«gain?»
.,. kw: ; R .11 .

z. .4 x
.i ‘ L 1:

L“...-
V . . v. ,

s «z...

9%”me

i 955...:
..\ ..

. ‘ 15.5
V: 13:. . w
‘

«A . “.5 .f...
as; A; .

I!

a. . V
a 3.... Wk. . a a?
an: a

w,
.

«annoy n ,.
as”? ,

,r
9

u ”Nun“
Punk»... «do,
‘07 I .. q.
.2.

ii.’
l. 52:40.. . -1
#34 .. I...

 

 

THESIS

I. Q r

\4- q~
‘3 x

U“
“'¥\ f
c-
a)

This is to certify that the
thesis entitled

SCAFFOLDING EXPERIMENTS IN SECONDARY
CHEMISTRY TO IMPROVE CONTENT DELIVERY

presented by
DAVID JAMES JACKSON

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for the

degree in

Master of Science in Teaching
Division of Science and Mathematics Education

ja ////444M -

Major Professor 5 Signature
/c3 027 ”5‘
y I
Date

MSU is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution

-._¥_t-.— — -l-l-O-O-O-A-A-.- .-

-va-__ -

v I —v v“

 

LIBRARY
Michigan State
University

 

 

 

PLACE IN RETURN Box to remove this checkout from your record.
To AVOID FINES return on or before date due.
MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested.

 

DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

6/01 c:/CIRC/DanDuo.p65-p.15

 

SCAF FOLDING EXPERIMENTS IN SECONDARY CHEMISTRY TO IMPROVE
CONTENT DELIVERY

By

David James Jackson

A THESIS

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of requirements
for the degree of

MASTERS OF SCIENCE IN TEACHING
Division of Science and Mathematics Education

2004

 

in 3 hi;
labs w]
proces:
inquir}
skills, I
based (
was me
inquir}
labs to
Ihinkir
Studcr
experil
Scaffo'

caPabl

Abstract
Scaffolding Experiments in Secondary Chemistry to Improve Content Delivery
By

David James Jackson

The focus of this study was an attempt to bring balance to the laboratory approach
in a high school chemistry course. Traditional labs have been identified as “cookbook”
labs where skills and facts may be reinforced, correct data is verified, but higher order
processing may not be required. A greater number of teachers have been turning to
inquiry labs also known as “open ended” labs to assess and encourage critical thinking
skills, as well as the understanding of concepts within their classrooms. This project was
based on the idea that a balance of informational, process and inquiry-based experiments
was necessary since not every student is entering high school chemistry is ready to do
inquiry-based experiments. My goal was to build a transition from traditional process
labs to inquiry labs that would build a confidence in students to pursue higher order
thinking and problem solving, while encouraging a greater understanding of concepts.
Students need this transition to develop strong foundational skills. The grouping of
experiments from lower level cognitive skills to higher order thinking skills is known as
scaffolding. This grouping would give teachers the assurance that their students were

capable of such open-ended inquiry experiments.

 

 

I would IiI
Gerabnn, ant
Aubrey Anne

time to finish

Thanks to

Finally, II

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I would like to express my deepest appreciation to my wife of seventeen years,
Geralynn, and all my wonderful children, Joshua David, Cody James, Katelynn Rose and
Aubrey Anne. Thank you for enduring with me though this process and allowing me the
time to finish this work. You all have been the biggest blessings in my life, I love you.

Thanks to Dr. Merle Heidemann for your patience and help all these years.

Finally, to the Lord for your undying faith and grace over my life, thank you!

iii

 

List of Tables
List of F igurt

Introduction
Smmm
Comm
School
Class I

lmplementat:
Scatfo
Measu
Evaluation .
Object
Anom
Discussion 3

Literature R.

Appendices

:FKHfizpmeCW?
r—vr—dHr—cr-tr-qr—tr—‘Hr—‘mhfifid

BibIIOgraph

Table of Contents

List of Tables ............................................................................................................ v
List of Figures ........................................................................................................... vi
Introduction ............................................................................................................... 1
Statement of Rationale .................................................................................... 3
Community Profile .......................................................................................... 4
School Profile .................................................................................................. 5
Class Profile .................................................................................................... 5
Implementation ......................................................................................................... 5
Scaffolding Outline ......................................................................................... 7
Measurement tools .......................................................................................... 13
Evaluation ................................................................................................................. 14
Objectives ....................................................................................................... l4
Anomalies in Data ............................................................................................ 25
Discussion and Conclusion ....................................................................................... 28
Literature Review and Discussion ............................................................................ 31
Appendices
A. Pretest and Scoring Rubric ....................................................................... 53
B. Post-Test and Scoring Rubric .................................................................. 59
C. Retention Test and scoring Rubric ........................................................... 65
D. Lab: What is it For? ................................................................................ 67
E. Lab: Scientific Process ............................................................................ 71
F. Lab: Density ............................................................................................ 73
G. Lab: Identification of Unkown Metal ..................................................... 77
H. Demo: Endothermic/Exothermic ............................................................ 78
1. Lab: Heat of Fusion. (reference) ............................................................. 80
J. Lab: Mystery Food. Calories .................................................................. 79
K. Lab: Ob-scertainer Lab Kit. (reference) .................................................. 80
L. Lab: Mystery Box ................................................................................... 81
M. Lab: Light ................................................................................................ 83
Bibliography ............................................................................................................. 89

iv

List of Tables

Table 1: Data Overview ....................................................................... 15
Table 2: Pre, Post and Retention Test Average Class Scores .......... 22
Table 3: Six Major Categories of Bloom’s Taxonomy ..................... 40
Table 4: Pre/Post-Test Scores Questions #1 and 2 ........................... 84
Table 5: PrelPost-Test Scores Questions #3 and 4 ............................ 85
Table 6: Pre/Post-Test Scores Questions #5 and 6 ........................... 86
Table 7: Pre/Post-Test Scores Questions #7 and 8 ........................... 87
Table 8: Pre/Post-Test Scores Questions #9 and 10 ......................... 88

List of Figures

Figure #1: Reponses to Pre/Post Questions #1-3 .................................................. 17
Figure #2: Reponses to Pre/Post Questions #4-6 .................................................. 18
Figure #3: Reponses to Pre/Post Questions #7-9 .................................................. 19
Figure #4: Reponses to Pre/Post Question #10 ..................................................... 24

vi

Introduction

I set out to assess the practicality of integrating informational labs, process labs
and open-ended inquiry laboratory activities into a standard high school chemistry
course. Scaffolding is the process of integrating each of these types of lab activities
together to improve learning. An informational lab has a step-by—step procedure prepared
for the student to follow. In this lab activity the idea is to expose the student to a
chemistry concept, but higher order thinking skills are not addressed. These activities are
to improve concept retention and offer hands-on experiences to compliment different
learning styles. A process lab, also known as a cookbook or traditional lab, is one in
which the student is given a step-by-step procedure to obtain data that can be used to test
or illustrate a chemistry concept. Questions are given at the end of the lab to get the
student to process the concept at a higher level. The student is not required to understand
the reason for the process, but simply follow directions to verify a standard result. The
inquiry lab is a laboratory activity where the student is given a problem to solve with
little or no direction. The student has to design the experimental approach, conduct the
experiment, analyze the data and hypothesize a plausible conclusion. Inquiry labs are the
most difficult for the student because of the lack of direction given by the overseeing
instructor. Green, Elliott and Cummins reported in their findings that, while students
do tend to immerse themselves in inquiry-based projects... they often find it diflicult and
time-consuming to propose an appropriate research question. ” (Green, Elliott and
Cummin, 2004) Most students do not have the necessary skills in a first year high school

chemistry course to do this type of higher order investigation. This lack could be due to

prior instruction, school curriculum, available hands-on experiences or even social
attitudes. Without the necessary background techniques or knowledge, an inquiry lab can
be an overwhelming task to some students and even traumatic to some teachers. The
students and the teacher need to be certain that they have a minimum set of skills
necessary to achieve success. “It is not always easy to draw the proper balance between
introducing the spectrum of learning areas a student needs to experience and provide
ample time for discussing, reflecting on, and digesting the material. ” (Howard and
Boone, 1997). As I began to research the topic of alternative approaches to laboratory
investigations I found it necessary to write a down my findings and droughts about the
necessity of balancing secondary lab experiments. Included in this thesis is a paper

(pg. 31) discussing the importance of a proper layout of experiments within the chemistry

curriculum.

Rationale

My expectation in this study was to learn how to group experiments that would
move students from a skill and knowledge approach into greater critical thinking. This
approach would give more meaning to each lab and allow students to work at higher
cognitive levels. Better lab activity design should eventually lead to better understanding
and retention. The grouping of experiments from lower level cognitive skills to higher
order thinking skills is known as scaffolding. This grouping would give teachers the
assurance that their students were capable of such open-ended inquiry. This approach
was also noted in an article by Thomas R. Tretter, (2000), Physical Science Lab
Essentials, “Students bring their skills up to speed with a logical sequence of activities. ”
Students are not always from our district and may have differing amounts of background
knowledge & skills, so we can never be certain of each student’s scientific background.
How can we move our chemistry students in the direction of inquiry based labs where
they will be required to design and evaluate their own experiments, when we are not
positive of each person’s skill or knowledge level? “The context of a course is perceived
difi’erently by students and teachers, because their experiences, knowledge, goals and
motivations are diflerent. ” (Carter and Brickhouse, 1989). I was disappointed with
students conducting labs in which they simply followed a set of steps, filled in some
blanks and within minutes could not explain the purpose for the experiment. In this
project laboratory skills are first strengthened through a set of process or informational
labs with greater teacher involvement. This background knowledge would ensure the
teacher and students that they have acquired the minimum skills to work on labs where

there is little to no teacher involvement. Once appropriate background skills are

introduced and practiced the students are given self-directed inquiry labs. Scaffolding is
the process of putting laboratory experiments to a logical sequence that develops &
strengthens students’ skills, and then these primary activities are followed by a more
challenging inquiry, problem-based activities. The overall outcome would be students

who have science understanding similar to the scientific community.

Community Profile

The community of Baton Rapids is located 12 miles south of Lansing, Michigan.
It is a rural community of about 5000 citizens within the town and 10,500 within the
school district boundaries. With very little industry, most growth is due to serving as a
bedroom community for employers in the Lansing area. A North Central Accreditation
survey noted that the three major employers of residents were, The Buick/Old/Cadillac
Group, State of Michigan and Michigan State University. The main sources of income

for residents could be divided in to six categories.

Technical ............................. 30%
Managerial/Professional. . . . . . . . .15%
Sales .................................... 25%
Miscellaneous ......................... 20%
Service .................................. 20%
Farming ................................. 2%

School Profile

The district supports (3) Elementaries for grades 1St - 4th, (1) Intermediate
building for grades 5th — 6‘“, (1) Middle School for grade 7th - 8‘h and (1) High School for
grades 9“1 —12"‘. There were 1074 students enrolled in the high school during the year of
this project. Of those enrolled, the composition of the student body was; (52.5%) Male,

(47.5%) Female, (95%) Caucasian, (5%) Minority.

Class Profile

A total of 24 students were in the introductory chemistry course, but data was collected
for 22 students. (8 male and 14 female) Others had either dropped the course or had not
completed the required paperwork to allow their work as part of this project. A
counseling department based on individual scheduling, actually determines the
composition of the classes. The students in this class represented the broad spectrum of

academics and social-economic backgrounds as diverse as Eaton Rapids itself.

Implementation

In general secondary chemistry courses are designed to train students to be
scientific drinkers. Scaffolding“ was designed to allow the students to experience lab

activities at each of three levels to improve their chemistry understanding and retention.

* See Abstract for full description of Scaffolding

To achieve scaffolding I inserted some new labs into the current method of content
delivery I had been using in the past. I chose process and informational labs that would
help build laboratory skills, such as proper instrumentation use and data collection.

These labs familiarize students with the laboratory setting. They demonstrate necessary
experimental procedures the student would need to know to attempt the inquiry lab later
in each unit. The information labs were chosen based on positive student responses in the
past. The inquiry activities chosen or written were selected based on the earlier labs
conducted in each unit. For example, if density determination was practiced in a process
lab, the inquiry lab, later in the unit, would also require density to be determined for an
adequate conclusion to be drawn. The student should be able to use their previous lab

experiences as a starting point for the open-ended investigation.

The content of this work covers three chapters in our first year chemistry course.
The topics included matter, energy and atomic structure. In previous years, this amount
of material required about 7 '/2 weeks to complete formal instruction, laboratory activities
and assessments within a 55-minute class period. With the introduction of the

scaffolding approach, the time line increased to 10 '/2 weeks.

The following is a week-by-week lesson plan to show the placement of the labs and
the overall amount of time spent on developing the scaffolding. Most of the daily lessons
included a discussion time, a reading, and then an assignment from the text. Each day

listed identifies the concept or idea presented in class.

Week #1

Class/'1‘ hesis Introduction
Graphing Rules/Assign.
Book Work; Refresher math
Lab Check in/ Lab Safety

No School

Week #3

Writing Proper Lab Reports
Physical Properties of matter
The Scientific Process

Lab: Scientific Process (*3)

Finish Lab/Equipment Quiz

Week #5

Test: Matter

Lab: Ident. Of Unknown Metal (*5)
Lab: Ident. Of Unknown Metal
Computer Research for Report

Types of energy

‘1- See appendix: Item A
‘4- See appendix: Item F
‘7- See appendix: Item I

*2- See appendix: Item D
*5- See appendix: Item G

W

Labor Day

Scaffolding Pro-Test (*1)

Class Syllabus/Science Equipment Intro.
Lab: What is it For? (*2)

Matter/Element Quiz

Week #4

Density: Problems/Graphical
Chemical Properties of matter
Chapter Review: Matter
Lab: Density Lab (*4)

Discussion of Chapter Review, Matter

Week #6

Computer Research, Densities of Unknowns
Demo: Endothermic vs Exothermic (*6)
Heat/T emp/ Calorimetry

Model Problem Solving/Video

Lab: Heat of Fusion of Ice (*7)

*3- See appendix: Item 13
*6- See appendix: Item H

Week #7
Energy Concepts
Calorimetry Problems

Model Problem Solving
No School/Conferences

Energy Chapter Review

Week#9

Development of Atomic Theory

Ob-sertatiner Lab (*2)

Scientists of the Atomic Model
No School/Power Outage

Video: Atomic Model

Week #1 1

Light Lab (*4)

Week #8

Discussion of Chapter Review, Energy
Energy Test

Lab: Unknown Food Calories (*1)
Calorie Lab

Calorie Lab Research

Week #10

Electromagnetic Radiation

Mystery Box Lab (*3)
Isotopes, Mass No#, Atomic Mass

“The Atom” Chapter Review

No Classes/Professional Development

Discussion of Chapter Review, Atomic theory

Atomic Theory Test

Scaffolding Post Test (*5)

*1- See appendix: Item I
*5- See appendix: Item B

*2- See appendix: Item K

‘3- See appendix: Item L

Scaffolding Activities

The following is a description of each lab and its relation to the content.
Unit I: Matter
What is it for? Laboratory Equipment (Appendix: Item D)

This is a newly designed informational lab where the student determines energy
and mass changes in water heated by a candle. The student is exposed to basic chemistry
equipment such as graduated cylinders, beakers, thermometers, balances, ring stands and
safety equipment. The concept of error and degree of accuracy involved in each type of

measurement is also introduced.

Scientific Process (Appendix: Item E)

This is a newly designed process lab that addresses the scientific approach. The
student questions, hypothesizes, experiments and concludes why salt aids in the melting
of ice. Students write down their predictions of what they think will happen to the
temperature of a container of ice when salt is added. They run their experiment along
with a control and make careful observations. They then discuss their findings in a
conclusion along with a hypothesis of what they believe is the scientific basis of their

data. This is the first chance students are given to engage in critical thinking.

Density Lab (Appendix: Item F)
In this process lab the students determine the density of a liquid and an

irregularly shaped solid. The student is exposed to more organized data collection,

volume by displacement and calculations with error analysis, which will be necessary for
the inquiry lab in this unit. They are required to identify the unknown metal from a list of

densities. Accuracy and precision is stressed.

Identification of an Unknown Metal (Appendix: Item G)

This is an inquiry lab where students are in the role of a company chemist. They
must identify metal samples and suggest a mining focus for the company. Students run a
bench density analysis on unknown metal samples and put their previous lab and math
skills to use. They run a library/intemet research on each metal to determine its cost
effectiveness to mine. Price and demand are of prime importance. Many metals are very
close in density and sometimes students need to repeat their experiments to make sure of
their findings. Finally, they draft a report to the company geologist summarizing their

data and suggest a possible course of action that is in the company’s best interest.

Unit 2: Energy

Endothermic/Exothermic Demonstration (Appendix: Item H)

This is an informational demonstration showing the difference between
exothermic reactions and endothermic reactions. The lab helps to reestablish the idea that
exothermic reactions release energy causing an increase in temperature and endothermic

reactions absorb heat, lowering temperature.

10

Heat of fusion of Ice (Appendix: Item I)

This is a textbook process lab in which the student determines the heat of fusion
of ice. This lab introduces the concept of specific heat capacity, energy changes during
phase changes and energy calculations. The student is introduced to, energy changes

during phase changes.

Calorie Determination of an Unknown Food (Appendix: Item J)

This is an inquiry lab that allows students to analyze the calorie content in various
foods. Students are sent a new food sample from the “company” for final analysis. They
are to compare the new food sample to other food samples and determine its calorie
content. Students are to recommend a name for the food, suggest serving size and

product placement.

Unit 3: Atomic Theory

Obs-Certainer Lab (Appendix: Item K)

This is process lab that allows students to make indirect observations using simple
plastic trays with various internal partitions. The students tilt the tray and by listening to
the sounds they make inferences into the tray’s interior design. The purpose is to teach
students to make observations without the use of sight and draw conclusions from these

indirect observations. Students are allowed to open the trays to check their predictions.

ll

Mystery Box Lab (Appendix: Item L)

In this newly designed inquiry lab activity, students determine the contents of a
box using only indirect observations. Students must analyze, discuss & predict the
contents and their arrangement within the box interior. Students are even able to separate
parts of the box, which leads to more detailed observations. The lab encourages complex
thinking skills. Students allowed to run the experiment as many times as they wish, but
the boxes are never opened, so students can never directly verify if their predictions.

This leads into the discussion of the idea of the atom and how science has determined our

atomic model through indirect observations.

Light Lab (Appendix: Item M)

This is a short informational lab designed to show students the spectrums of
various elements and lead them to the understanding of how light is created. They get to
view and sketch the spectrums of several elements and answer a few simple questions

about light and why each element has a unique spectrum.

These laboratory activities were the tools I used to implement this study. Their
arrangement was based on the idea of scaffolding. A pre-test was given to each student
prior to the study to determine student knowledge at the beginning of the study. Upon
completion of these units a post-test was administered to measure acquired knowledge.
In mid November the class moved on into other chemistry topics and again at the
beginning of May the students were given a retention test to measure their long-term

retention of the topics presented in this study. These pre, post and retentions tests were

12

the tools I used to collect the data in the following section. Each student was randomly

assigned a number and scored. The data is broken down into pre and post-test questions

with each student response listed in a table. An average score for each response was

tabulated to determine overall change in student knowledge. Tables of these scores are

available in appendix item #10.

1)

2)

3)

4)

Students were assessed in this study by four major components.

A pre-test (Appendix: Item A) to check students’ existing knowledge. The test
consisted of nine questions, each one aligned to the units presented in this paper.
A post-test (Appendix: Item B) to measure the changes in students understanding
based on the concepts presented. Nine questions similar to the pre-test, but with
slight variation to not be identical. Then the final survey question to again check
student attitudes towards inquiry science.

A retention test, (Appendix: Item C), which was designed to measure the
retention level of each student comprehension after a specific amount of time has
elapsed since the material was presented and tested. Five questions designed to
mimic the pre and post questions and check long-term retention.

A survey question was included in each pre and post -test to measure student

confidence inquiry science lab activities.

13

Evaluation

The assessments were designed to check incoming knowledge of each student and
provide a level of comparison to the knowledge accumulated from the new teaching
style presented. The post-test would determine the new level of understanding and
the retention test was designed to measure knowledge after a length of time had past.
The survey question was designed to measure individual changes in attitudes towards

science as the course progressed.

As we continue in this discourse, I would like to clearly define my goals when

evaluating this unit:

1) Measure and evaluate how scientific understanding is affected by
implementing the scaffolding process within the secondary laboratory setting.

2) Measure and evaluate how the retention of knowledge is affected when the
scaffolding process is implemented within the laboratory setting.

3) Measure and evaluate any changes in student attitude towards chemistry when

the scaffolding process is implemented within the laboratory setting.

To evaluate scientific understanding, each test question was scored based upon a
rubric of points for specific responses. Averages for correct responses were calculated
for each test item and then recorded for comparison purposes. Finally t-Test results were
run to see of the Null Hypothesis could be rejected for aligned pre and post-test items.

6‘ H

We determined our p value parameters based on the t-Test for each pre and post-test

14

pairs to be (+ 0.05). For a “p ” value < 0.05 the data is considered statistically different.

‘6 H

For a p value > 0.05 the data is considered statistically the same.

The following table is provided as a quick overview of the results. Complete
results of individual student scores for each question on the pre and post-test are located

on pages 83-87 of the appendix.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 1: Data Overview
Question Pre-test Post-test Average “p ” value Chemistry
Avg. score Avg. score change result concept

#1 3.64 3.24 Decrease 0.66 Equip. Ident.
#2 2.18 l .76 Decrease 0.009 Equip. Usage
#3 2.50 3.24 Increase 0.019 Equip. Set up
#4 3.14 2.24 Decrease 0.001 Science Process
#5 2.32 3.00 Increase 0.027 Density
#6 1.55 2.62 Increase 0.006 Density Calc.
#7 l .64 2. 14 Increase 0.012 Accur./ Prec.
#8 0.82 1.67 Increase 0.007 Endo/ Exo
#9 0.91 0.86 Decrease 1 .00 Calorimetry
#10 2.41 3,24 Increase No Data Survey

 

 

 

 

 

 

15

 

The data above indicated that there were significant gains in the areas of
equipment identification in setting up a lab, density concept , density calculations,
accuracy & precision and endothermic & exothermic. There were no significant changes
in equipment identification and usage, science processing and calorimetry. These

decreases are discussed and explained later in this evaluation.

The following charts of individual scores were created for each aligned question
pair to allow for a visual comparison of each student’s progress in the study. Each
question on the pre-test that coincides with the post-test are placed together so a
comparison can be made of the new teaching method implemented in this study. Below
each graph the average score on the pre and post-test is listed for the entire class. The
reader can then see whether the class improved on the test item after instruction had taken
place. The pre-test score is indicated by the solid dark bar and the post-test score is
indicated by the white bar. A quick overview can also be made to which students scored
higher on the post-test after instruction had taken place since each student is identified by

a number 1-22.

16

Figure #1 Reponses to Pre/Post Questions #1 -3

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Solid Bar: Pre-Test White Bar: Post Test
Test Question #1
5 .
4
2 3 ~
8
m i L """"
oi . .
P 0’) IO N O) ‘— (‘O In N O) ‘-
‘- ‘- ‘- v- 1- N
Student
I 1
Average Score Pre-test: 3.64 Post Test: 3.24
Test Question #2
4
e 3 .
s 2-
m 1 7,
0
Average Score Pro-test: 2.18 Post Test: 1.76
Test Question #3
5
4
2 3 -
o
«3 2 .
1 a .
0 - ,. .
‘- ('0
Student
Average Score Pre-test: 2.50 Post Test: 3.24

17

 

Figure #2 Reponses to Pre/Post Questions #4-6

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Test Question #4
5 _.
4
5 3 ’
(a 2 ‘
1 _
0
Student
Average Score Pro-test: 3.14 Post Test: 2.24
Test Question #5

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

21 I:

 

Studs nt J:

Average Score Pre-test: 2.32 Post Test: 3.00

 

Test Question #6

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Score
Ode-hm
I

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

‘- (‘0 IO N O) ‘- 0‘) IO N O)
1- ‘-

Student

21

 

 

I

Average Score Pro-test: 1.55 Post Test: 2.62

18

Figure #3 Reponses to Pre/Post Questions # 7-9

 

 

Test Question #7

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Score
O—th-b
I
I

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Student
Average Score Pre-test: 1.64 Post Test: 2.14
Test Question #8 i
5
4
to f _ .
0 mm a“ .l i . T ,
‘- m m r e : :2 a t: 92 a
Student
Average Score Pre-test: 0.82 Post Test: 1.67
Test Question #9 l
5
4 -
O
a 3 ' " *
a: i 'r" _ ‘ (N ’
" ‘” ‘° " °’ 1: ‘3 9 I: 93 X:
Student
Average Score Pre-test: 0.91 Post Test: 0.86

19

 

My first goal was to measure and evaluate the improvement of scientific
understanding of the students involved in this project. I noticed an overall increase in
their abilities to approach the concepts more scientifically. The majorities of the testing
showed the students made some real gains and were able to grasp the chemistry concepts
at a deeper level. Students had shown gains in the basic skills of Equipment usage, test
item #3. They were able to identify and decide what items were necessary for a
laboratory activity. In the past, they would take one of each item on the supply table,
even if their lab didn’t require the equipment. Now they were demonstrating the skill to

evaluate the equipment’s use and decide if it was necessary for the investigation at hand.

The concept of density is also traditionally taught in the first week of most high
school chemistry courses. Even when most students are exposed to the concept of
density at an early age, I have found many students lack the full understanding of density
both, conceptually or mathematically. They showed improvement in their scores in both
these areas as test items #5 and #6 show. Students were able to distinguish the
differences between density values for various objects and correctly determine what a
larger or smaller density value means. Mathematically the students were also stronger.
They were able to state how to determine density and comment on it usefulness for
identification within the science field. They began to understand the value of density
when they needed to identify various unknown metals. This greater understanding of

density was evident in their scores.

20

The final two areas the showed improvement was item #7, Accuracy vs. Precision
and item #8, Endothermic vs. Exotherrnic. The need for quality data became evident to
them when they were identifying unknown metals. Without accurate values a correct
metal could not be easily selected from the list since many metals have densities that are
very close in value. Students began to address their poor lab skills to improve the data
they were collecting and a greater focus on technique was evident. Students knew better
laboratory skills equate into better density values. Better values lead to easier
identification. The definitions of “endothermic” and “exothermic” are commonly
switched around and easily mistaken by students. Their increased scores on test item #8
proved they began to grasp the concept that temperature changes accompany energy
transfers. Students could identify endothermic changes create decreases in temperature

while exothermic changes create increases in temperature.

As the unit progressed I note that students began to show improvement in their
approach to the laboratory activities and for the most part they became more actively
involved in the learning process. I was excited to see them take more initiative in their
learning. The laboratory portion of the chemistry class began to show greater relevance
and greater enhance the learning taking place in the students. Quickly followed recipe
labs were replaced by investigations that encouraged the students to participate at level I
had not experience before. I began to see the changes I have been looking for in the
laboratory. Students were experiencing true scientific growth. They were thinking,

discussing and investigating problems as a scientist would, there was less standing and

21

waiting and more students were seeing differences and experiencing difficulties that had

to be either fixed or explained. No more passive learning. Science was happening.

My second goal was to evaluate the students’ ability to retain their knowledge for

a longer period of time. In early May I gave a short retention test of five questions. Four

were aligned directly to the pre and post-test and the final question came from the

material on light that I had taught in this project. The retention test can be seen in

appendix item C and individual student scores are noted in Tables #1 -7 of the appendix.

The five items tested were: equipment set up and use, density calculations, endothermic/

exothermic concepts and accuracy vs. precision of scientific data. The following chart

shows the average score between the aligned items on the pre, post and retention test.

Table 2: Pre, Post and Retention Test Average Class Scores

 

 

 

 

 

 

Retention Chemistry Pre/Post Pre-test Post-test Retention
Test No# Concept Test item Avg. score Avg. score Avg. score
1 Equipment usage #3 2.50 3.24 2.60
2 Density Calc. #6 1.55 2.62 2.55
3 Light Not aligned 1.70
4 Endo/Exothermic #8 0.82 1 .67 1 .35
5 Accur/Precision #7 1 .64 2.14 2.95

 

 

 

 

 

 

The retention test showed strong gains in long-term retention. When students

were tested months after instruction took place, they were still able to make sound logical

responses to previously taught scientific concepts. Item number 5 of the retention series

22

 

showed still another increase. This was because successive lab activities in later chapters
required accurate data. Students had been still practicing accuracy and precision even
after the project material had ended. There was a decrease in the average scores, but this
is to be considered normal for the time that had passed. Most students were able to either

correctly or partially respond to the questions. They were showing signs of retention.

This was also evident in the class. When previous topics from the project
material were used to bridge understanding to new concepts being presented, students
were able to answer more background questions. Recall was better and less time was
needed to develop concepts and the class progressed forward at a better rate. I was
impressed with how the students were doing in the long run. Scaffolding was doing what
I had hoped it would for the students as well as for the class as a whole. Teaching was
more time consuming by incorporating inquiry labs, but the result of better understanding
on the students’ part made for better discussions and stronger foundations for future

topics.

My final goal was to assess the students’ confidence in science. I used a survey
question on the pre and post-test to assess student confidence. I had experienced a large
amount of apprehension in the chemistry class in the past. Numerous students professed
to being afraid of chemistry and not liking science. I felt this was part of the reason why
some students never truly put forth a full effort in chemistry. If they think they cannot do
something, they tend to live up to their expectations, regardless of our expectations for

them. The protest survey checked student confidence to scientifically answer an

23

unknown problem. The post-test survey showed a 24.7% increase in student confidence.
Every student either stayed the same or showed an increase in confidence. Figure # 4
shows a chart of student changes in confidence as the project progressed. Their
confidence was measured in the pre-test then again in the post-test after completion of the

project.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure #4 Reponses to Pre/Post Question #10

I " '7 "I
l Test Question #10 I
‘ l

2

8

(0

Average Score Pre-test: 2.41 Post Test: 3.24

Students were allowed to freely respond after the survey question to clarify their

rating of their confidence to solve an unknown problem. Here are a few of the responses.

0 “It doesn ’t hurt to try, yet you never know if you can come up with an answer. If

everyone could come up with an answer there would be a lot of things that would

be curable. ”

24

o “It would be easy to get info from anywhere, but knowing it hasn ’t been attempted

make it diflicult. ”

o “If you can get help fiom anyone you should feel pretty confident. ”

o “It depends on the problem. ”

o “I think I could do it, but it would be very diflicult to come up with the methods
and try to solve the problem ”

0 “Given the proper resources, a good amount of time, 1 would give it a try. ”

With the overall results and responses given by the students I feel very confident
in the scaffolding approach to laboratory investigations. Given a little more time and
adjustments, I believe that this guided approach to inquiry problem base laboratory
approach is a successful way to improve scientific thinking in our secondary high school
chemistry. It would make the investigative portion of chemistry take on new relevancy

and instill more confidence in our upcoming scientists.

Anomalies in Data

As I began to tabulate the data, I realized there were some correlation problems
between the pre-test and post-test results. Some of the results were revealing a poorer
student performance afler working through the designed curriculum. Each of the pre and
post-test question were directly aligned as mentioned earlier. If item #1 on the pre-test
addressed equipment identification, then item #1 on the post-test was also on equipment

identification. According to my hypothesis, a decrease in the % of correct responses on

25

the post-test should not have been the case. After further investigation I began to realize

there was a problem with the questions I chose to assess student knowledge.

In question #1 on the pre-test I chose common laboratory equipment to be
identified, a graduated cylinder and beaker. However, in the post-test question #1, I had
chosen two pieces of equipment I believed were common, but one had not been used thus
far in any of the investigations we had done. So identification and recognition relied on
memory from a basic review, and not from hands-on use. This may have been the reason
for the slight decrease in correct student responses. The pre-test posted a 3.64 average
score response, whereas the post-test posted a 3.24 average score. This small change was
most likely due to the error of the equipment I selected to be identified. Labs that that
required the use of a clay triangle were not conducted during the project trial period. The
iron ring, which was frequently used in our project laboratory activities, was easily

identified on the post-test. This accounts for the small deviation in the first testing item.

A similar problem arose on pre and post-test item #2, description of equipment
use. The graduated cylinder posed no trouble for the majority of the class; knowing it is
used to measure the volume of various liquids. The pre-test average was 2.18 and the
post-test 1.81. The watch glass, the focus of question #2, had not been used in the
experiments we conducted to this point. Thus, students didn’t acquire first hand
experience on the uses of a watch glass within the laboratory setting. The “p” value for

question #2 based on the Null Hypothesis was 0.009, within our parameters, but there

was an overall decrease in correct responses. It is when a student actually uses the

26

equipment they can truly understand its usefulness. Without laboratory exposure I would
assume most students would not be able to adequately explain its role in laboratory

experiments even if they were introduced to it in lecture.

Another anomaly occurred in question #4. The Pre-test simply asked for a
description of the steps scientists use to solve a problem. When I wrote the post-test I
disguised the same question using real-life occupations. The “p” result was 0.001, but
the overall correct student responses decreased. They students were asked the set of steps
a veterinarian, doctor, biologist and chemist would use to conclude why a large group of
deer had died. Instead of the steps, the students provided examples of job descriptions.
They were correct in their responses, just not in—line with my response expectations,
describing the general steps in the scientific method that all scientist use when

approaching a problems.

The same problem arose in question #9 on calorimetery. Students performed
poorly on the pre-test, so I made a strong effort to clarify the difference between calories
and fats. However, with all the public information about eating, diets and fats, it was
extremely hard to change student ideas. Many answered the questions based on popular
information, but few were able to make the transition to a chemical viewpoint. Most
answers centered on the dangers of fats, whereas I was seeking a response to the energy

required to break those fats down.

27

At the end of this evaluation I learned that the questions presented in any teaching
situation have to be well defined. Wording that may seem clear in the teacher’s mind
may be very easily misinterpreted by the student. It was in the wording I believe many of
these anomalies occurred. The project, based upon the data and the changes I saw in the
students’ scientific thinking and behavior, was a powerful learning experience. This
project has dramatically altered my direction of teaching. Upon evaluating this data I
believe this new laboratory approach will significantly impact the students I will
encounter in the future. In the future, I would focus on the questions presented to make
every effort so they cannot be misinterpreted. I realize that this is a difficult task and
every question can be misunderstood, but with all I have learned through this project I

believe I could create questions that would better clarify the response being sought.

Discussion and Conclusions

My goal in this entire process was to learn if by arranging the experiments in the
lab from traditional, basic skill labs, to more open-ended inquiry labs, that this form of
instruction will improve understanding, retention and attitudes towards secondary. In the
past I have come across many students who view laboratory activities as “boring” and
“irrelevant”. Numerous students seemed passive and willing to let the students labeled as
“smart” or “intelligent” do the majority of the lab work and follow-up report. These
students who were able to let others do the work, would label themselves verbally as
“dumb” or “not very good in science”. This allowed only a select number of students to

benefit from the learning that was available in the laboratory setting. My desire was to

28

build into each student’s understanding that they can “do” science and that they are
capable of significant scientific thinking. I believe that this study was successful in
revealing that students are capable of scientific thinking, but they must be prompted and
guided into this type of work. Inquiry problem based science is not the norm in most
high school settings, but with the scaffolding students can be taught to process at these

higher cognitive levels and be taught to think more scientifically.

As I reflect over the course of my work I began to realize the scope of my project.
I set out to improve the instructional delivery within the laboratory environment. As a
whole I believe that the inquiry, problem-based approach to laboratory instruction is an
important restructuring that needs to occur within the secondary high school lab setting. I
found this type of instruction challenges the students. Many were not at all remotely used
to being left to forage through their scientific background to develop a focused
hypothesis and effectively pursue it experimentally. As they began the arduous task of
self-dependence and began to use all the possible resources available to them, I saw
growth in the use of their scientific processing. I could see them working together and
the questions they were asking during laboratory activities were more guidance rather
that blind help. Instead of “What do I do now?” they began to ask, “Could we do this.”
They were coming up with their own suggestions and not relying on me for as much
direction. I enjoyed watching the students together bring in the own piece to solve the

puzzle that lay before them.

What I learned was that students will not reach deep into themselves to create an

adequate problem solving schematic unless driven by an outward problem. As a product

29

of traditional formalized instruction it has been difficult to leave the highly ordered, step-
by-step, process labs. These labs are easy to predict, easier to guide and leave very little
room for error and unknown possibilities. They are like the consistent nature of an old
friend, “you always know what they will do”. Traditional labs are easy to set-up, take
less time to work through and the results are very consistent. However, these labs do not
always develop the scientific thinking students need. This is where inquiry lab activities
come in. Without the discovery aspect of the inquiry labs, the evolution of scientific
thought by individual students would not develop. As a result, I am currently trying to
bring more open-ended activities into my instruction, both within the laboratory and
within the classroom presentations. These activities are key to helping the students
discover the true “process of science”. How can we ever expect them to become pure
scientists if they are new given the chance to fly under their own abilities? “I think that
developing imagination, scientific creativity, and intellectual autonomy is far more

important that the accumulation of cold knowledge. ” (Gallet, 1998).

In reflection, I have come to see my teaching develop in ways I never thought
possible. This research has opened me up to a greater passion and desire to see the
instruction within my classroom become a type that will develop and foster new
scientists. Scientists that have the capabilities and attitudes to solve problems and

research ideas they never thought possible.

30

Scaffolding Lab Activities to Improve Science Learning and Retention
I. Statement of Problem and Rationale

The purpose of this research was to determine the effectiveness of organizing
laboratory experiments, from basic skills to open-end student driven labs, to
concept retention and attitude toward science inquiry.

11. Need for format driven labs.

Traditional labs allow students to practice experimental techniques.
Traditional labs produce good, not necessarily good scientists.
Memorizing information without assirnilating it.

Sterilizing imagination and initiative with recipes.

Moving away from process labs.

WPOP?

III. The value of inquiry labs

Using higher order Bloom’s taxonomy.

Investigative experiments enhance student learning.
Students must participate in the pedagogical process.
Inquiry takes longer.

When is enough enough?

WDOW?

IV. Bridging the gaps between skill labs and opened labs
A. Is there enough background to build upon?

B. More work getting in, but learning is higher.
C. Balance is better

31

Building Balance in the Chemistry Laboratory

Laboratory instruction has always been regarded as an important component of
the secondary science curriculum. “Although researchers have found it to possess the
potential for enriching the formation of science concepts by fostering inquiry, intellectual
development, problem-solving skills, and manipulative skills, it often fails to reach its full
potential. ” (Hofstein and Lunetta, 1982). In my course I felt the same way. The lab
activities were filled with a wealth of information and each was well correlated to the
concepts presented in our chemistry book. Textbooks supply labs that are well aligned
with each chapter allowing theory to be applied in a practical way. Even with this good
correlation, I had to agree that my labs were not impacting the students to the degree that
I would like. “My students could turn out as good cooks, but not necessarily good
scientists! ” (Gallet, 1998). During my research, I found many papers recently written on
the impact of inquiry based laboratory experiments at the secondary level. I will refer to
many of them as I develop this paper. More and more of the articles began to draw a
poor picture of the use of traditional laboratory experiments, because of their lack of use
of higher order cognitive thinking skills. I knew these traditional experiments, although
cookbook style in nature, are still key to developing necessary skills. “Recipes and
procedures are a point of departure; used thoughtfully, they can develop skills and
provide insight. What’s wrong with cookbooks? Nothing! ” (Addison Ault, 2002) There
needs to be a balance, but where is it? My hope was to find a series of experiments that

would take the each person in my lab from student to scientist, from cook to researcher.

32

Within the scope of this discussion I will present the need for both traditional and inquiry

lab exercises.

I. The Need for format driven labs.

A. Traditional Labs allow students to practice experimental techniques.

Traditional labs have been the mainstay of secondary science for years. Many
teachers today are products of this teaching style. Many students are still working out of
lab manuals that are primarily cook-book style experiments. The students follow a step-
by-step procedure with diagrams to obtain some consistent data that is standard for that
type of laboratory work. They record this data into a provided table or chart.
Calculations may be necessary to arrive at the final numerical outcome and usually the
equation is provided. The challenge for the student comes at the end in the form of
questions. A series of questions are posed with the expectation that greater understanding
of the concepts being explored will be developed. Sometimes an explanation of the lab
results may be required or a comparison to a known scientific result may be made. The
expectation is that the student will understand how the lab experiment ties into the current
subject matter being taught in the classroom. Whether or not this truly happens within
the mind of the budding scientist may not be important as the skills being acquired in the
laboratory. Earlier labs within a course should be geared towards building and practicing
lab skills. Only lower level scientific thinking skills should be addressed in these

introductory labs until the important lab skills have been fully developed.

33

“Beginning high school students may not have a firm foundation in the
prerequisite skills to succeed in a laboratory-oriented science course, yet they
are expected to develop these skills and a years worth of scientific literacy by
the end of the course. Science teachers are therefore faced with the task of not
only teaching the content mandated by the accountability scheme but also with
teaching many of the prerequisite skills necessary for students to succeed in a
lab science ” (Tretter, 2000).
A technique or skill can prove to be much more important than the concept itself.
This is not to put content learning into a secondary role, but basic skills are important!
Sports can demonstrate this point quite well. Even though an athlete will need to
understand the rules and strategies of the game to succeed at all levels, they first need
fundamental skills to be an effective player. Intelligence without ability, is of little use.
A student may be able to calculate density, but they need to be able to measure the mass
and volume of an object first. Traditional experiments build these important skills.
Technique requires practice to be strengthened and sharpened. Basic skills such as
reading thermometers, balances, graduated cylinders, decanting, filtering, heating and
numerous other common laboratory techniques need to be honed. Without quality lab

skills students will continue to get poor results and which will hinder their ability to draw

adequate conclusions even from insightful inquiry labs.

B. Traditional labs produce good results, not necessarily good scientists.

The goal of all lab work within the science curriculum is to link theory with actual
experimental results. Laboratory experiments take conceptual knowledge and bring it to

life with practical application. These activities are traditionally designed for students to

34

gather data with good precision, have a high likelihood of success and get results that are
less controversial. This is not true for real science. Research and developers explore
unknown avenues of thought, exploring hypotheses that could lead to a dead-end, yet still
hoping to learn from unexpected results. Secondary science has stayed away from this
type of approach. We design labs that are easy to prepare, grade and are time efficient.
In cookbook style labs everybody does the same thing, the lab is easier to supervise, the
outcome is known by the instructor and relevant to the lecture. Where is the creativity,
the discovery? Secondary science has the dubious task of teaching content and basic
skills. Focusing on skills may produce good results, not necessarily good scientists.

“ Without well-reasoned teacher intervention in both the design laboratory structure and
its implementation, students rarely develop understanding similar to that of the scientific
community. ” (Clark, Clough, Craig, 2000). As educators we work to develop deep and
long-term understanding in students. Trying to instill in them the ability to process and
act as a scientific thinker. Traditional process labs are good at building foundational
laboratory skills, but are they creating the type of scientists we need in the future?
Research shows that laboratory experiments are not fulfilling the purpose for which they
were designed "Laboratory activities, as they are currently being implemented, do not
enhance students ’ learning or understanding of science. ” (Hoffstien and Lunetta, 1982).
Other researchers, Lazaworitz and Tamir, 1994, support these findings. As we begin to
change our focus to encouraging the evolution of the scientific processing in students and
less on the exactness of their data, we should begin to see scientists emerging form our

classes.

35

C. Memorizing information without assimilating it.

Although teachers place significant value on the laboratory experience, they
sometimes do not implement the tasks in a manner that facilitates the type of learning
desired. “ ...In most cases the laboratory investigation is intended to confirm something
that has already been dealt with in a expository type lesson. Students are usually
required to follow a recipe in order to arrive at a predetermined conclusion. As a
consequence the cognitive demand of the laboratory tends to be low. " (Tobin, 1987). To
become retained knowledge, information must pass through the cerebral cortex, integrate
into the twisting web of neurons and ultimately find its resting place within the reaches of
the student memory. This is to say, “When are the students going to own what we teach
them?” The ownership of knowledge is much different that its use. We need to

understand how knowledge is transmitted and how it is assimilated.

Gallet (1998) reminds us of the findings of St. Jean’s (1994) work, “Traditional
teaching creates surface or superficial learning, characterized by high levels of
memorization and student dependence on the professor for the distribution of work
Students retain little of what they learn and have difficulty applying what they know. ”
The memory can be a place of simple short-term storage with little chance of recall at a
later time. To regurgitate some minute fact on an exam for a specific grade is the overall

implication for the science course. Our chemistry laboratory courses need to be more

than a requirement on the path to a higher degree. Students need to see and experience a

36

scientific growth within themselves. They need obtain an ability to develop thoughtful

questions and confidence at formulating the steps to discover the solutions they desire.

D. Sterilizing the imagination and initiative with recipes.

Getting the “A” does not mean as much as it did. Students can learn how to
function within a system and know how to achieve a specific score, yet not truly
understand the concept presented. Traditional experiments can be easier for the student
in the short term, but have little effect in engaging scientific processing on the student’s
part. Teacher may find these labs easier to conduct and students are more successful
with these structured labs, but what are they missing? Students find these labs boring,
inflexible, lacking discovery, easy to manufacture data, simple to copy, lacking creativity
and do not learn relevant problem solving skills. “...fi‘eedom to explore was replaced by
specific directions on what to observe, measurements were frequently reported as data or
as conclusions, and there was always the “right” answer to the experiment.” (Hurd,
1969). Students need flexibility to stir the imagination. When labs have little flexibility
and are based on a set of rigid sequential steps the student becomes mentally passive.
There is no need to fully engage the mind. Students only do what is needed, because
cookbook experiments do not require creativity. The mind goes into to autopilot and
discovery is set aside for the sake of a “correct” result. The traditional process lab is
designed as an important bridge between theory and practice, which allows for deeper
understanding of abstract ideas, but for true scientific thinking to be birthed the student

needs more. “What the traditional laboratory ofien fails to capture, however, is the

37

process of scientific inquiry — the excitement, intellectual challenge, and, indeed, the
frustrations and rewards, that accompany scientific work ”(Green, Elliott, Cummins,
2004). “Recipe experiments tend to sterilize imagination and initiative, leaving no room
for hypothesis, trials, errors, individual responsibility in a group, and above all, preclude
the student ’s involvement in a decision-making process — which is so important to our
modern society. ” (Gallet, 1998). For the sake of generating true scientific thought and
decision-making skills in our students, traditional experiments will not suffice. We must

pursue active learning where the whole student is engaged in pedagogical process.

E. Moving away from process labs.

Now the goal lay before us; restructure the laboratory environment into one that
fosters higher order pedagogical processing. Leaving traditional verification laboratory
experiments that are so deeply entrenched into our classrooms will not be simple. There
are many advantages to the traditional lab exercise. Teachers must be convinced of the
importance of this change before it will happen in their class. We also need to
understand why teachers are hesitant to replace their current laboratory-teaching model

for a new one.

In a study of secondary school teachers by Montes and Rockley (2002) found
teachers believed there were strong advantages to using traditional verification approach.
“F or example, several advantages consistently topping the teachers’ list deal with the

ease of the verification experiments. Teachers appreciate the fact that they can fit an

38

experiment into an allotted amount of time. Teachers also report the verification
experiments save time because they are well tested, simple to prepare, easy to grade and
are easily adjusted to accommodate small or large classes. ” The teacher needs to be
able to reach all the learning styles in a classroom as well as meet the rigors of teaching
in a secondary environment. Most teachers work within a specific set of guidelines.
Their classes are 40-55 minute long, so it is necessary to do experiments that fit into this
time frame. Available equipment must be to meet the need of 24-30 students, sometimes
in laboratories designed to hold less. The advantages on the benefits of the traditional lab
approach seem to hinge more on familiarity and convenience for the teacher. What about
the student? Can we change the laboratory setting and meet the needs of both student and

teacher? YES!

One approach to achieving change in the laboratory is to rework or modify
laboratory exercises that are already being used. Articles have been written discussing
how to convert traditional verification experiments into inquiry based experiments. Such
as Herman, 1998, Green Elliott and Cummin, 2004 and Clark, Clough and Berg, 2000.
This allows the teacher to work within a familiar lab format and provide structure to the
student. It also gives the student some leeway to move in the direction of a more pure
scientific work. This allows them to generate and test their own hypotheses and draw
more independent conclusions. This method allows us to move away from our traditional
experiments and begin to embrace the open-ended inquiry approach. It doesn’t, however,
mean we have to abandon our past. We need to preserve that which is foundationally

good in our past practices and build upon them. Allowing ourselves to teach at either

39

extreme is not to the advantage of the student. We need to incorporate that which is good
from both view points and work from the fertile ground of learning that comes from

balance between these two approaches.

II. The Value of Inquiry Problem-Based Labs.

A. Using higher order Bloom ’s taxonomy.

The modern student is required to move and work at a faster pace and a much
higher level than ever before. Knowledge in many scientific fields is expanding at
astounding rates. If our students are to keep up with this increase and continue in the
discovery process, it has become necessary for them to work at higher order thinking
skills at younger ages. Today students are being required to move beyond the simple
lower order cognition skills (LOCS), such as knowledge, comprehension and application
to working with higher order cognition skills (HOCS), such as analysis, synthesis and
evaluation. A more in depth description of each of these skills is addressed in Table 3,
pg. 42. “The development of higher order cognitive skills in the context not only of the
specific content and processes of the science disciplines but also of the interrelationships
of science, technology, environment, and society has become one of the most important
goals of chemistry and science education. ” (Zoller, 1999). To shift from the use of
LOCS to the HOCS will require a change in the teaching strategies at all levels of science
education, especially at the secondary level in the area of laboratory experiments.

Several undergraduate lab manuals were evaluated to assess the claim that traditional labs

do little to develop the higher order thinking skills of college students in an article written

40

by Daniel S. Domin (1999). In conclusion he makes the following statement; “All but
one of the laboratory manuals, that foster only lower-order cognition, share a similar
structure (i) an introduction in which the concept of interest is presented and explained,
(ii) a stepwise procedure, (iii) ready made tables or fill-in the blank sections to record
data or results, and (iv) pre-lab and/or post-lab questions that require the utilization of
knowledge, comprehension and application. ” This is the basic structure of most
traditional labs. So where is the student encouraged to do higher-ordered thinking? The
traditional laboratory experiments create an environment that is ineffective in fostering
conceptual change. These foundational process labs still develop vital skills necessary to
perform more in—depth inquiry labs and cannot be thrown out all together. The open-
ended lab activity facilitates the development of the higher-order cognitive tasks. These
experiments place the student in the position of designing, developing, and conducting
their own experiments. This is the essence of inquiry or problem-based learning. The
inquiry strategy allows the learner to utilize all six levels of the Bloom’s Taxonomy,
integrating new experiences with the student’s prior knowledge. “Higher-order thinking
skills are recognized as a valuable component of science education and a necessity for
young adults entering the workforce. ” (Domin, 1999) The following table is a quick
reference to the six cognitive levels identified by Bloom. A brief description and

illustrative phrase is included with each level.

41

Table 3: Descriptions and Illustrative Phrases of the Six Major Categories of

Bloom’s Taxonomy of Educational Objectives

 

 

 

Cognitive Skill Description Illustrative Phrase
Knowledge The remembering of previously Defined terms, identifies objects,
learned material. states steps in a procedure.
Comprehension The ability to grasp the meaning Explains the concept, interprets
of the material. the graph, generalizes the data.
Application The ability to use learned Solves problems, utilizes concept
material in new and concrete in novel situations, constructs
situations. graphs.
Analysis
The ability to breakdown Identifies pertinent data,
material into its component parts. identifies inconsistencies,
establishes relationships between
Synthesis items,
The ability to put the parts
together to form a new whole. Forrnulates an hypothesis,
proposes a plan for experiment,
Evaluation proposes alternatives.

 

The ability to judge the value of
the material based on the definite
criteria.

 

Judges the value of data, judges
the value of experimental results,
'ustifies conclusion.

 

(Gronlund, 1985)

It is only when the lab experiments are designed to push the students to analyze,

synthesize and evaluate will we begin to foster greater student learning.

B. Investigative experiments enhance student learning.

Traditionally, scripted lab activities are extremely effective in developing a

student’s observational skills, lab-measuring skills and conveying the importance of

precision and accuracy in chemical measurement. They allow for an essential connection

to be formed between theory and practice so deeper understanding of abstract concepts

can occur. Where is the investigative thinking, the scientific processing? Are the

students becoming scientists? Are they answering questions, solving a problem they

42

 

encountered? True learning involves these types of processes. “Inquiry-based learning,
by contrast, emphasizes the explicit use of the scientific method and invites students to
generate and test their own hypotheses. ” (Green, Elloitt, Cummins, 2004). In efforts to
revitalize secondary chemistry courses and make the learning more relevant, teachers are
revising their methodologies and are using the inquiry problem-based approach more

widely in their classrooms.

There is a broad consensus that science education needs to engage students as
active learners. (N STA, 1987). This focus can be seen throughout science from new
textbook designs to catalogs selling project based lab activities. Investigative learning is
even making it into larger science conferences in education. This is because open-ended
laboratory activates require more of the student to get involved. Inquiry emphasizes the
use of the scientific method and invites students to generate and test their own
hypotheses. The student is given the chance to have more ownership in the laboratory
work and enjoy the opportunity to actually practice science as a real scientist might. This
type of lab work is more closely related to real-life. Leonard (2000) points out that more
significant active learning takes place in laboratories that model real-life applications and
allow the student to construct their own investigations. If we want to reach a vast number
of students in our society and create a larger pool of scientific candidates to replace our
science community we need to be engaging more students in scientific thought at the
secondary level. Inquiry science is improving learning by inviting more students to focus

in on science and develop deeper understanding.

43

C. Students must participate in the pedagogical process.

Effective science is one where the students take an active role in the learning
process. Shavelson, Baxter and Pine (1991) point out the research done by Glaser (1984)
and Resnick (1987) on cognition and instruction has changed our notions on how
instruction might be designed to facilitate learning.

“Rather than arranging instruction in a series of small steps that move students
fiom basic skills and facts to concepts and from concepts to problem solving, a
more holistic approach is taken. Students are viewed as active agents in the
teaching-learning process, constructing personal and shared meaning in the
subject matter. ...Hands-on activities and long term projects are the rule rather
than the exception.” (Montes and Rockley, 2002)

This coincides with other researchers that agree for students to master knowledge,
a student “must participate in the pedagogical process... instead of being a passive
receiver. ” (Whitehead, 1929). “Inquiry investigations encourage students to actively
participate more in science, even more notable in females. ” (Russell and French 2002).
Students need to buy-in to the learning process, allowing them to think, ask questions and
evaluate, not just memorize. We need to bridge those gaps that we created from teaching
chemistry through simple cookbook style labs. We need to make the lab more relevant,
interesting and applicable to real-life. We have to revitalize the laboratory setting and
push students into a place that minimizes the chance for complacency and passivity.
“Research shows students learn best when they can build on past experiences, construct

their own knowledge in collaboration with other students and faculty and communicate

their results eflectively. ” (Lundsford, Strope, 2002)

44

D. Inquiry takes longer and requires more effort.

All change brings new challenges. Inquiry-based teaching is not without it
difficulties. These hurdles can be broken down into to three major areas: teacher
preparation, materials and the most important of all, time. The adoption of inquiry-based
experiments into the majority of high school programs is happening at a much slower
pace than the amount of inquiry teaching materials being produced. Why are teachers
reacting slowly to this sweeping change in laboratory instruction? The focus of the 2004
Michigan Science Teachers Convention was “Science through Inquiry”. Educators want
it, reformers encourage it and students need it, so why is there a lapse in the movement
from theory to practice? There are advantages in the traditional verification experiments

and disadvantages in the inquiry-problem base approach that need to be addressed.

Convenience is of great importance to the secondary educator. Many teachers
have been brought up in traditional style of teaching and learning. These traditional labs
were simple, cookbook style, process labs that were easy to conduct. It was the way they
were taught and the way they learned how to process information scientifically. We
teach what we know. “While the decision to provide students with practical laboratory
experience is based on pedagogical reasons, the decision about what approach to use is
often made for the reason of familiarity or convenience. ” (Montes and Rockley, 2002).
Traditional verification lab manuals are still widely available and commonly used in most
secondary settings. These experiments are strongly entrenched in secondary curriculum
because they fit the school structure. A close relationship between a particular

experiment and lecture is an advantage of the traditional lab. An appropriate experiment

45

can be chosen that complements the lecture. Some inquiry labs may require more
knowledge or skills that have not been yet taught in the course. Teachers are going to
need better preparation on how to align and implement appropriate inquiry problem-

based experiments into their current curriculum.

“This ( Inquiry) manner of instruction, although possessing the potential to foster
all orders of cognition and meaningful learning, resurrects the problems that traditional
labs have resolved so effectively: the management of resources. ” (Domin 1999)
Designing an experiment involves a considerable amount of time. Unique designs may
require too much or too costly equipment. These are two of the major concerns at the
secondary level: time and money. In my experience with inquiry I have also noticed this
need for students to process, develop and test hypotheses. However, what would usually
take about seven weeks for my students to complete in material was now taking ten to
eleven weeks. There is a significant time requirement to complete inquiry science.
Curriculums would have to be adjusted to allow this inquiry approach, but the overall

advantage in student development is worth it.

E. When is enough enough?

Science education is swarming with many new and old pedagogical ideas.
Educators are constantly trying to improve their instructional approach and technique.
The push to change and improve surrounds us constantly. Meaningful learning is the
expectation set before us. Each new idea has it costs and inquiry based teaching is not

without it challenges. “Designing an experiment requires a considerable amount of time,

46

making it impossible to cover the same amount of content in the allotted time. Diflerent
students may design experiments that require diflerent pieces of equipment, creating a
logistical headache for the laboratory preparation. ” (Domin, 1999). How much time do
we have? Time is always of a premium and not without its constraints. Content must be
provided and topics must be covered. As in the marriage of all good ideas, there needs
to be some give and take. Numerous articles alluded to the fact that the open-ended,
problem based laboratory approach does take considerable time to be done appropriately.
(Green, Elliott and Cummins, 2004) and (Monte and Rockley, 2002) Even in my own
experiences of trying to incorporate more inquiry experiments, weeks needed to be added
to cover the same amount of material. Is the reward enough to keep us moving in this

direction? We have to for the sake of developing strong scientific minds.

III. Bridging the Gap between Cookbook Labs and Investigative Labs.

A. Is there enough background to build upon ?

Schools are designed on the concept of prior knowledge. The activities
determined for the second grade is based upon what is taught in the first grade. This
process is supposedly done through all twelve grades. Entire school systems are
gathering their educators from kindergarten through high school to align their
curriculurns in every area from Science to Music. Each year chemistry teachers began
their course with some expectation that students possess a particular set of lab skills.

Chemistry textbooks are being produced with reviews that continually test prior concepts

47

as new material is presented. All meaningful learning comes from the learner hinging
their new knowledge upon cognitive mindsets of the past.

“In order for meaningful learning to take place, three conditions must be
satisfied; (i) a student must have relevant prior knowledge to which the new
information can be related in a non-arbitrary manner, (ii) the material to learn
must be meaninghl in and of itself; that is, it must contain important concepts
and propositions relatable to existing knowledge, and (iii) a student must
consciously chose to non-arbitrarily incorporate this meaningful material into
his/her existing knowledge, a disposition which Ausubel labels as the
meaningful learning set. (Ausubel, 1963)

Relevant prior knowledge must be built into the foundations of our secondary
students if they are to be successful with open-ended inquiries. Even with this work on
the part of educators to build strong foundational knowledge, each student waltzes into
our room lacking important laboratory skills. Greater emphasis must be made to
determine what our students ‘do’ know and what they ‘need’ to know to be more
successful. This can be achieved through modifying existing traditional experiments to
encourage and develop necessary lab skills while enhancing the learning environment
with higher order thinking skills. “Eflective science teachers creatively modify activities
to incorporate students ’prior knowledge, engender active mental struggling with prior
knowledge and new experiences, and encourage metacognition. ” (Hand and Keys,

1999). Then new inquiry labs can be introduced to help the student master scientific

reasoning.

48

B. More work getting in, but learning is higher.

Although the inquiry-based science seems to be the new educational thrust these
days, many materials are still available based on traditional methods of instruction and
lots of teachers are still quite content using them. What will be the deciding factor to
prompt educators to embrace this new type of instruction? Effective teachers will always
be open to new forms of instruction as they begin to understand their benefits. “As
teachers gain familiarity with inquiry experiments and the availability of the experiments
increases, teachers will be more comfortable choosing this laboratory approach that has
advantages based on both pedagogy and convenience. (Montes and Rockley, 2002)
Teachers are discovering that the laboratory can be a richer learning environment for
students. A place where students can learn what it really means to do science. There are
some obstacles to overcome if a complete transformation is to take place within the
laboratory environment. Time, money and teacher confidence are the largest opponents
to this sweeping change in laboratory science. If done in smaller pieces each teacher can
adapt their laboratory course to reach their full potential. “Introducing project-oriented
format increases the preparation time for reagents and materials and requires vigilant
safety rule enforcement. These major practical issues suggest most colleges and
universities will be more successful at changing the laboratory in increments rather than
introducing sweeping changes in the lab curriculum. ” (Herman, 1998) Implementing
improvements is never without its struggles and grth always has it costs. As educators
we need realize verification experiments do not allow students to fully develop their
problems solving skills, so we are forced in to changing our methodology. Our decisions

about which lab approach to use cannot always be made by reasons of familiarity and

49

convenience. As we examine the gains and loses from each type of laboratory activity
and discover the lab can be transformed in to a richer learning environment, we will be
more eager to implement the inquiry approach to science. Creating a discovery lab
setting may require more commitment and time, but as we assess our overall goals of the

science lab we soon realize that the learning in an inquiry atmosphere will be much

higher.

C. Balance is better

Inquiry laboratory activities have taken the secondary high school lab to a higher
place of learning. Students are more involved on the pedagogical process and are being
allowed the time for deep processing. “It is through deep processing that students are
able to integrate new experiences with prior knowledge, establish a context for the
purpose of the laboratory activity, and determine it relevance to themselves—all of which
are characteristics of meaningful learning. ” (N ovak and Gowin, 1984). Traditional
laboratory activities, which sometimes seem simplistic with their recipe approach, are
also at the heart of this learning. These activities expose each student to new and
important skills, which are vital to making powerful hypotheses and establishing strong
conclusions No single method will suffice if our students are to become the scientists
our society will require tomorrow. The job market is demanding a work force that
possesses greater hands-on experimentation, problem solving and critical thinking skills.
Traditional labs coupled with inquiry experiments are helping our students meet this
calling. “In rethinking laboratory activities, teachers too ofien are presented with a false

dichotomy: at one extreme, students passively follow a cookbook laboratory procedure

50

or, at the other extreme, investigate a question of their own choosing. These extremes
miss the large and fertile middle ground that is typically more pedagogically sound than
either end of the continuum. ” (Lazarowitz and Tamir, 1994) We also have to understand
how these changes will impact the educators. Teachers are constantly being given new
tasks and agendas. Time is of a premium and not all changes can be logically placed
within the existing classroom framework. There is significant time involved and this
change will require new mindsets. Replacing traditional process labs with investigative
inquiry-based labs needs to be done at a pace that is comfortable to the teacher. As these
new methods are introduced and brought alongside the quality process labs we are
already conducting a balance will soon begin to emerge. This is a balance which will
move students to deeper levels of thinking and higher level of achievement within
science. “If one lab per semester or year is adapted to an investigative format, a balance
eventually can be reached between open-ended laboratory experience and more
traditional opportunities to practice complex experimental techniques. ” (Herman, 1998).
We need to see the definite advantages of both pedagogically sound instructional
methods and incorporate them into the curriculum to improve our overall result; highly

qualified scientific thinkers.

51

Appendices

Pre-test Name

 

1) Name the following pieces of equipment.

A) B)

 

(oil

2) What would you use a graduated cylinder for and for what kinds of materials?

3) Draw a picture of a setup you would need to boil water in a science lab.
Label each part of your drawing.

4) Write a brief summary of the steps a scientist would go through when they are
trying to solve a problem.

53

5) Three unmixable liquids were poured into the same container, which of the
following will float on the t0p? Explain why your choice.
A. 0.76 g/ml
B. 0.99 g/ml
C. 0.75 g/ml
D. None

6) How would you find the density of an unknown material and what would be
useful about this information?

7) A scientist runs an experiment and comes up with the following density results
0.66 g/cm3
0.64 g/cm3
0.69 g/cm3
The actual density is 0.65 g/cm3. From this data would say this is a reliable lab
and should he trust the results? Explain or defend your answer.

8) Two solids, barium hydroxide and ammonium nitrate are mixed together. As the
reaction proceeds it becomes extremely cold, so cold that if it is placed on wet
board it will freeze to the board. Explain what is happening.

54

9) A package label says there are 100 Calories in each serving. What does the
calorie amount tell you about the food and why is this information important to
the consumer?

10) Someone gives you a sealed box with an object inside and asks you to tell them
what is inside the box without ever opening it. You can do any test you want.
However, you realize x-rays cannot penetrate the box so you will never see the
object, but you still need to come up with a solution. How confident would you
feel about your solution if you could never see inside?

“1” means, not confident at all and

“5” means, I would be positve.

12345

They then tell you, they have never seen the object either. They say they are positive
and they know what the object is. How confident would you feel about their answer?

You can clarify your choice with some remarks if you choose. Please be brief.

55

Pre-test Scoring Rubric

1) Name the following pieces of equipment. 4pts total

2)

3)

4)

A) Graduated Cylinder B) Beaker
2pts 2pts

What would you use a graduated cylinder for and for what kinds of materials?

3pts total

To measure the volumes of liquids or solids by displacement.

lpt lpt lpt Optional (lpt)
Draw a picture of a setup you would need to boil water in a science lab.
Label each part of your drawing. 4pts total
Container (Beaker) lpt
Support (Ring Stand, Iron Ring, Gauze) 2pts
Heat Supply lpt

Write a brief summary of the steps a scientist would go through when they are

trying to solve a problem. 4pts total
State the problem lpt
Form a hypothesis lpt
Conduct experiments lpt
Form a conclusion or theory lpt

56

5) Three unmixable liquids were poured into the same container, which of the

following will float on the top? Explain why your choice. 4pts total
A. 0.76 g/ml Middle
B. 0.99 g/ml Bottom
C. 0.75 g/ml Top Lowest density will rise to the top.
D. None
2pts 2pts

6) How would you find the density of an unknown material and what would be
useful about this information? 4pts total

Density = mass/volume 2pts

Uses: identification of materials, ability to sink or float in water. 2pts

7) A scientist runs an experiment and comes up with the following density results

0.66 g/cm3

0.64 g/cm3

0.69 g/cm3
The actual density is 0.65 g/cm3. From this data would say this is a reliable lab
and should he trust the results? Explain or defend your answer. 3pts

total

Reliable (Acceptable); Every experiment is susceptible to error and multiple
lpt trials are required to validate results 2pts

8) Two solids, barium hydroxide and ammonium nitrate are mixed together. As the
reaction proceeds it becomes extremely cold, so cold that if it is placed on wet
board it will freeze to the board. Explain what is happening. 4pts
total

A Chemical reaction is taking place where heat is being absorbed.

Endothermic.
2pts

57

So much heat is absorbed that the water freezes causing the container to
bond to the board. 2pts

9) A package label says there are 100 Calories in each serving. What does the
calorie amount tell you about the food and why is this information important to
the consumer?

2pts A calorie indicates the amount of energy required to break a
substance
down.
2pts This tells the consumer how much energy will have to be expended to
digest or breakdown this food.

10) Someone gives you a sealed box with an object inside and asks you to tell them
what is inside the box without ever opening it. You can do any test you want.
However, you realize x-rays cannot penetrate the box so you will never see the
object, but you still need to come up with a solution. How confident would you
feel about your solution if you could never see inside?

“1” means, not confident at all and

“5” means, I would be positve.

 

12345

They then tell you, they have never seen the object either. They say they are positive
and they know what the object is. How confident would you feel about their answer?

You can clarify your choice with some remarks if you choose. Please be brief.

Survey

58

 

Post-test Name

 

1) Name the following pieces of equipment.

B)

 

2) For what reason(s) would you use a watch glass in an experiment?

3) You want to find the calories of a new food source. Draw a picture of the set-up
you would need to do this experiment. Label each part of your drawing.

4) A large number of deer were found dead by a DNR officer. A set of scientists
were sent to investigate. There were veterinarians, doctors, biologists and
chemists. Write a brief summary of the steps you think they would take to solve
this problem.

59

5) Given the density of three solids and knowing the density of water is 1.00 g/ml.
Which of the following will sink and which will float in the water?
Explain why your choices.

a. 7.76 g/ml
b. 0.98g/ml
c. 1.02 g/ml

d. All will sink

6) A person tells you they have found some gold and they want you to tell them if it
is really gold. How could you experimentally prove to them if it is gold or not
from the methods we learned in this unit.

7) A researcher discovers a cure for cancer, but the problem is he did the experiment
only once on a lab rat. His work is well documented and seems very credible. He
wants to get it marketed right away. From this information would you say this is
a reliable lab and should the results be trusted? Explain or defend your answer.

8) A person tells you that since it takes energy (a match) to start a fire it is actually
an endothermic process. Is this person correct? Explain

60

9) One package label says there are 1,000 Calories in each serving, but there is only
one gram of fat. Another package says there is 1,000 grams of fat and only one
calorie. What does this tell you about each of the foods and why is this
information important to the consumer?

10) Someone gives you a problem to solve and you can get help from anyone or
anywhere you want. You have a lot of time to work on a solution, but it has never
been attempted. Do you feel you could come up with a method(s) to attempt to
solve this problem or at least conduct a scientific approach and answer some
questions?

“1” means, not confident gt all and
“5” means, I would be positive.

12345

You can clarify your choice with some remarks if you chose. Please be brief.

61

 

Post-test Scoring Rubric

1) Name the following pieces of equipment. 4pts
A) Iron Ring B) (Clay) Triangle
2pts 2pts

2) For what reason(s) would you use a Iron Ring in an experiment? 3pts

For supporting equipment, hold objects above burners or stabilize equipment

2pts lpt or 1 pt

3) You want to find the calories of a new food source. Draw a picture of the set-up

4)

you would need to do this experiment. Label each part of your drawing.
4pts total

Most students will draw the equipment used in the lab; “Calorie Determination
of an Unknown Food”

Support (Ring stand and ring) 2pts
Pop can and Tin Foil Heat Shield lpt
Thermometer lpt

A large number of deer were found dead by a DNR officer. A set of scientists
were sent to investigate. There were veterinarians, doctors, biologists and
chemists. Write a brief summary of the steps you think they would take to solve
this problem. 4pts total

Gather Data, Hypothesis lpt
Conduct Autopsies, Experiment lpt
Test the area for contaminants, 1 pt
Make a conclusion lpt

They would use the scientific process based on their specific science 4pts
(Hypothesis, Gather Data, Experiment, Make conclusions)

62

 

5) Given the density of three solids and knowing the density of water is 1.00 g/ml.
Which of the following will sink and which will float in the water?
Explain why your choices.

a.7J6ym1
b. 098ng
c. 1.02 g/ml

d. All will sink

(A & C) will sink, densities are greater that water ( lpt, lpt)
(B ) will float, density is less than water. ( lpt, lpt)

6) A person tells you they have found some gold and they want you to tell them if it
is really gold. How could you experimentally prove to them if it is gold or not
from the methods we learned in this unit. 4pts

Determine it density and compare it to the true density of gold. 2pts

Find the sample’s mass and volume then divide (mass/volume) 2pts

7) A researcher discovers a cure for cancer, but the problem is he did the experiment
only once on a lab rat. His work is well documented and seems very credible. He
wants to get it marketed right away. From this information would you say this is
a reliable lab and should the results be trusted? Explain or defend your answer.

lpt lpt
Not reliable. The lab needs to run numerous times to prove its validity,

because there is error in all experimentation, There should also be

some human testing. lpt

3pts total

63

8) A person tells you that since it takes energy (a match) to start a fire, it is actually
an endothermic process. Is this person correct? Explain. 4pts

No. lpt
This starting energy is called the activation energy and 2pts
the burning of wood is an exothermic process. lpt

9) One package label says there are 1,000 Calories in each serving, but there is only
one gram of fat. Another package says there is 1,000 grams of fat and only one
calorie. What does this tell you about each of the foods and why is this
information important to the consumer?

The first food has a lot of calories, but they are not mainly form fats. 2pts

The second food has fat but it does not contribute to the calories count. 2pts

10) Someone gives you a problem to solve and you can get help from anyone or
anywhere you want. You have a lot of time to work on a solution, but it has never
been attempted. Do you feel you could come up with a method(s) to attempt to
solve this problem or at least conduct a scientific approach and answer some
questions?

“1” means, not confident at all and

“5” means, I would be positive.

 

l 2 3 4 5
You can clarify your choice with some remarks if you chose. Please be brief.

Open ended survey question for comparison

64

Retention Test Name

 

1) List the pieces of equipment you would need to determine the density of an
unknown metal sample.

2) What would be the mass of a 250 mL sample if the density of oil is 0.92 g/mL?
Show your work!

3) How is light created?

4) If you were to monitor the temperature of an endothermic reaction, how would
the
temperature change over time?

5) Why do scientists run multiple tests before they accept or publish any results?

65

Retention Test Scoring Rubric

1) List the pieces of equipment you would need to determine the density of an

 

unknown metal sample. 4pts total
Equipment Graduated Cylinder 2pts
Balance _2_p1§
Beaker/ Water lpt (optional)

2) What would be the mass of a 250 mL sample if the density of oil is 0.92 g/mL?

Show your work! 4pts total
D = W so M = D x V 2pts
M = (0.92g/ml) x (250mL) lpt
M = 230 g lpt
3) How is light created? 4pts total

Light is created by electrons moving from higher energy level (states) to
lower

2pts 2pts
levels and release energy in the form of light.
4) If you were to monitor the temperature of an endothermic reaction, how would

the temperature change over time? 4pts total

Endothermic reactions absorb heat and lower the temperature of objects
they touch. lpt

The temperature would decrease. 3pts

5) Why do scientists run multiple tests before they accept or publish any results?
4pts total

To improve Accuracy and Precision, Remove errors and create validity.
2pts or 2pts or 2pts

66

 

What is it for? Chemical Equipment

Pre lab discussion

Most experiments require the investigator to make some quantitative
observations, or measurements. The numerical values of these measurements are called
data. The most frequently measured quantities in the chemistry laboratory are mass,
volume, and temperature.

When conducting an experiment of a quantitative nature, the first step in the
procedure is to make and record measurements of the materials that are being
investigated. If the materials take part in a chemical reaction (undergo chemical change),
many, if not all, of the initial measured values probably will change. The nature and
extent of these changes often help the investigator to understand what is taking place.
Some of these changes, such as temperature change, can be measured and recorded as the
reaction is taking place. When the reaction is ended, measurements again are made and
recorded. The collected data from all these measurements provide an overall record of
what quantitative changes took place during the reaction.

When making measurements, you should keep in mind that the numerical values
can be only as accurate as the instruments used to make the measurements. These values
also are affected by the care and skill of the person using the instruments. As a scientist
you need to make accurate measurements, this requires extending the precision of the
instrument being used. As you gain more experience in the laboratory, you will become
more familiar with the limitations and accuracy of the various instruments you use. You
also will become more skillful in the use of these instruments and in carrying out various
activities that are essential to a successful investigation.

Scientists must be imaginative. In many cases, they must devise their own
experiments and decide what measurements will provide useful information. In this
investigation, you will make measurements to determine the effects of a chemical
reaction (combustion). You will then be asked to decide how these measurements can be
used to extend your understanding of the reaction.

Prelab Questions

1) What is the numerical information in lab called?

2) What are some changes that indicate a chemical reaction may have taken place?
3) Why do we approximate another decimal place when we measure with certain

instruments?
Purpose
Make a quantitative investigation of a chemical reaction.
Equipment
Laboratory balance Graduated cylinder, 100 ml Candle
Ring stand Stop watch Matches
Iron ring Index card 250 ml beaker
Wire gauze Safety goggles
Thermometer Lab apron

67

Safety
In this experiment, you will be working with an open flame. Tie back long hair and
secure loose clothing. Also, wear safety goggles and a lab apron at all times when
working in the lab. Be sure matches are completely extinguished before they are
discarded.

Procedure
1. Find the mass of the candle. Use the same balance for the entire lab. Each
balance will be slightly different than another. This can cause error.
2. Measure (50mL to 100mL) tap water in a graduated cylinder. Record the
exact amount in your chart. Pour the water into a 250 ml beaker and place the
beaker on the wire gauze. Measure the temperature of the water.

See figure 2-1 for equipment set-up located in Lab book on page 8.

Caution! Do not let the beaker fall or let the candle melt onto the ring stand!

3. Light the candle and place it on the index card. Adjust the height of the ring
so that the flame is 2 cm below the base of the beaker. Using the candle, heat
the water for exactly 4 minutes. Extinguish the flame and measure the
temperature of the water and the mass of the candle.

4. Relight the candle and repeat steps 1 — 3 for the second trial.

68

Data Sheet: Lab #1 Equipment

Names:

 

 

Observations and Data Trial 1 Trial 2
*Show correct decimal places

Original mass of candle

Mass of candle after burning

Time candle burned

Original temperature of water

Final temperature of water

Calculations: Trial 1 Trial 2

1. Change in the mass of the candle
Work:

2. Change in the mass of the candle
per minute.
Work:

3. Change in temperature of the water
Work:

4. Change in temperature of the water
per minute
Work:

69

Conclusions and Questions

1. Comparing your trial results and calculations.
Are your results exactly the same? If one set of data differs from another in an
experiment, does this mean that one or both sets are wrong? Explain your answer.

2. Why do scientists trust their experiments when the results are never exactly the
same? What does running multiple trials do for their results?

3. Explain how the heat from the combustion reaction is related to the temperature

change of the water?

4) How does the precision of a scientific instruments effect our results? Discuss.

70

 

 

How does it work? Scientific Process.

 

Discussion

Every scientist has been born through curiosity. The true scientist has always had
the desire to know why something happens, but they are willing to be systematic in their
approach. They are willing to take slow detailed observations. As a new and upcoming
chemist you need to be organized in how you approach scientific experimentation. Many
students take chemistry to satisfy a requirement and never really understand how to be a
scientist. They would rather read a book, listen to a couple lectures then take a test and
leave. The scope of this course is to teach you how to be problem solver and come up
with answers to problems.

The scientific method has generally four parts. First, a question to be answered.
Second, a hypothesis or a guess of what is happening. Third, an experiment to prove or
check the guess. Finally, a conclusion stating a scientific truth proven from the
investigation. In this lab we are going to ask you a question. Your job will be to run a
series of experiments and formulate a final conclusion from what you learned.

Purpose

Answer the question what happens to the melting and boiling point of water when
different materials are dissolved in it using the scientific process.

Pre-lab questions

1) How is a scientist different for a science student?

2) What is the four part of the scientific process?

3) Give an example of how you solve problems in your everyday life?
What do you do if the first attempt doesn’t fix the problem?

Inquiry Question

Does the melting and boiling of water change when substances are dissolved in it
and is the material important?

Hypothesis (Write out your thoughts to the following questions before you start the lab)

What do you think will happen to the ice when salt is added? The temperature?
What do you think will happen to boiling water when salt is added? The temp?

71

 

 

Procedure (Experimenting)

Part A

1) Measure out 10 grams of salt and 10 grams of sugar on separates sheets of
weighing paper.

2) In three beakers put 100ml of ice.

3) Add the sugar and salt to two of the beakers and nothing to the third. The one
without anything will be your standard.

4) Set-up a data sheet and record everything you observe visually about the
beakers every 2 minutes for 20 minutes.

5) Using a thermometer take the temperature of each beaker ever two minutes
and record this along with your other observations.

Part B

1) Measure out 10 grams of salt and sugar on separate sheet of weighing paper.

2) Add 100 ml of distilled water to three beakers.

3) Add the salt and sugar to separate beakers and dissolve.

4) Bring the plain water to boil using your ring stand and burner. Record the
temperature of the boiling water and recheck every minute for 5 minutes. Notes
any changes in the temperature. This will be your standard.

5) Boil the other two solutions. Allow them to boil for 5 minutes while you record
the temperature every minute. Use the same thermometer for each trial!

Analysis (Making conclusions)

After a scientist has completed their lab work they must decide what they have found and
try to draw some logic from the data. The following questions will help you to make this
transition.

1) What was the purpose of the lab?
a. In this lab we were trying to

2) What did your data reveal?
a. From our results we found

3) What truth can you state about what you learned based on the purpose of the lab?
a. The melting and boiling of water will when is added.

Try to answer the following questions in your conclusion. Your score will be based
on these being answered in your final report.

Did the salt or sugar have any effect on the ice? Did the salt or sugar have an effect on
the boiling point of the water? Did one have a greater effect than the other? What did
you learn that you did know before?

72

 

 

Density

 

Pre-lab Discussion

An old riddle asks, “Which is heavier, a pound of feathers or a pound of lead?”
The question in nonsensical, of course, since a pound of feathers and a pound of lead
weigh the same, one pound. Nevertheless, there is clearly something different about a
small lead brick and a large bag of feathers, even though they weigh the same. The key
to answering the riddle is understanding the relationship that exists between a
substances’s mass and the volume it occupies. This is also why the same mass of two
different materials will not have the same volume.

Chemistry is the study of matter, which usually is defined as anything that has
mass and volume. You already have some experience determining mass in the
laboratory. In this experiment, you will measure volumes of different materials, using
direct and indirect methods. You will also us the relationship between mass and volume
to determine the density. Density is defined as the ratio of a substance’s mass to the
volume it occupies.

Density — mass of substance (g)

volume of substance (ml)

Many solids do not lend themselves to direct measurement of their dimensions.
These include irregularly shaped objects, such as rocks and very small objects. Volumes
of such solids can be measured by water displacement very accurately. If a solid is
immersed in a liquid, such as water, it will displace, or raise the level of the liquid, a
volume of water that is equal to its own volume.

You are expected to use the measuring skills you developed in earlier labs to
determine the mass and volume of specific materials. You will then be required to
calculate the density of these substances with the data you collected. One final
question we will try to answer is density an external or internal property.

Pre-lab questions

1) How do you calculate density?

2) What is the method for finding the volume of strangely shaped objects.
3) What is the difference between an extensive and intensive property.

Purpose
Be able to determine the identity of a substance by finding it’s density in a lab and

conclude if density is an extensive or intensive property.

73

 

Materials

Triple beam lab balance graduated cylinder, 10ml and 50ml
50 ml beaker distilled water

metal sample safety goggles and apron
Procedure

Caution: Not being exact on your measurements will cause greater variances in your
density calculations and this will make it harder to identify the metal.
Spend time making careful measurements!!!

Water

1) Weigh a clean dry 50 ml graduated cylinder.

2) Add some distilled water to the container (10-20 ml) and record the e_xac_t volume.

3) Weigh the cylinder and the water together. Record this weight.

4) Add more distilled water to the cylinder so that the level is between 25-35 ml.
Record the exact volume and weight of the cylinder again.

5) Add more water so that you have three volumes of water and their three
corresponding weights. Make sure all your data is recorded in the table.

 

Metal sample (use tap water)

1) Add 25 ml of Lap water to a 50 ml graduated cylinder. Record the Lact volume.

2) Weigh a clean dry empty 50 ml beaker.

3) Add 50 metal pellets to the beaker and weigh again.

4) Carefully add the pellets to the graduated cylinder with the water and record the
new water level.

5) Add 50 more pellets to the beaker and weigh again. Add this weight to the first
50 pellets mass and record it as the mass of 100 pellets on the following table.

6) Add them to the cylinder and record the new water level.

7) A Weigh out 50 more pellets and repeat the steps above, so that you have three
separate amounts of pellets and three separate volumes.

74

Data Table

 

Weight of graduated cylinder (g)
Mass Mass
Material Cyl. + Water (g) Water (g) Volume (ml)

» Water (Vol. #1)
Water (V 01. #2)
Water (Vol. #3)

Weight of beaker (g)

 

Initial Final
Material Mass (g) water level (ml) water level (ml) Volume
(m1)

Metal (50)

Metal (100)

Metal (150)

Calculations: Show your work for full credit!
Density of water

1) 2) 3)

 

 

 

Average density

 

Density of metal

1) 2) 3)

 

 

 

Average density

 

75

Names:

 

 

 

Analysis

Use the following information to decide what your unknown metal is.
Lead 11.34 g/cm3

Copper 8.93 g/cm3 Unknown Metal
Aluminum 2.70 g/cm3

Water 1.00 g/em3

1) Using the above values determine the % error of your lab data.

 

(Chart) (Avg. Density)
% Error = True Value - Emerimental Value x 100
True Value
Water:
Metal:

Work

2) During the experiment you were constantly changing the mass and volume of
each sample, but now you want to look at the values of the density. Did they
change? Based on this finding can you conclude whether density is an extensive

or intensive property? Explain you reasoning.

3) What could be possible sources of error that allowed your values to slightly
different from each other and the accepted value? Is human error acceptable in
scientific experimentation? What things could you control and not control?

4) Write a conclusion for this lab on the back of this sheet.

76

 

 

 

th Chemical Corporation

 

To: Chemistry Division
From: Field Geologist
Re: Unknown Samples

Lab Chemist,

We have just recently explored a tract of land the company acquired. We are
sending you some samples. Please identify these materials. We are excited about the
possibility of opening a new mining operation. We believe we have located a large source
of potential profits. We would like a report showing all your lab work.

This should include:
Equipment you used,
Procedure,

Data,

Calculations

and final results.

We are also interested in the current market value of each material. Please include
this information in your summary, along with your opinion which material we should
focus on in our attempts to make this venture profitable. We are very eager to hear back
from you. Thanks.

Jim Digger
Field Geologist
Rich Chemical Corporation

77

 

 

 

 

Endothermic or Exothermic?

 

Demonstration Name

 

 

Equipment: A Re-Heater reusable heat pack and an Athletic Disposable ice pack.
Pre-Demo Question

1. Give an example of an endothermic process.

2. How does an exothermic process feel?

Activate and handout hot and cold packs to students.
Post-Demo questions

3. Give and example of an exothermic process.

4. What happens to the temperature of and endothermic process as it proceeds?

5. Give some practical uses of endothermic and exothermic reactions.
Think outside of the demonstration.

78

 

 

Tasty Toods Incorporated

 

To: Food Analysis Division
From: Quality Control
Re: Product Calorie Identification

Lab Chemist,

We are currently ready to market a new enhanced food product we have produced
in our labs. To make them marketable we need to identify the amount of calories in each.
Please run a survey of some common food products. Run a comparison of our product
alongside of them.

This should include:
Equipment you used, (Drawing)
Procedure,

Data,

Calculations

and final results.

Please suggest a serving size based on the number of calories you found.
Let us know the amount of error in your process. We will need to know this when we
make our final decision. Please give a brief discussion on your opinion of the taste of our
product. We would like any comments or suggestions included with your report. Such as
where and how we should display the product in the store. Health, snack dairy section,
etc.

Sarah Sweet
Food Development

Tasty Foods Inc.

79

 

 

Copyrighted Lab References

“Heat of Fusion of Ice Lab” Reference:

Wagner, M. (1987). Calorimetry: Heat of Fusion of Ice. Prentice Hall, Chemistry; The
Study of Matten. Laboratory Manual, 4th Edition, Lab #7 , 37-42.

Ob-scertainer Lab Reference:

OB-SCERTAINERTM KIT, Catalog No#. 100. Lab-Aids Inc. 17 Colt Court,
Ronkonkoma, New York 11779.

80

 

 

Mystery Box Lab

 

Discussion:

The first scientists were very limited in the equipment that is available to modern
scientists. We know have cyclotrons, x-ray, gas chromatograph, sonar, electron
microscope and not to even mention the numerous technology available in every
laboratory around the world and found in our homes. They had to depend on simple
ideas of logic and deduction. Today’s scientists are still proving what others did
hundreds of years ago to be true. How did they get such good results and why were they
willing to trust what they did? This is what every scientist must decide. When do I trust
my results? We are going to give you the chance to believe in your work and stand on
your results

Purpose:

To understand how scientists used observations to discover chemistry ideas without the
aide of modern science and technology. Then decide on a theory based on your
observations without ever seeing the answer. “Believing without seeing.”

Pre-lab questions:

1) Why do you believe scientists were willing to accept the results of their
experiments? The same can be asked to us why do we think our experiments are
trustworthy?

2) How often do you have to make decisions without having all the information?
Give an example.

Procedure:

Rotate or tip the mystery box and listen for the sounds of the washers inside the box.
They can be anywhere. (Loose or on the sticks) From the experiments you conduct we
want you to come up with a description of where you believe the washers are located in
the box. Draw a picture of the set up inside the box.

Simple observations:
1) Keep the letter “F” in the front right hand comer to be consistent.
2) Tilt the box front to back and listen carefully. You may be able to feel the
washer’s movements. Record all observations.
3) Then tilt the box from side to side and record your observations.
4) Then make a hypothesis of box layout inside.

Complex observations:
1) Predict what you believe will happen when you pull out a stick. You can start
with
any stick you want. Just be sure to record, which one you removed first. List and
feel for any changes as you slowly pull the stick out. After you have pulled out
one stick, quickly repeat some simple observations before you pull another one
out. Things may have changed!

81

 

 

2) Remove each stick one at a time. First predict what you believe will happen the
record your new observations and come up with a new layout.

3) Caution! You can only conduct this experiment once! You cannot go backwards,
so be very thorough on your observations before you move on to the next stick.

Repeat the experiment by getting a new box from the teacher, it will be set up the same
way as before. Re-run the experiment and you can either change your methods or alter
your observations or you can conduct it in same order to confirm your results. The main
thing is to get some more careful observations, because you will not be able to open the
box and see what is inside. You will be required to predict a solution as to the
whereabouts of the washers solely form your observations and defend it!

Example data sheet.

Simple observations:

Tilted the box front to back: We heard We felt

Tilted the box side to side: We heard We felt...

From these observations we believe there are _ washers and they are probably located
in the box. . ..

Drawing:

Complex observations:

We believe that we will hear or observe when stick no# _ is removed.
When we remove stick no# _ were heard We felt...
Then

Tilted the box front to back: We heard We felt
Tilted the box side to side: We heard We felt...
From these observations we believe there are _ washers and they are probably located

in the box....

Drawing:

Conclusion
When you have exhausted your attempts, make one final drawing of what you believe is
the arrangement of the washers and comment on some of the major observations that lead
you to your conclusion. You do not have to rewrite all your observations!

82

 

Light Lab

Name

ROYGB IV

 

 

 

 

Element

ROYGB IV

 

 

 

 

 

Element

ROYGB IV

 

 

 

 

 

Element

ROYGB IV

 

 

 

 

 

Element

Questions
1.How is light created?

 

2.Why is there different colors of light?

Hour

 

ROYGB IV

 

 

 

Element

 

 

 

ROYGB IV

 

 

 

Element

 

 

ROYGB IV

 

 

 

Element

 

 

ROYGB IV

 

 

 

Element

 

 

3.Does each element have the same spectrum? Why or why not?

4.What is the purpose of this lab?

5.What elements do you think make up fluorescent lights. Your best guess with

explanation.

Concluskion (On the Backfl)

 

Table 4: Pre/Post-Test Scores

Question #1 Question #2
Pre Test Post Test Pre Test Post Test
Student Score Score Student Score Score

1 4 4 1 2 1
2 4 2 2 2 3
3 4 3 3 1 1
4 4 2 4 2 2
5 3 2 5 2 2
6 4 4 6 3 2
7 2 4 7 3 1
8 3 2 8 2 2
9 4 1 9 2 2
1 0 4 4 1 0 3 3
11 2 3 1 1 2 2
12 4 4 12 2 2
13 4 4 13 2 2
14 4 4 14 2 1
1 5 4 4 15 2 1
16 4 4 16 2 1
17 4 2 17 2 2
1 8 4 4 1 8 3 2
19 2 19 2
20 4 4 20 2 1
21 4 4 21 3 2
22 4 3 22 2 2

84

Table 5: Pre/Post-Test Scores

grab—HIE 9mg
Pre Test Post Test Pre Test Post Test
Student Score Score Student Score Score

1 2 3 1 3 2
2 2 3 2 3 2
3 3 3 3 2 2
4 4 4 4 3 2
5 2 3 5 4 2
6 2 2 6 O 1
7 2 3 7 3 2
8 3 4 8 2 2
9 3 3 9 3 2
10 2 3 1O 4 1
1 1 2 4 1 1 4 1
12 1 3 12 3 2
1 3 1 4 1 3 3 2
14 3 4 14 3 3
15 2 3 15 4 4
16 2 3 16 3 2
1 7 4 3 1 7 4 4
1 8 4 4 18 4 2
19 2 19 3

20 3 3 20 4 2
21 4 3 21 4 4
22 2 3 22 3 3

85

Table 6: Pre/Post-Test Scores

Question #5 Question #6
Pre Test Post Test Pre Test Post Test
Student Score Score Student Score Score

1 4 3 1 2 4
2 2 2 2 0 0
3 4 4 3 4 2
4 4 4 4 4 4
5 2 4 5 4 4
6 O 4 6 0 0
7 2 3 7 3 3
8 2 1 8 O 3
9 4 4 9 1 1
1 0 2 2 1 O 2 2
1 1 2 2 1 1 O 0
12 2 2 12 1 1
1 3 2 4 13 2 4
14 0 1 14 2 2
1 5 2 4 1 5 1 4
16 4 3 16 0 4
17 4 4 17 2 4
18 4 4 18 3 3
1 9 2 19 1

20 2 3 20 0 3
21 O 2 21 1 3
22 1 3 22 1 4

86

 

Table 7: Pre/Post-Test Scores

uestion #7 Question #8
Pre Test Post Test Pre Test Post Test

Student Score Score Student Score Score
1 3 2 1 1 3
2 2 2 2 O O
3 2 2 3 1 1
4 2 3 4 1 3
5 3 3 5 1 1
6 0 1 6 O O
7 1 2 7 1 O
8 2 2 8 O 2
9 0 0 9 O O
1 o 2 2 1 O 1 3
1 1 2 3 1 1 1 2
12 0 2 12 1 1
13 1 3 13 1 4
14 3 3 14 3 1
15 2 2 1 5 0 2
16 2 3 16 2 3
17 3 2 17 O 0
18 1 2 18 0 3
19 2 19 1
20 0 2 20 1 1
21 2 2 21 1 2
22 1 2 1 1 3

87

 

Table 8: Pre/Post-Test Scores

Questionfi MM
Pre Test Post Test Pre Test Post Test
Student Score Score Student Score Score

1 0 3 1 1 4
2 0 0 2 2 3
3 0 0 3 3 3
4 0 0 4 2 4
5 0 1 5 3 3
6 0 0 6 1 1
7 1 0 7 1 3
8 1 1 8 2 3
9 0 0 9 2 3
10 1 0 1 0 3 3
1 1 2 1 1 1 3 4
12 0 0 12 2 3
1 3 1 2 1 3 2 3
14 1 O 14 3 4
1 5 1 0 1 5 3 3
16 3 4 16 3 4
17 1 0 17 3 3
18 4 4 18 3 5
1 9 0 19 2

20 1 0 20 3 3
21 0 1 21 3 3
22 1 1 22 3 3

88

Bibliography

Literature Cited

Allen, B. J ., Barker, L. N., and Ramsden, J. H. (1986). Joumpl of Chemical
Education 63, 533.

 

Ault, A. (Oct 2002). What’s Wrong with Cookbooks? Jomal of Chemical
Education, 79, 1177.

Ausubel, D. P., Grune and Stratton. (1963). The Psychology of Meaningful Verbal
Learning, New York; 1963

Ausubel, D. P., Novak, J ., and Hanesian, H. (1978). Werbel & Peck Educational
Psychology, New York.

Carter, C. S., and Brickhouse, N. W. (March 1989). What Make Chemistry Difficult?
Journ_al of Chemical Education, 66, 223-225.

Clark, R. L., Clough, M. P., and Berg, C. A. (Oct 2000). Modifying Cookbook Labs.
The Science Teacher, 67, 40-43.

Crowther, D.T. (1999). Cooperating with Constructivism. Journal of CollegScience
Teaching, 29, 17-23.

Domin, D.S. (Jan 1999). A Content Analysis of General Chemistry Laboratory
Manuals for Evidence of Higher-Order Cognitive Tasks. J oum_al of Chemical
Education, 76, 109-112.

 

Domin, D.S. (Apr 1999). A Review of Laboratory Instruction Styles. J oumal of
Chemical Education, 76, 543-547.

Gallet, C. (1998). Problem-Solving Teaching in the Chemistry Laboratory: Leaving
the Cooks. Joumpl of Chemical Education. 75, 72-77.

Glaser, R. (1984). Education and Thinking: The Role of Knowledge, American
Psychologist, 39, 93.

Green, W. J ., Elliott, C. and Cummin, R. H. (Feb 2004). “Prompted” Inquiry-Based
Learning in the Introductory Chemistry Laboratory. Journal of Chemical
Education, 81 ; pg.239-241 .

Gronlund, N. E. (1985). Measurement and Evaluation in Teaching, 5th Ed,
MacMillan Press, New York.

Hand, B., and Keys, C. W. (1999). Inquiry Investigations. The Science Teggher.
66, 27.

90

 

Herman, C. (1998). Inserting an Investigative Dimension into Introductory
Laboratory Courses. Joum_al of Chemical Education, 75, 70-72.

Hofstien, A. and Lunetta, V. N. (1982). Rev. Ed. Res, 52, 201

Howard, R. E., and Boone, W. J. (May 1997). What Influences Students to Enjoy
Introductory Science Laboratories? J oum_al Of College Science Teaching, 26,
383-388.

Hurd, P. D. (1969). New Directionsr in Teaching Secondary School Science. Rand
McNally and Co., Chicago.

Lazarowitz, R., and Tamir, R. (1994). Research on Using Laboratory Instruction in
Science. Handbook of Research on the Science of Tepching_and Leamipg,
MacMillan, New York, pg 94.

Leonard, W. H. (2000). How Do College Students Best Learn Science? Journal of
College Science Teaching, 29, 385-3 88.

Lowery Bretz, S. (Aug 2001). Novak’s Theory of Education: Human Constructivism
and Meaningful Learning. Joumflf Chemical Education. 78, 1107-1116.

Lunsford, S. and Strope, C. (Nov 2002). A Sweet Balance. The Science Teacher. 6,
42-45.

Montes, L. D. and Rockley, M. G. (Feb 2002). Teacher Perceptions in the Selection
of Experiments. Journal of Chemical Educption. 79, 244-247.

National Science Teachers Association. (1987). Criteria for Excellence. An NSTA
Science Compact. Washington DC.

Olney, D. J. (1997). Journ_al Chemicaliducation, 74, 1343.
Plumsky, R. J., (1996). Joum_al Chemigrl Education. 73, 451.

Resnick, L. B. (1987). Education and Learning What to Think. National Academy
Press, Washington DC.

Richardson, SE. (1975). Report of the Symposium in High School Interface.
Journ_al of Chemical Education, 56, 602-603.

Russell, C. P. and French, D. P. (2001). Factors Affecting Participation in Traditional

and Inquiry-Based Laboratories. JournA of College Science Teaching, 31,
225-229.

91

St. Jean, M. (1994). L’Apprentissage par Probleme dans I’Enseignement Superieur.
University of Montreal, Montreal, pg. 21.

St. Omer, L. (2002). Successful scientific instruction involves more than just
discovering concepts through inquiry-based activities. Education 123, 318-321.

 

Shavelson, R. J ., Baxter, G. P., and Pine, J. (1991). Performance Assessment in
Science. Applied Measurement in Education. 4, 347-362.

Streitberger, E. (1977). What Should We Be Teaching Them in High School
Chemistry? The Science Teacher, 6, 35-37.

Tamir, P. and Lunetta, V.N. (1981). Inquiry-Related Tasks in High School Science
Laboratory Handbooks. Science Education, 65, 447-484.

Tretter, T. R. (Oct 2000). Physical Science Lab Essentials. The Science Teacher,
67, 48-52.

Whitehead, A. N. (1929). The Aims of Education and Other Essays. Free Press,
New York, pg. 30.

92

H

i111111111111111111