Experiments in the classroom: examples of inductive learning with classroom-friendly laboratory kits

The educational literature is full of examples of the effectiveness of inductive and hands on learning. Laboratory experiments are clearly an excellent place to encourage this type of learning. However, it would be beneficial to mix laboratory material with classroom presentations and problem solving in a more flexible approach than a traditional separate laboratory and lecture allows. We have recently been developing some laboratory kits, designed to be used in a standard classroom. In this paper we review the conceptual basis of using classroom laboratory kits and examples of our recent developments and experience with these kits. We are developing this approach for teaching process control and for teaching simple RLC circuits to Chemical Engineering students. In process control we are developing kits using the LEGO® RCX® brick and quick disconnect piping that allow students to experience a full design, build and test sequence. In electrical circuits we have simple snap together circuit kits that allow students to gain hands on experience with simple electrical principles in the classroom. Using these kits in the classroom allows for a range of contemporary learning approaches to be applied including inductive learning approaches, Kolb’s experiential learning cycle and problembased learning. Introduction In most engineering courses and curriculum the classroom and the laboratory are separated in both time and space. Even when the laboratory is part of an individual course, it is still generally separate from the classroom portion of the class. This separation is usually necessary due to the difference in resources and time required for the various laboratory vs. classroom course activities. In addition, this separation has often resulted in excellent classes and laboratories. However an opportunity is being missed. As many of us seek to teach inductively, to teach using the structure of experiential learning cycles and to teach with an awareness of varied student learning styles, mixing lecture and laboratory is advantageous. The use of laboratories is one of the distinctive features of engineering. Wankat and Orevitz1 suggest several goals that laboratories can meet including motivation and problem identification, discovery, induction, experience with equipment, real world type experiences, the opportunity to P ge 857.1 Proceedings of the 2003 American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition Copyright © 2003, American Society for Engineering Education build/test and experiences that are memorable. These are all goals valuable to most of our courses. In fact they are often the key elements missing from lecture. Wankat and Orevits1 note, “Laboratory experiments appear to be most effective when the solution is not known ahead of time.” However if there is too much separation between the students working on an unknown problem and them finding a solution, it can lead to frustration. A laboratory in the classroom allows students to see a problem and be quickly led toward a solution. In many cases instructors begin to bring the laboratory into the classroom through demonstrations or maybe a trip to the laboratory.2, 3 The use of a clinic approach brings the classroom into the laboratory. At Lafayette College, we have begun experimenting with self-contained laboratory kits to make hands on laboratory experience a part of lecture. We are finding this approach particularly helpful in implementing proven teaching approaches such as inductive learning, experiential learning cycles and sensitivity to varied learning styles. In this paper we briefly review the use of laboratories in these teaching approaches and present four strategies with examples of how we are attempting to bring laboratory exercises into the classroom. Experiments and Inductive Learning The inductive approach to teaching and learning is to begin with particulars and build to generalities. This is “backwards” from how we often naturally teach starting from general principles and then applying them to particulars. The inductive approach is the way most things are discovered and clearly how an infant learns, but it is not the way most courses are taught. It, therefore, requires we think differently about how we approach the classroom.1-6 Experiments are an excellent way to provide concrete particulars to begin inductive learning.1 Hesketh, Ferrell and Slater2 recommend the following sequence in using experiments in inductive learning: Prelab Handout Students are given a handout to peak interest that asks them to 1. hypothesize about qualitative outcome. Data Collection – Students complete experimental work consisting primarily of 2. data collection with graphical analysis. Discussion – Students identify key patterns and experimental relationships. 3. Lecture – Students are presented with key quantitative relationships. 4. Homework – Students are asked to complete calculations based on the laboratory 5. data This inductive approach contrasts with the usual deductive approach where we would generally start with the last two steps and then follow up with an experiment. Completing the experiment in class facilitates using this type of sequence. Having quick classroom experiments would allow the instructor to apply this exponential inductive sequence to more topics over a semester than if it were always necessary to wait for a convenient laboratory period. Dahm3 also describes the use of an inductive approach in teaching about distillation based on a hierarchy proposed by Haile.7-11 This approach is more complex and utilizes an excellent mixture of exploratory calculation, example operation and the use of a process simulator in teaching distillation. Once again an experiment is used in the early stages. A distillation column for the P ge 857.2 Proceedings of the 2003 American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition Copyright © 2003, American Society for Engineering Education classroom is beyond our capabilities but applying Haile’s hierarchy to other problems could be facilitated by classroom experiments. A clear and helpful critique of traditional teaching approaches can be found in Thomas Magliozzi’s “The New Theory of Learning”.12 Magliozzi is best known as one of the hosts on the NPR radio show “Car Talk” but he was also for many years a professor of management. He starts off describing the weakness of the traditional lecture model of instruction noting, “Listening does not lead to understanding; doing does lead to understanding.”12 He also provides a popular level description of a problem-based style of inductive learning under the title, “The backwards learning theory.” Of particular interest is his emphasis on the ways a problem can provide motivation to increasing learning. Experiments as a starting point for the discussion of various topics provide a way to set up this “backward” and “doing” based learning. Experiments and Experiential Learning Cycles (e.g., Kolb Cycles) The concept of using experience in education is not a new one. John Dewey discusses the needs and nature for experiential learning in his still timely work Experience and Education.13 Many learning cycles have been suggested. These learning cycles vary from two to five or six steps but essentially all include active and reflective components. Figure 1 depicts the four-step Kolb cycle of experiential learning, one of the most widely considered in engineering education.14 This cycle consist of Concrete Experience, Reflective Observation, Abstract Conceptualization and Active Experimentation. While the cycle can begin at any step, it is generally begun with the concrete experience step.1 All four steps are required for complete learning to occur. Experiments can be used in the first step, Concrete Experience, and in the last step, Active Experimentation. These steps can also be carried out by other means but physical experiments allow a high level of student control over their educational experience.15 Concrete Experience CE Reflective Observation RE Abstract Conceptualization AC Active Experimentation AEConceptualization AC Active Experimentation AE Figure 1: Kolb’s Experiential Learning Cycle P ge 857.3 Proceedings of the 2003 American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition Copyright © 2003, American Society for Engineering Education Experiments and Learning Styles The combination of laboratories with the classroom setting also allows for a natural balancing of learning styles. The issue of learning styles has been brought to the engineering education communities attention in the past many years by Professor Felder’s work.5, 6, 16 His approach to learning styles uses several dichotomous axes: the active vs. the reflective learner, the sensate vs. the intuitive learner, the visual vs. the verbal learner and the global vs. sequential learner. There is a need to address both poles of each of these dichotomies. Overgeneralizing a bit, experiments provide concrete experiences that appeal to the active, sensate, visual and global poles. Setting in a classroom allows for more reflection, intuition, verbal and exploration of the problem. This approach of setting experiments in the classroom tends to naturally balance the different learning styles. Strategies for Implementing Laboratories in the Classroom Below we outline four strategies for using the advantages of experiments in the classroom. These strategies start with demonstrations and dry labs thought experiments and progress through conducting class in a different type of setting. In each case examples are given for using each strategy. Strategy 1: Experimental Demonstrations: Demonstrations have long been used in the science classroom, particularly on the introductory level. They can provide those particulars needed to begin an inductive process. Their key disadvantage is that the students are still spectators. It is crucial that some active exercise is used