lab from
the point of view of their disciplines. They are encouraged to share practices that allow experiences in either
learning situation align with the common cognitive, affective and psychomotor outcomes.
References
Bretz, S. (2001). Novak's Theory of Education: Human Constructivism and Meaningful Learning. Journal of
Chemical Education, 1107-1107.
Bretz, S., Fay, M., Bruck, L., & Towns, M. (2013). What Faculty Interviews Reveal about Meaningful Learning in
the Undergraduate Chemistry Laboratory. Journal of Chemical Education, 281-288.
Climent-Bellido, M.S., Martínez-Jiménez, P., Pontes-Pedrajas, A. and Polo, J. (2003). Learning in Chemistry with
Virtual Laboratories. Journal of Chemical Education, 346-352.
Dekorver, B. (2010). Book Review of Investigating Chemistry through Inquiry: Experiments Using Open and
Guided Inquiry Approaches Investigating Chemistry through Inquiry: Experiments Using Open and Guided
Inquiry Approaches by Donald L. Volz and Ray Smola Vernier Software & T. Journal of Chemical
Education, 789-789
Elger, D. (2007) Theory of performance. In S. W. Beyerlein, C. Holmes, & D. K. Apple, (Eds.), Faculty Guidebook:
A comprehensive tool for improving faculty performance (4th ed. pp 19-22). Lisle, IL: Pacific Crest.
Hilosky, A., Sutman, F., & Schmuckler, J. (1998). Is Laboratory Based Instruction in Beginning College-Level
Chemistry Worth the Effort and Expense? Journal of Chemical Education, 100-100.
Holme, T., Luxford, C., & Brandriet, A. (2015). Defining Conceptual Understanding in General Chemistry. Journal
of Chemical Education, 1477-1483.
Khanal, P. (2014). Making virtual learning interactive and meaningful: Implications of constructivism for adult
students. IJRSE International Journal of Research Studies in Education.
Xu, H., & Talanquer, V. (2013). Effect of the Level of Inquiry on Student Interactions in Chemistry Laboratories.
Journal of Chemical Education, 29-36.