Optimizing a Windows-Based Computer Data Acquisition and Reduction System for the General Chemistry Laboratory
DUE
9652855
Ed
Vitz
Kutztown
University
Brenda
Egolf
Evaluation Specialist
Introduction
There
were three major products of this project:
(1) The first is a new version
of the LIMSport laboratory manual based on Excel, which is used in all sections
of the General Chemistry course at Kutztown University, and ExcelÒ laboratory templates necessary to support it. The original version was based on DOS/Lotus
1-2-3Ò. A sample chapter has
been submitted as a separate file in the Activities Section of this report. (2)
Second, we completed a formal assessment of the efficacy of our
computer-centered LIMSport Laboratory Program at Kutztown University in an
attempt to determine what level of computer prompting is optimal for first year
science students. The results of that
study are reported below. And Finally, (3)
we found it necessary to redesign all of the software, and some of the hardware
components of the LIMSport system in response to unanticipated changes by
MicrosoftÒ in the WindowsÒ
operating system. A copy of an article
written for Scientific Computing and Instrumentation, which describes the
project and includes acknowledgements of NSF support, is included in the
Activities Section of this report.
Assessment of
LIMSport Curriculum Development Project
LIMSport is a Laboratory Information Management System for the general chemistry laboratory that allows direct
importation of data from a variety of analytical instruments. According to the manual the instruments are
interfaced with the computer so that the results are recorded directly into a
Microsoft Excel for Windows spreadsheet.
Once data are recorded in the spreadsheet, the data are converted to
more useful forms by calculating formulas, applying statistics, creating
tables, and plotting the data.
The advantages of laboratory
information management systems (LIMS) described in the Student Laboratory
Manual (Vitz, 1997, p. 1) are that they
·
eliminate the mistakes made
in reading instruments, recording the reading, and transcribing them into a
finished report
·
make data gathering faster
and more efficient
·
make repetitive calculations
accurately with little effort
·
allow the creation of
professional-appearing graphs and tables
·
allow complete statistical
procedures to be done automatically so that the user can concentrate on the
meaning of the results rather that the details of the calculations.
·
allow the compilation of
final reports from the experimental data without rewriting or re-entering any
of the data.
·
allow fast, accurate printing
of reports, graphs, and tables.
In this project at Kutztown University, all students attend the same lecture and have the same laboratory, computers, equipment, and supplies. Over two years there are six instructors in the laboratories conducting from five to seven laboratories per semester. There are ten stations and two students are assigned to a station. Computers are used to acquire all data in General Chemistry Laboratories at Kutztown University by means of the LIMSport program (Vitz, 1998, p 1661), which adds data acquisition tool buttons to the Excel spreadsheet. In this project, every experimental group instructor also has a control group section. In the control laboratories, students were presented with spreadsheet templates that provide organized but empty data tables and some embedded formulas that calculate results automatically. In the experimental laboratories, students were presented with blank templates, so that they are forced to organize data and enter Excel formulas to get final results during the laboratory period. The question is which students will learn more. Will the first treatment reduce the “short term memory overload” that Johnstone blames for poor performance [Johnstone, 701-5), and allow students to concentrate on experimental detail? Or will students learn more when forced to think more during the laboratory about both theoretical and practical matters at the same time?
In the 1997-1998 school year, 137 students took one or both
semesters of the introductory chemistry course. During the first week the students were asked to fill out the
Kutztown University Chemical Background Information sheet (see Appendix A) which asked questions about their proposed
major, career goals, science and mathematics courses completed in high school
and college, computer skills, and interest in science and chemistry. Of the 137 students, 96 (70%) filled out the
Chemical Background Information Sheet.
They were also given a revised version of Campbell’s Scientific
Curiosity Inventory (see Appendix
B) which 92 students (67%) completed. The students were requested to fill out the
Myers-Briggs Type Indicator Form G booklet outside of class, and they were
given a brief expository, “About the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator” (see Appendix E) that we wrote to describe the test. Only 52
(38%) filled out the Myers-Briggs Inventory. Most students felt that this was totally voluntary as they were
asked to complete it outside of class.
There was a drawing for prizes such as a pizza gift certificate, for
those who filled out the forms. Each student was presented with an Informed
Consent Form (see Appendix
C), which explained the nature of the project
and informed the student of his right to decline
participation without penalty. Students
submitted forms by placing them in envelopes while faculty were present, but
students were told that faculty would
never have access to the forms, that only the outside evaluator would store and
read the various forms. All
participants acknowledged this agreement by signature. All the forms prepared for this study, as
well as presentation slides, have been made available at a web site http://www.kutztown.edu/~vitz/limsport/ACS218/ACS218HOME.htm
in
response to interest expressed by attendees at a presentation at the 218th
National American Chemical Society Meeting.
In fall 1997, there were five laboratory sections. Two sections of the course were designated as experimental laboratory sections, and three sections were designated as control sections. Each experimental section instructor also had a control section. The students ranged in age from 17 to 42, although 52.5% were between the ages of 18 and 20. The mean age was 20. Of the group who filled out the questionnaire, about 24% were planning to major in marine science, 20.8% in biology, 15.6% in environmental sciences, 9.4% in chemistry, 9.4% in secondary education, and 6.3% in medical technology. The rest of the group had usually chosen majors in science. Almost 40% were taking their first college courses, and another 40% had taken eleven or more courses. The mean number of courses taken was 11.0.
During the next
school year 1998-1999, 135 students took one or both semesters of the
introductory chemistry course. The
response rate on all of the instruments improved because the students were
given time in class to complete them. A
total of 119 students (88%) completed the Chemical Background Information
Sheet, 116 students (86%) filled out the Campbell Scientific Curiosity
Inventory, and 114 students (84%) filled out the Myers-Briggs Inventory. This was a substantial increase in the response
rate.
In
fall 1998, there were also five laboratory sections. The students in the class ranged in age from 17 to 36 years, but
about 69% were between the ages of 18 and 20.
The mean age was again 20. Of
the students who filled out the questionnaire, about 41% were planning to major
in biology, 13.4% in environmental science, 10.1% in secondary education, 8.4%
in chemistry, and 6.7% in marine science.
The rest planned to major in another science. Approximately
32% were in their first semester of college, and another 32% had completed 15 or
fewer college courses.
Rubrics for
Laboratory Reports
In spring
1997, the chemistry department and the evaluator developed a rubric (see Appendix D) for grading the
laboratory reports. The chemistry
department staff decided that there are four components of a complete
laboratory report: the Introduction, Data Presentation, Data Analysis, and
Conclusion. The Introduction states the
purpose, explains the experimental method, identifies relevant chemical and
mathematical equations, and places the experiment in context with the chemical
program and/or the everyday world. In
the Data Presentation section, the student reports meaningful data to the
correct number of significant figures; organizes data effectively; uses labels
in tables for headings, columns, and units; and makes qualitative
observations. Because the data were
reported on Excel templates which facilitate creation of charts, graphs of raw
data were required in this section. In
the Data Analysis section, the student uses symbols and units in a correct
standard formula, substitutes numbers in the formula, performs calculations
using correct algebra, reports answers correctly, uses graphs to link theory
and data, and interprets qualitative observations. In the Conclusion, the student summarizes results as they apply
to the chemical concept, explains errors and recognizes outliers, indicates
trends, interprets results, applies knowledge and scientific facts to
underlying concepts, and makes predictions to new circumstances.
The qualities of a score from six to
one were also described in the rubric.
For example, to receive a score of 6, a report would use clear language
and show originality in a fully-integrated and organized introduction. It would fully address data organization
tasks and analysis tasks and would
demonstrate the central concept using original language and ideas in the
Conclusion. On the other hand, a report
would receive a score of 4 if it adequately integrates purpose, techniques,
equations, and context and shows adequate performance of data observation and
presentation tasks, and adequate data
analysis. It would summarize findings
and draw some conclusions. A score of 3
is assigned to a report that partially states purpose, context, techniques, and
equations but does not integrate them.
It partially addresses data observation and presentation tasks and
partially performs data analysis tasks.
It would summarize some results but has inadequate coverage of one
element.
The rubric was shared with the
students at the beginning of the fall semester, and the laboratory manual also
contains a section on the structure of the laboratory report. The rubric was used for grading laboratory
reports throughout the study and provided a standard for measuring the results
of the laboratory reports over time. In
addition to laboratory reports, the students in the laboratory sections were
given quizzes and tests.
Table 1: Chemistry lab rubric scores
1997-98 1998-99
first
second first second scorer
scorer scorer scorer
First semester
Chemical changes
of copper: a complete cycle 4.22 --- 3.26 ---
Density 1:
Identification of metals and plastics 3.00 --- 2.99 ---
Density 2:
Precision and accuracy in measurements 3.30 3.03 3.48 3.55
Radioactivity 3.94 --- 2.91 ---
Formula of a
hydrate 3.71 3.30 4.00 ---
Qualitative
analysis of group I 4.20 --- 3.11 ---
Conductivity and
solution stoichiometry 3.32 3.24 2.55 2.34
Spectrophotometric
analysis of commercial aspirin 3.70 --- 3.73 ---
Equivalent
weight of a metal by gas evolution analysis 3.96 3.83 2.99 2.90
Synthesis of
Potassium Tris(oxalato)ferrate (III) --- --- 2.54 ---
Thermochemistry 4.06 --- 2.95 ---
Emission
Spectroscopy 3.46 --- 2.24 2.09
Determination of
molecular weight by freezing point dep. --- --- 3.95 ---
The shape of
molecules: Lewis restructuring and modeling 4.91 --- --- ---
Mean 3.90 3.13
Number of cases 86 100
1997-98 1998-99
first second first
second
Second semester
Phosphorescence
Decay 4.09 --- 3.76 ---
Half-life of
Ba-137m 3.55 --- 3.56 ---
Kinetics of dye
bleaching l 3.19 --- 2.55 ---
Kinetics of dye
bleaching 2 3.95 --- 3.31 ---
Kinetics of
phenolphthalein bleaching 3.69 3.69 --- ---
Determination of
Equilibrium Constant for FeSCN2+ 4.56 --- 3.20 3.20
Determination of
dissociation constant for a weak acid 3.75 3.48 3.94 ---
Effectiveness of
commercial antacids 4.79 --- 3.41 3.09
Buffers 3.88 --- 4.03 ---
Determination of
a solubility product constant 4.20 3.73 3.26 3.18
Examples of
chemical equilibrium 4.20 --- 4.35 ---
Voltaic cells 4.66 --- 3.72 ---
Efficiency of
electrochemical etching 4.00 --- 3.34 ---
Mean 4.08 3.52
Number of cases 71 80
Change in rubric scores from fall to
spring .18 .39
Note: the voltaic cells experiment was not included in the totals for spring 1999 because one laboratory section did not complete the assignment.
The rubric provided the means for determining a six point
holistic scale with a score of 6 indicating exemplary work. Papers that were illegible or had
indecipherable words,
were incoherent or made no sense, or were blank papers were recorded as
non-scoreable and received a score of 0.
A student who did not hand in a report received a score of 0. Every semester a second professor would
independently score four sets of laboratory reports to determine the
reliability of the scoring system for the laboratory reports. The two people scoring the reports would
discuss those reports that did not receive the same or adjacent scores in order
to agree on the scores. In general, the
second scorer usually gave the lower score (see Table 1).
In
1998-1999 there was an increase in the rubric scores on the laboratory
reports. The five students who took the
first semester course in the fall of 1997 and the second semester in the spring
of 1999 were included. The control
groups had a mean score of 3.10
in the fall and a mean score of 3.60 in the spring (See Figure 1). The experimental groups had a mean score of 2.97 in the fall and 3.37 in the spring. The experimental method was more difficult
for most students.
The women in the control groups had the highest rubric scores
(See Figure 2). In fall the
experimental women had the next highest scores, and in spring the control men
had the next highest scores. All of the
groups had an increase in scores from fall to spring.
Myers-Briggs Type Indicator
According
to Isabel Myers and Mary McCaulley, the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator contains
four indices, which reflect four preferences concerning the use of perception
and judgement (Myers, 1985, p. 2).
The EI scale (extraversion or introversion) concerns whether a person is
focused on the outside world of other people or the inside world of ideas. The SN (sensing or intuitive) scale
indicates a preference for observable events or facts that are discovered
through one of the five senses as opposed to the meanings or relationships
developed in one’s mind. The TF
(thinking or feeling) scale describes the dichotomy between deciding based on
logical consequences or deciding based on values. The JP (judgment-perception) index describes the process used in
connection with the outside world. This
concerns the decision to use the judging attitude by using thinking or feeling
or to use the perceptive attitude using sensing or intuition (Myers,
1985, p. 2). Sixteen
"types" result from the various combinations of these four
preferences. Myers and McCaulley
believe that the types display different motivations for learning and that it
is important to develop different teaching methods, curricula, and materials
for different types (Myers, 1985, p. 4).
During the 1998-1999 school year,
high scores on the judging scale correlated with higher rubric scores in fall
.26**†, but there was no relationship in the
spring. Conversely student who had
higher scores on the perceiving scale had a significant negative
correlation.
Temperament Types
Myers and
McCaulley found that science is often chosen by NT types in response to the
question on the MBTI that asks “Which do you like best --math, English,
science, history, practical skills, music, art?” This could be because science can connote actions like discovery,
analysis and theory that would appeal to this (Myers, 1985, p. 100).
All of the
temperament groups had an increase in rubric scores from fall to spring. The
intuitive thinkers showed the greatest improvement. The sensing perceivers and the sensing judgers had the highest
scores in fall, and the intuitive thinkers and the sensing perceivers had the
highest scores in spring (see table 2).
The scores for the intuitive feelers dropped in spring.
Table 2:
Personality temperaments in chemistry laboratories
1997-98 1998-1999
Number Percent Number Percent
Intuitive
thinkers (NT) 8 15.4 25 21.9
Intuitive
feelers (NF) 16 30.8 23 20.2
Sensing judgers
(SJ) 22 42.3 40 35.1
Sensing
perceivers (SP) 6 11.5 26 22.8
Missing 85 21
Total 137 135