Effectiveness of Podcasts Delivered on Mobile Devices as a Support for Student Learning During General Chemistry Laboratories

Chemistry instructors in teaching laboratories provide expert modeling of techniques and cognitive processes and provide assistance to enrolled students that may be described as scaffolding interaction. Such student support is particularly essential in laboratories taught with an inquiry-based curriculum. In a teaching laboratory with a high instructor-to-student ratio, mobile devices can provide a platform for expert modeling and scaffolding during the laboratory sessions. This research study provides data collected on the effectiveness of podcasts delivered as needed in a first-semester general chemistry laboratory setting. Podcasts with audio and visual tracks covering essential laboratory techniques and central concepts that aid in experimental design or data processing were prepared and made available for students to access on an as-needed basis on iPhones® or iPod touches®. Research focused in three areas: the extent of podcast usage, the numbers and types of interactions between instructors and student laboratory teams, and student performance on graded assignments. Data analysis indicates that on average the podcast treatment laboratory teams accessed a podcast 2.86 times during the laboratory period during each week that podcasts were available. Comparison of interaction data for the lecture treatment laboratory teams and podcast treatment laboratory teams reveals that scaffolding interactions with instructors were statistically significantly fewer for teams that had podcast access rather than a pre-laboratory lecture. The implication of the results is that student laboratory teams were able to gather laboratory information more effectively when it was presented in an on-demand podcast format than in a pre-laboratory lecture format. Finally, statistical analysis of data on student performance on graded assignments indicates no significant differences between outcome measures for the treatment groups when compared as cohorts. The only statistically significant difference is between students who demonstrated a high level of class participation in the concurrent general chemistry lecture course; for this sub-group the students in the podcast treatment group earned a course average that was statistically significantly higher than those in the lecture treatment group.

[1]  Gail Salaway,et al.  The ECAR Study of Undergraduate Students and Information Technology, 2008 , 2007 .

[2]  Eric Malina,et al.  Learning Chemistry in a Laboratory Environment , 2002 .

[3]  Mark A. Buntine,et al.  Advancing Chemistry by Enhancing Learning in the Laboratory (ACELL): a model for providing professional and personal development and facilitating improved student laboratory learning outcomes , 2007 .

[4]  Philip M. Sadler,et al.  Factors Influencing College Science Success. , 2006 .

[5]  A. Bandura.  Social learning theory , 1977 .

[6]  M. Credé,et al.  Class Attendance in College , 2010 .

[7]  James J. Appleton,et al.  Student engagement with school: Critical conceptual and methodological issues of the construct. , 2008 .

[8]  Marcy H. Towns,et al.  Preparing Students To Benefit from Inquiry-Based Activities in the Chemistry Laboratory: Guidelines and Suggestions , 2009 .

[9]  David J. Adams.  Current Trends in Laboratory Class Teaching in University Bioscience Programmes , 2009 .

[10]  W. Thalheimer,et al.  How to calculate effect sizes from published research: A simplified methodology , 2002 .

[11]  Lester Andrews,et al.  First-Year Chemistry Grades and SAT Math Scores. , 1979 .

[12]  Alan Levine,et al.  The 2010 Horizon Report. , 2010 .

[13]  Michael Jeffrey Elliott,et al.  On the role of the laboratory in learning chemistry , 2006 .

[14]  Michael R. Abraham,et al.  The Nature and State of General Chemistry Laboratory Courses Offered by Colleges and Universities in the United States , 1997 .

[15]  Carmen Drahl.  LIGHTS, CAMERA, CHEMISTRY: Learning how to make LAB DEMONSTRATION VIDEOS can pay off for instructors and students , 2010 .

[16]  T. Jong,et al.  The Relation between Prior Knowledge and Students' Collaborative Discovery Learning Processes. , 2005 .

[17]  Brian Hand,et al.  Using the science writing heuristic in the general chemistry laboratory to improve students' academic performance , 2007 .

[18]  Ann L. Brown,et al.  How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school. , 1999 .

[19]  Dudley E. Shallcross,et al.  Transferring Best Practice From Undergraduate Practical Teaching To Secondary Schools: The Dynamic Laboratory Manual , 2009 .

[20]  Rachel Mamlok-Naaman,et al.  The laboratory in science education: the state of the art , 2007 .

[21]  Hannah Sevian,et al.  Incrementally Approaching an Inquiry Lab Curriculum: Can Changing a Single Laboratory Experiment Improve Student Performance in General Chemistry?. , 2009 .

[22]  A. Johnstone.  Chemistry Teaching - Science or Alchemy? 1996 Brasted Lecture , 1997 .

[23]  Hans Niedderer,et al.  Teaching and learning in the science laboratory , 2003 .

[24]  L. Tibell,et al.  Benefiting from an open-ended experiment? A comparison of attitudes to, and outcomes of, an expository versus an open-inquiry version of the same experiment , 2003 .

[25]  Joseph Krajcik,et al.  A Scaffolding Design Framework for Software to Support Science Inquiry , 2004, The Journal of the Learning Sciences.

[26]  F M Pottenger,et al.  The development and validation of The Inquiry Science Observation Coding Sheet. , 2008, Evaluation and program planning.

[27]  Rebecca A. Krystyniak,et al.  Analysis of Verbal Interactions during an Extended, Open-Inquiry General Chemistry Laboratory Investigation. , 2007 .

[28]  R Core Team,et al.  R: A language and environment for statistical computing. , 2014 .

[29]  J. Kolodner,et al.  Toward implementing distributed scaffolding: Helping students learn science from design , 2005 .

[30]  Glennys O'Brien,et al.  Prelaboratory activities to enhance the laboratory learning experience , 2012 .

[31]  Gareth J. Price,et al.  Using a VLE to enhance a Foundation Chemistry laboratory module , 2006 .

[32]  Richard E. Clark,et al.  Why Minimal Guidance During Instruction Does Not Work: An Analysis of the Failure of Constructivist, Discovery, Problem-Based, Experiential, and Inquiry-Based Teaching , 2006 .

[33]  J. Bransford.  How people learn , 2000 .

[34]  Diane M. Bunce,et al.  THE USE OF THE GALT (GROUP ASSESSMENT OF LOGICAL THINKING) AS A PREDICTOR OF ACADEMIC SUCCESS IN COLLEGE CHEMISTRY , 1993 .

[35]  Claire M McDonnell,et al.  Online Support and Online Assessment for Teaching and Learning Chemistry , 2009 .

[36]  Avi Hofstein,et al.  THE LABORATORY IN CHEMISTRY EDUCATION: THIRTY YEARS OF EXPERIENCE WITH DEVELOPMENTS, IMPLEMENTATION, AND RESEARCH , 2004 .

[37]  Jessica N. Orvis,et al.  Internet-Based Prelaboratory Tutorials and Computer-Based Probes in General Chemistry , 2003 .

[38]  Stacey Lowery Bretz,et al.  A rubric to characterize inquiry in the undergraduate chemistry laboratory , 2007 .

[39]  Vincent N. Lunetta,et al.  The Laboratory in Science Education: Foundations for the Twenty-First Century , 2004 .

[40]  Pasl A. Jalil.  A Procedural Problem in Laboratory Teaching; Experiment and Explain, or Vice-Versa? , 2006 .

[41]  N. Kuncel,et al.  Study Habits, Skills, and Attitudes: The Third Pillar Supporting Collegiate Academic Performance , 2008, Perspectives on psychological science : a journal of the Association for Psychological Science.

[42]  Joe L. March,et al.  ChemPages Laboratory: Abstract of Special Issue 24 on CD-ROM , 2000 .