The Collaboration and Guided Inquiry in the Organic Chemistry Laboratory (CGIOChem) project is renewing the organic chemistry laboratory by creating, testing, and assessing organic chemistry laboratory investigations that emphasize both structured collaboration and guided inquiry. In these laboratory investigations, partially based upon combinatorial methods used in pharmaceutical research, students work both as individuals and as a team. Individually, students investigate different but related reactions or analyze or synthesize different but related molecules. After participating in guided, small group discussion of their individual results, students work as a team on an inquiry challenge applying their knowledge from individual investigations. The laboratory materials are being developed, micro-tested, revised, and tested in both small organic laboratory courses and large multi-section organic chemistry laboratory sessions, in both four-year university and two-year college environments. The intellectual merit of CGIOChem emerges from ample evidence that student-centered pedagogies such as inquiry and collaboration enhance student achievement in and engagement with science and help them progress from novices to researchers. CGIOChem is evaluating how laboratory materials based on these pedagogies specifically impact organic chemistry students. The materials developed may be applicable to various organic chemistry course settings including the spiral organic course it is initially complementing. Evaluation by an independent organic chemist evaluator assesses student understanding and achievement in organic chemistry and also student engagement with organic chemistry and fellow learners. The broader impacts include how collaboration and guided inquiry enhance Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) retention and STEM degree completion.
(CGIOChem) project at Miami University explored how laboratory activities can be redesigned to be more student-centered through the development and implementation of inquiry laboratory guides with explicitly designed collaboration. Twelve laboratory investigations were developed to incorporate student collaboration and inquiry. Versions of the materials were used by six professors, over 25 graduate assistants, and over 1300 students in three classes at Miami University Oxford: organic chemistry laboratory for chemistry and biochemistry majors, the organic chemistry laboratory for pre-professional and science students, and the organic chemistry course for education, engineering and health science students. The materials were also used at the two Miami regional campuses by an additional four instructors and over 120 students. The materials were written for teams of four students and began with an initial investigation where each student worked independently to collect data from different, related experiments and contribute results to their team. The individual work was followed by a team discussion where students looked for patterns in data collected by team members. Finally, the team was charged with solving an additional, related investigation. Completing the final investigation depended on understanding the concepts common to the individual investigations and the final one. The challenge in writing the investigations was designing four different, related, introductory investigations that were equal in difficulty plus creating a final, related challenge. This task was easiest for the introductory laboratory skills of chromatography, extraction, melting points, and spectroscopy. Some of the CGIOChem investigations have been institutionalized in the self-published laboratory guides produced at Miami University for organic chemistry courses. A research study was conducted to measure the impact of the collaborative materials. Laboratory sections of students using one common investigation (selected from the set of four collaborative investigations) were compared to sections using the set of four investigations. Student impact was assessed using a post laboratory questionnaire with five content questions and seven attitude and affective learning questions. In the laboratory investigation of hydrocarbon structure with a model kit and carbon-13 nuclear magnetic resonance data, voluntary responses from 93 students resulted in a content score of 77% for students using one common investigation compared to 87% for students using the collaborative materials. The collaborative score was not only higher overall, the score was higher on each question. With a voluntary questionnaire, insufficient data was collected from later laboratories. To increase responses, the post lab questionnaire was made a portion of students’ grade. (Taking the quiz was required; agreeing to use the results in the research was voluntary.) With the questionnaire as part of the grade, performance on content questions was more variable. Still, each set of five questions showed greater or equal student performance with collaborative materials compared to common materials. Student Performance Comparison: Collaborative Versus Common Materials Laboratory Topic Collaborative % Correct Common % Correct Hydrocarbon Structure, Models and C-13 NMR 94% 90% Functional Groups and IR Spectroscopy 82% 80% Thin Layer Chromatography 81% 75% Extraction of Trimyristin from Nutmeg 76% 65% Aspirin Synthesis 79% 73% Aldol Condensation Reactions 92% 92% Ester Syntheses 81% 75% Analysis of student attitudes and affective learning was more variable. Possibly compounding these results is that whether using common or collaborative materials, students in all the studies shared a laboratory equipment drawer and worked with a partner. The same instructors taught both common and collaborative laboratory sections, and in both cases students were encouraged to discuss ideas and results with partners, teams, and instructors. Students using collaborative materials were more specifically instructed to compare individual results and discuss ideas with teams, but this difference may not have been enough to affect students’ perceived experience. The research study indicates that collaborative laboratory materials requiring students to share ideas and data can improve learning during the time students spend working in the laboratory. The research points to this outcome because students were assessed on their content knowledge immediately after the laboratory ended. The results were not based upon other factors such as laboratory reports or later quizzes. Laboratory time is a significant investment for students and instructors; increased learning during this time is an important benefit. A limitation of this study is that students in the same class were assigned to use either common or collaborative materials, and the grading scheme for the two treatments could not be different. As a result, the grading rubric for laboratory reports could not require students in the collaborative treatment to report on data sharing and collaborative discussions. Without being specifically graded on collaborative work, some students may not have valued it as highly, and may not have fully engaged in collaboration. In future studies, requiring reporting of the collaborative process may engage students in it more fully and may demonstrate stronger benefits for collaborative science materials.
