Understanding Student
Perceptions of Collaboration, Laboratory and Inquiry Use in Introductory
Chemistry
Carl
Berger, Nancy Kerner, Yohan Lee
University
of Michigan
Ann
Arbor MI 48109-1259
Contact: carl.berger@umich.edu
The
purpose of this study was to find if an introductory chemistry collaborative
laboratory course had any impact on student perceptions of their collaboration,
laboratory experience and inquiry skills and how their perceptions changed as
they worked though the course and from one year to others. Four hundred sixty
eight students were surveyed three times during the course with a 22-question
perception instrument. Three hundred thirty two students were surveyed two
years later. Perception scores were analyzed for differences in the perceptions
of tasks involving collaboration, laboratory and inquiry. Results indicated
significant perception differences both across the tasks and within the three
time measures. Student perceptions of inquiry started much lower than those of
collaboration or laboratory but gained much more. In a small but significant
number of tasks, student perceptions deceased during the first part of the
course and rose in the second part. For most of the tasks student perceptions
gained little during the first five weeks of the course but made much larger
gains in the last eight weeks of the course. Previous student use of specific
tasks may have been related to decrease in perception during early weeks of the
course. Low initial student perceptions of inquiry tasks may have been related
to the level of difficulty of inquiry in beginning college chemistry courses.
This was tested by a second sample of 332 students in the same course three
years later. It was found that differences in beginning perceptions also might
depend on the "home" college of the student taking the course.
Introduction Measuring and using perceptions (self-efficacy) in
science courses is not new (Bandura, 1977; Betz & Hackett, 1983: Lent,
Brown & Larkin, 1984). This paper describes the measurement of student
perceptions in their progress in a collaborative inquiry laboratory class and
compares two groups of beginning students, one in 1996 and the other in 1999.
The class is a large (approximately 700 students) introductory general
chemistry course. Students in the course are primarily freshman with no
intention of becoming chemists. The course was redesigned in an attempt to
successfully involve students in the development of chemical principles from
data and engage them in scientific ways of thinking (Konigsberg Kerner, N.,
Penner-Hahn, J., Berger, C. & Dershimer, C., 1997). Key course features
include an emphasis on processes and general concepts, problem solving in
inquiry experiments that do not have a "right answer," and an
emphasis on qualitative reasoning.
The course seeks to expose students to the thinking and qualitative reasoning
processes by which chemists organize and construct principles from data, make
predictions, and design experiments. The aim is to provide students with a more
accurate picture of the process of science while fostering qualitative
reasoning skills.
Part of the course included the use of
networked computers to support team based experimentation, collection of
qualitative data, and data analysis (using commercial graphing software).
Experimental tasks are purposely not
divided. Teams replicate tasks but use diverse sets of team reagents. The
varying sets of team reagents produce comparable data trends. Students are more
likely to conclude that they are observing real trends rather than unique
examples when they observe similar data from a variety of reagent sets
(Konigsberg Kerner, N. & Penner-Hahn, J., 1994).
The instructional format has been redesigned
to support a collaborative learning environment that encourages thinking and
active engagement. Procedures include directives and questions to encourage
students to think while conducting the experiment. For example, directives ask
students to record a hypothesis and "expected observations if your
hypothesis is true." Students must record a team consensus on most aspects
of experimentation. At the start of every new experiment, teams are assigned
specific research questions to answer during lab discussion. Questions focus on
organizing, manipulating, or extrapolating from the class "data
bank". For example, students determine relationships or non-relationships
between the data (e.g., properties) and structure (e.g., ionic radius) or known
scientific facts (e.g., electronegativity).
We wanted to know how students differed on
their perception of twenty-two concepts and processes divided into groups of
collaboration, laboratory experience and inquiry. Further we wanted to know how
their perceptions changed as they worked though the course. Finally we wanted
to know if the perceptions of students beginning chemistry differed over
several years. We used the CoLabInq Self-Perception Survey reported on at a
previous NARST meeting. (Lee, Y., Konigsberg Kerner, N. & Berger, C., 1998)
CoLabInq Self-Perception
Survey (CSPS)
Survey Construction The question items were designed to determine the
impact, if any of their collaboration, laboratory experience and inquiry
skills. Three domain scales emerged and confirmed that the CoLabInq survey
could be divided into three scales representing, respectively, collaboration,
laboratory experience and inquiry skills. (Lee, Y., Konigsberg Kerner, N. &
Berger, C., 1998) The COLLABORATION scale refers to skills related to working
with others in the laboratory and conveying information to peers as in
discussion presentations. The LABORATORY scale refers to scientific process
skills that primarily relate to "hands-on" lab activities such as collecting
and organizing data into graphs and tables. The INQUIRY scale refers to
higher-order cognitive skills in scientific process such as predicting the
behavior or properties of untested samples from the lab data or designing
experiments.
Each of 23 items on the CSPS required a
separate response on a five-point Likert scale for KNOWLEDGE (cognitive
dimension), EXPERIENCE (behavioral dimension), and CONFIDENCE (affective
dimension). The three separate dimensions were designed to assess their
perceptions of how much they were learning, how much experience they were
gaining, and at what level they rated their confidence in doing tasks required
of them in the course. In this paper we will discuss the changes in student
perception of the collaboration, laboratory and inquiry domain scales as the
dimension analysis comparing knowledge, experience and confidence was included
in a previous report (Lee, Y., Konigsberg Kerner, N. & Berger, C., 1998).
This questionnaire has been designed to
measure your perception of your knowledge, experience, and confidence on
various items.
With each statement are three indicators of
your involvement. For each of the questions indicate how you feel about your
knowledge, experience, and confidence.
Example:
This would mean that I have a great deal of
knowledge (response of 5) about changing a flat tire, I have an average amount
of experience (response of 3) with changing a flat tire, but I am not confident
(response of 1) in my ability to change a flat tire
A similar multi-phasic approach for
constructing question items has been used in the past in evaluation studies
(Hungerman, Berger, Roderick, & Latz, 1976; Berger & Carlson, 1988;
Berger, 1997). The resulting CSPS administered to students had twenty-two
items. Students were asked to rate their levels of knowledge (cognitive
dimension), experience (behavioral dimension), and confidence (affective
dimension) on each item on a scale of 1(low) to 5 (high):
Circle one number in each of the three boxes.
1) Analyze data to reach conclusions.
2) Propose a hypothesis to account for
an observation.
3) Design an experiment to test a
hypothesis.
4) Use conclusions to make predictions
about untested situations or samples.
5) Construct graphs to visualize data.
6) Contribute ideas to group
discussion.
7) Obtain information from a chemical
reference book.
8) Interpret the relationships
represented in graphs.
9) Use my classmates as an information
resource.
10) Use the periodic table to predict
the properties and reactivities of samples.
11) Identify unknown samples of
chemicals.
12) Design and produce an effective
presentation.
13) Trust the contribution of my
teammates when completing a group project.
14) Work effectively with my teammates
while conducting lab experiments.
15) Recognize and characterize
properties of chemicals based on observations.
16) Extract and use information from a
data table.
17) Speak effectively in front of the
class when presenting results.
18) Evaluate the work of others.
19) Use laboratory instruments to make
measurements.
20) Collect, record, and organize data.
21) Control variables when designing an
experimental procedure.
22) Recognize and characterize
reactions based on observations.
Figure 1 The CoLabInq Self-Perception Survey (CSPS)
Initial findings As reported in a previous study, the three domain
scales accounted for 58% of the total variance. Most educational studies show
components accounting for 20-25% of the total variance. Thus these results are
considered very good. Based on the excellent fit of the principal components to
the prior determination of the scales, the original items were retained except
for one (item 7), this item was dropped from all subsequent analyses. The items
in each scale were then subjected to a reliability analysis using Cronbach's
coefficient alpha. Values ranged from .82 to .88 indicating that the scales are
reliable. Upon administring the perception survey in 1999 the three domain
scales accounted for 54% of the variance with similar ranges for Cronbach's
coefficient alpha.
Administration The CoLabInq survey was administered three times
during the Fall 1996 semester: at the initial class meeting, the fifth
(mid-semester) week of class, and at the final class meeting (week thirteen). A
total of 1283 CoLabInq surveys were collected over the semester (n1=460,
n2=337, n3=486). For Winter semester 1999 the CoLabInq
survey was administered once at the initial class meeting. (n=332).
CoLabInq Survey Results
Differences in Perceptions by Scale There was a significant increase in the levels of the
responses to all the items in the CoLabInq survey as the course progressed in
Fall semester of 1996 (F=1011.9, p<. 0001). All of the scale dimension
combinations achieved their highest mean response at the end of the semester:
Figure 2. Student perceptions of Collaboration, Laboratory and Inquiry
Both the COLLABORATION and LABORATORY scales
demonstrated rather modest gains when compared to INQUIRY which made sizable
leaps with each administration. This difference accounted for a significant
scale-week interaction (F=90.6, p<. 0001).
The pattern of changes was not uniform over
time. Not only were there smaller differences in means between weeks 1 and 5
for LABORATORY and COLLABORATION, what changes there were for LABORATORY were
negative. While the overall effect was small, there were clear differences
among the items that indicated that students perceptions of "constructing
graphs", "using lab instruments" and "collecting and
organizing data" actually decreased during the first five weeks of class
The effect on the COLLABORATION scale was similar to that on the LABORATORY and
items indicating "contributing ideas to group discussion" and
"using classmates as an information resource" decreased for the first
five weeks. Most interesting was the response to "working with a
team" where perceptions of cooperation decreased significantly during the
first five weeks and did not return to initial starting levels of the class by
the thirteenth week.
To make sure the data we were gathering was
not isolated incident, we compared the pattern of perception at the beginning
of the term for Fall term 1996 to Winter term 1999. The results are shown in
figure 3.
While the pattern of perception was very
parallel, there were differences in perception between the two years. We
realized that the proportion of students from the most representative colleges;
Engineering and Literature, Science and the Arts (LSA), might not have been
equal for the two terms. Traditionally, more engineering students enroll during
Fall term than Winter. We prepared a contingency table for the years and
schools with the results shown in table 1.
Figure 3. Comparison of Fall 1996 with Winter 1999 student perceptions
|
Engineering |
Literature, Science and the Arts |
Totals |
Fall 1996 |
286 |
159 |
445 |
Winter 1999 |
136 |
113 |
249 |
Totals |
422 |
272 |
694 |
Table 1. Distribution of students from two colleges for two years
A Fisher exact of 0.0150 indicates that there
is a stronger proportion of engineering students in Fall than in Winter. We
next examined the graph comparing engineering students with those from LSA.
Figure 4. A comparison of student perceptions for two colleges at the
university.
Some interesting pattern differences emerged.
Notice that the LSA student reported equal perception on Collaboration but
lower perceptions on Laboratory and Inquiry items as shown in figure 4. Students
in LSA may perceive themselves as less able in the areas of Laboratory and
Inquiry reflecting (perhaps) background, career path or learning preference.
Discussion and Conclusion
Students' perceptions of their INQUIRY
competencies are lower than either LABORATORY or COLLABORATION skills. While
all the perceptions increase over time the perceptions of Inquiry competencies
remained lower that the others even at the end of the course The fact that the
largest increases are shown in the INQUIRY domain scale may indicate that
students believe the course is fostering higher-order cognitive skills. In a
traditional laboratory the student is "expected to produce a verification
of something that he already knows, and so ends up trained to ask what a result
is supposed to be, not what it in fact is" (Pickering, 1980). In contrast,
the approach of this collaborative inquiry course is to require students to
formulate conclusions using the team generated and computer summarized
"class data bank". In a traditional laboratory, students are
concerned that their experiments "work correctly", i.e. produce the
desired outcome or outcomes. In contrast, the course under study is both
data-driven and laboratory inquiry-centric and thus students are encouraged to
reflect on the implications and relevance of the class data. Thus questions
concerning data analysis, making predictions, designing experiments, and
drawing conclusions all showed marked improvement over the semester.
The fact that the COLLABORATION domain scale
shows only a positive trend over time indicates that students perceive that the
course is fostering these skills. In a typical traditional lab, individual
reports are collected. In the collaborative inquiry lab students prepare a
written and oral team report. Team members are required to share observations,
data or insights, and record a team consensus. When entering data or
observations into the computer, the team consensus is recorded. Oral
presentations of group findings are both peer and instructor evaluated. The
perception survey results indicate that such strategies are fostering
collaboration skills. The fact that gains in COLLABORATION skills are more
modest than INQUIRY skills over time could be due to an initial underestimate
of the difficulty in doing group work. This is particularly supported by the
difficulty students had with "working with a team" where their
original perceptions were high and fell significantly during the first five
weeks not even to return to initial levels by the thirteenth week.
The LABORATORY scale describes items, which
primarily relate to "hands-on" lab activities and lower order
cognitive skill demands (as opposed to the higher order demands of the INQUIRY
scale items). The positive increase in ratings over time indicates that
students perceive that the course methodology is also fostering these skills.
As noted above, the items of "constructing graphs", "using lab
instruments" and "collecting and organizing data" actually went
down during the first five weeks of the course. It may be that upon starting
the course the students regarded these as skills that they had already
mastered. These perceptions are consistent over time but appear to depend on
the "home" college of the student. Most of the students enrolled in
the course have completed high school chemistry or some other science courses
that have very beginning skills in these areas. After performing some
experiments in a conceptually difficult and rigorous environment, perhaps their
perceptions of their competency in these skills were challenged and therefore
fifth week ratings went down. By the end of the semester their overall ratings
increased due to use of these skills over time.
As noted above, both the LABORATORY and
COLLABORATION domain scales demonstrated rather modest gains when compared to
INQUIRY which made sizable leaps with each administration. INQUIRY domain
skills such as using data to predict the behavior or properties of untested
samples are systematically incorporated into all course experiments. It is
worth noting that the domain items initially rated the lowest by students were
the ones that dealt with INQUIRY skills. However, even more interesting is the
observation that these same items showed dramatic improvement. It therefore
stands to reason that students in the course are being exposed to undeveloped
higher level cognitive skills. More importantly, if students’ perceptions are
accurate, they also are improving in these cognitive skills over the course of
the semester.
References
Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a
unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychology Review, 84, 191-215.
Betz, N. E. & Hackett, G. (1983). The
relationship of mathematics self-efficacy expectations to the selection of
science-based college majors. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 23, 329-345. 2 2
Konigsberg Kerner, N., & Dershimer, C. (1992). Collaborative learning
and networked computers: An experiment in introductory general chemistry. Abstracts of papers, 12th International Conference
on Chemical Education, Bangkok, Thailand.
Konigsberg Kerner, N., & Penner-Hahn, J.
(1994). Cooperative learning in an
introductory inquiry lab.
Abstracts of Papers, Chem. Ed.#205, 208th ACS, Washington, D.C.
Konigsberg Kerner, N., Penner-Hahn, J.,
Berger. C., Black, B. and Dershimer, C. (1996), Computer Assisted
Collaborative Inquiry. Chemistry:
Expanding the Boundaries, Proceedings of the 14th International Conference
on Chemical Education, Royal Australian Chemical Institute, 205-206.
Konigsberg Kerner, N., Penner-Hahn, J.,
Berger, C., & Dershimer, C. (1997). Computer assisted collaborative inquiry
in the laboratory. In J. A. Chambers (Ed.), Selected papers from the Eighth
National Conference on College Teaching and Learning, (pp. 131-147).
Jacksonville, FL: Florida Community College at Jacksonville.
Lee, Y., Kerner, N., & Berger, C. (1998).
Student perceptions of their progress using computer-assisted collaborative
inquiry in the laboratory, National Association for Research in Science
Teaching. San Diego
Lent, R. W., Brown, S. D., & Larkin, K.
C. (1984). Relation of self-efficacy expectations to academic achievement and
persistence. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 31, 356-362
Pickering, M. (1980). Chronicle of Higher
Education, 19, 80