Student views of a PBL chemistry laboratory in a general education science course
Main Article Content
Abstract
Several traditional chemistry lab experiences were replaced with a problem-based learning (PBL) experience in a college, general education, conceptual chemistry course. Students worked in small groups on an authentic chemistry problem where each student played a different role (Scientist, Engineering, Marketing Manager, Safety Officer, or Secretary). Mid-semester, the pandemic forced the course online. Q methodology [Q] was used to determine the divergent viewpoints that existed amongst the students regarding their PBL experience. Each student provided their view by sorting related statements into a grid. Three divergent viewpoints emerged from the analyses Two viewpoints are positive about the PBL experience (Motivated learners and Committed to my group) and one is negative (Negative experience due to group dynamics). Descriptions of these views and implications are discussed.
Article Details
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
1. Publication and Promotion: In consideration of the Publisher’s agreement to publish the Work, Author hereby grants and assigns to Publisher the non-exclusive right to print, publish, reproduce, or distribute the Work throughout the world in all means of expression by any method now known or hereafter developed, including electronic format, and to market or sell the Work orany part of it as Publisher sees fit. Author further grants Publisher the right to use Author’s name in association with the Work inpublished form and in advertising and promotional materials
2. Copyright: Copyright of the Work remains in Author’s name.
3. Prior Publication and Attribution: Author agrees not to publish the Work in print form prior to publication of the Work by the Publisher. Author agrees to cite, by author, title, and publisher, the original Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-based Learning publication when publishing the Work elsewhere
4. Author Representations: The Author represents and warrants that the Work:
(a) is the Author’s original Work and that Author has full power to enter into this Agreement;
(b) does not infringe the copyright or property of another;
(c) contains no material which is obscene, libelous, defamatory or previously published, in whole or in part.
Author shall indemnify and hold Publisher harmless against loss of expenses arising from breach of any such warranties.
5. Licensing and Reuse: Reuse of the published Work will be governed by a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License (CC BY-NC 4.0; http://creativecommons.org/licenses/ by-nc/4.0/). This license lets others remix, tweak, and build upon the Work non-commercially; although new works must acknowledge the original Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-based Learning publication and be non-commercial, they do not have to be licensed on the same terms.
References
Author. (2015). [details removed for blind review].
Author. (2020). [details removed for blind review].
Agarwal, P. K. (2019). Retrieval practice & Bloom’s taxonomy: Do students need fact knowledge before higher order learning? Journal of Educational Psychology, 111(2), 189-209. http://dx.doi.org.ezproxy.uakron.edu:2048/10.1037/edu0000282
Association of American Colleges and Universities. (2007). College learning for the new global century. Retrieved February 3, 2020, from http://www.aacu.org/advocacy/leap/documents/GlobalCentury_final.pdf.
An, Y. J. (2013). Systematic design of blended PBL: Exploring the design experiences and support needs of PBL novices in an online environment. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 13(1), 61-79.
Banasick, S. (2019). Ken-Q Analysis (Version 1.0.6) [Software]. Available from https://shawnbanasick.github.io/ken-q-analysis/ doi:10.5281/zenodo.1300201.
Barrows, H. S. (1996). Problem-Based Learning in medicine and beyond: A brief overview. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, (68), 3-12.
Bate, E., Hommes, J., Duvivier, R., & Taylor, D. C. M. (2014). Problem-based learning (PBL): Getting the most out of your students - Their roles and responsibilities: AMEE Guide No. 84. Medical Teacher, 36(1), 1–12. https://doi-org.ezproxy.uakron.edu:2443/10.3109/0142159X.2014.848269
Bodner & Herron (2003). Problem-Solving in Chemistry. In J.K. Gilbert et al. (eds.), Chemical Education: Towards Research-based Practice, 101–124. Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Chinn, C. A., & Malhotra, B. A. (2002). Epistemologically authentic inquiry in schools: A
theoretical framework for evaluating inquiry tasks. Science Education, 86(2), 175–218.
De Vos, Bulte, & Pilot (2003). Chemistry Curricula for General Education Analysis and Elements of Design. In J.K. Gilbert et al. (eds.), Chemical Education: Towards Research-based Practice, 101–124. Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Hmelo-Silver, C. E. (2004). Problem-based learning: What and how do students learn? Educational Psychology Review, 16, 235-266.
Hmelo-Silver, C. E. & Barrows, H. S. (2008). Facilitating collaborative knowledge building. Cognition and Instruction, 26(1), pp 48-94. doi: 10.1080/07370000701798495
Hofstein, A., & Lunetta, V. N. (2004). The laboratory in science education: Foundations for the twenty-first century. Science Education, 88, 28-54.
Jonassen, D. H. (2000). Toward a design theory of problem solving. Educational Technology Research and Development, 48(4), 63-85.
Jonassen, D. H. (2011). Learning to solve problems: A handbook for designing problem-solving learning environments. New York: Routledge.
Kapp, E. (2009). Improving student teamwork in a collaborative project-based course. College Teaching, 57, pp 139-143.
Land, S., & Zembal-Saul, C. (2003). Scaffolding reflection and revision of explanations about light during project-based learning: An investigation of progress portfolio. Educational Technology Research and Development, 51, 65–84. DOI: 10.1007/BF02504544
Miller, B. J., & Sundre, D. L. (2008). Achievement Goal Orientation Toward General Education Versus Overall Coursework. JGE: The Journal of General Education, 57(3), 152–169. https://doi.org/10.1353/jge.0.0022
National Research Council. (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Pfaff, E., and P. Huddleston. 2003. Does it matter if I hate teamwork? What impacts student attitudes toward teamwork. Journal of Marketing Education, 25, 37–45.
Popper, K. (1994). Alles leben ist problemlösen. Munich, Germany: Piper Verlag.
Rowe, M. P., Gillespie, B. M., Harris, K. R., Koether, S. D., Shannon, L. Y., & Rose, L. A. (2015). Redesigning a general education science course to promote critical thinking. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 14, pp 1-12. doi: 10.1187/cbe.15-02-0032
Ryan, R. M., Deci E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development and well-being. American Psychology, 55, pp 68–78.
Ryan, R. M., & La Guardia. J. G. (2000). What is being optimized over development?: A self-determination theory perspective on basic psychological needs across the life span. In S. Quails & R. Abeles (Eds.), Dialogues on psychology and aging. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Tobin, K. G. (1990). Research on science laboratory activities. In pursuit of better questions and answers to improve learning. School Science and Mathematics, 90, 403–418.