1 / VOL. 1, NO.

4 ISSN 1430-4171
THE CHEMICAL EDUCATOR http://journals.springer-ny.com/chedr
© 1996 SPRINGER-VERLAG NEW YORK, INC. 10.1007/s00897960053a

In the Classroom

Environmental
Chemistry in the
General Chemistry
Laboratory, Part II:
Evaluation of An
Alternative Curriculum
SUSAN KEGLEY*, ANGELICA M. STACY, and
JOSHUA P. GUTWILL
Department of Chemistry
University of California, Berkeley
Berkeley, CA 94720-1460
[email protected]

T
his is the second of two closely-related articles
Our hope was that
describing an innovative approach to teaching first-
this new year chemistry. The first article provides details of
the methods for teaching the course, and this article
laboratory discusses the student evaluation data obtained for the project.
curriculum would The goals of the project were threefold: (1) to increase
students’ interest in science early in their academic careers,
serve to motivate particularly women and minority students; (2) to raise students’
students and help awareness of the connections between chemistry and real-life
issues; and (3) to engender a more sophisticated view of
them develop their science among students. To achieve these goals, we created a
module-based laboratory curriculum in which each module is
skills as scientists.
centered on a specific environmental question that the students
2 / VOL. 1, NO. 4 ISSN 1430-4171
THE CHEMICAL EDUCATOR http://journals.springer-ny.com/chedr
© 1996 SPRINGER-VERLAG NEW YORK, INC. S 1430-4171 (96) 04053-8

must answer. This article focuses on the project’s evaluation, which compares the
performance and attitudes of students in the environmental laboratory to those in a
traditional one. Classroom performance results indicate that although the students in the
environmental laboratory entered the class less prepared than the students in the regular
laboratory, both groups performed equally well at the end of the chemistry course.
Students in the environmental group ranked the laboratory significantly higher on a
department evaluation survey than students in the regular group, indicating their
heightened satisfaction with the laboratory experience. Compared to the regular-
laboratory students, the environmental students also displayed a greater awareness of the
relationship of chemistry to everyday life and a more sophisticated view of science.

Introduction
For more than a decade, many chemistry educators and national leaders have claimed
that the traditional chemistry curriculum fails to meet the needs of our students and our
society. By several accounts, students find chemistry courses difficult, boring and
irrelevant to their lives [1–3]. This dissatisfaction results in high attrition rates from the
introductory courses, and disproportionately affects women and underrepresented
minority students [4]. A scientifically-literate public is a desirable outcome of the
educational process, yet there is a widely-held perception that the science literacy of the
average U.S. citizen is declining [5–8]. Even the business and industrial communities are
reporting that graduating students have not been taught critical thinking and teamwork
skills, nor do they emerge from undergraduate institutions with the broad,
interdisciplinary perspective on science required to perform optimally on the job [9, 10].
Clearly, there is a need to rethink the way we presently teach chemistry.

In this project, we developed a set of context-based laboratory experiments, tested them

in pilot sections of the first-year laboratory program, and gathered data on the
effectiveness of this approach in helping students learn and in improving their attitudes
towards chemistry. Our hope was that this new laboratory curriculum would serve to
motivate students and help them develop their skills as scientists. The goals of our
program were threefold:

1. To interest students in science early in their academic careers, particularly

women and minority students.
3 / VOL. 1, NO. 4 ISSN 1430-4171
THE CHEMICAL EDUCATOR http://journals.springer-ny.com/chedr
© 1996 SPRINGER-VERLAG NEW YORK, INC. S 1430-4171 (96) 04053-8

2. To increase students’ awareness of the connections of chemistry to real-life

issues.

3. To raise the level of sophistication of students’ view of science.

This paper describes the evaluation of this approach in the context of the above goals.
The preceding paper provides an overview of the environmental experiments performed
by the students.

The Course and Laboratory

More than 2,000 University of California at Berkeley students enroll each year in the
introductory first-year chemistry course, Chemistry 1A, which includes two hours of
lecture, one hour of discussion, and four hours of laboratory per week. The experiments
performed by the students in regular laboratory sections of 28 students typically involve
a simple procedure illustrating a chemical concept. They are completed during one
laboratory period. Beginning in 1993, several special environmental laboratory sections
were offered as an option to 60–70 self-selected students each semester. These students
attended the same lecture and were given the same exams, but performed different
laboratory experiments. In this “modular” laboratory program (see previous paper), three
to four weeks of laboratory work are integrated around one overarching theme related to
environmental chemistry. The environmental laboratory employs a variety of alternative
approaches to teaching, including context-based experiments, collaborative learning, and
role-playing activities [11].

Methods of Data Collection and Analysis

The environmental laboratory was evaluated over the course of five consecutive
semesters, beginning with the Spring semester of 1993 and ending with the Spring
semester of 1995. An anonymous affective survey served as the main instrument for
evaluating the effectiveness of the new curriculum. Given at the end of the semester, the
survey was composed generally of two types of questions: student background and
student attitude. The background questions asked students to describe themselves—
gender, ethnicity, class rank, intended major, intended career, and plans for taking future
chemistry courses. The attitude questions asked students to discuss their experiences in
the laboratory.
4 / VOL. 1, NO. 4 ISSN 1430-4171
THE CHEMICAL EDUCATOR http://journals.springer-ny.com/chedr
© 1996 SPRINGER-VERLAG NEW YORK, INC. S 1430-4171 (96) 04053-8

The questionnaire evolved over the course of five semesters, so not all questions were
answered by all students. In order to obtain comparative data, three limited surveys of
the regular laboratory sections were carried out in the Fall 1993, Fall 1995, and Spring
1996 semesters. The data from the Fall 1993 survey yield the best comparison between
the two groups, because the surveys were identical and the return rate of completed
surveys was high. Consequently, most of the analyses that compare the two groups are
drawn from the Fall 1993 incarnation of the survey.

In analyzing the survey data, we employed a small number of statistical methods. The
most prevalent was to compare the number of students in the environmental group who
provided a particular answer on the survey to the number of students in the regular group
who also gave that answer. To check for statistical significance in cases like this, we
used a Chi-square test. If the number of students in one group was less than five, we
used a Fisher Exact test. Unless otherwise noted, all tests were two-tailed.

Some of the data consist of students’ answers to open-ended questions, such as, “What
is the most important thing you learned in this laboratory course?” Students’ responses
to these questions were coded, and the frequencies of each type of response from each
group were tallied. Again, we employed a Chi-square test to determine statistically
significant differences in the number and kinds of open-ended responses students gave in
each laboratory group. As a check for the reliability of the coding scheme, a second rater
coded 20% of the data.

Finally, the data also include means of students’ overall rankings of the course. The
mean rankings from the two groups, environmental and regular, were compared using a
z-test.

Subjects
At the end of the Fall semester of 1993, 79 students were enrolled in the environmental
laboratory, while over a thousand students had opted for the more traditional regular
laboratory. A random subset of 466 students in the regular class was surveyed.
Henceforth, the former group will be referred to as the environmental group and the
latter as the regular group.
5 / VOL. 1, NO. 4 ISSN 1430-4171
THE CHEMICAL EDUCATOR http://journals.springer-ny.com/chedr
© 1996 SPRINGER-VERLAG NEW YORK, INC. S 1430-4171 (96) 04053-8

TABLE 1. Group differences in gender and class rank.a,b

Gender Class Rank

M F First-Year Other
\ Students

Environmental group 39% 61% 76% 24%

(N = 214)

Regular group 54% 46% 88% 12%

(N = 1,242)

aEnvironmental group data from Spring 1993, Fall 1993, Fall 1994 & Spring 1995; regular group data from
Fall 1995.
bWe compare these data by assuming that the gender and age of the students in the two groups do not
change systematically across semesters.

Demographic Differences Across the Two Groups

The students in the two groups were self-selected; anyone who wished to enroll in the
environmental laboratory was allowed to do so. Consequently, the two populations were
not identical. Information obtained from surveys indicated group differences in the
gender, age, ethnicity, intended major, and previous experience in chemistry. This is not
surprising, for it indicates that the environmental laboratory attracted certain types of
students. We shall offer post-hoc explanations of these differences as we examine each
one. In the Results section, the demographic differences will provide insights into
students’ performance on graded assignments in the class.

The introductory chemistry course at Berkeley is typically populated by slightly more

men than women, and most students are in their first year of college. In contrast, the
environmental laboratory consistently enrolled more women than men (see Table 1).
2
This difference in the two groups is reliable (χ = 16.99, p < 0.0001), suggesting that the
environmental laboratory was more inviting to women than the regular laboratory.

Also displayed in Table 1, the environmental laboratory enrolled a smaller number of

2
first-year students than the regular laboratory. This difference is significant (χ = 21.47,
p < 0.0001) and may have been due in part to the possibility that the first-year students
6 / VOL. 1, NO. 4 ISSN 1430-4171
THE CHEMICAL EDUCATOR http://journals.springer-ny.com/chedr
© 1996 SPRINGER-VERLAG NEW YORK, INC. S 1430-4171 (96) 04053-8

TABLE 2. Group differences in ethnicity.a

Caucasian Asian Other minority

Environmental group 44% 40% 16%

(N = 110)

Environmental group 29% 51% 20%

(N = 1,242)

aEnvironmental group data aggregated over Spring 1993, Fall 1993, & Spring 1994; regular group data from Fall
1995.

were less familiar with the complex listing of the schedule of classes and failed to notice
the listing of the environmental laboratory sections at the end of the General Chemistry
Laboratory listings.

The ethnic makeup of the two groups also differed. The environmental group was
composed of fewer Asian students, more White/Caucasian students, and about the same
number of other minority students as the regular group (see Table 2). These group
distributions are reliably different from one another (χ2 = 9.57, p < 0.05). The regular-
group ethnicity data came from the Fall 1995 semester, so this comparison assumes that
the ethnicity distributions do not change significantly in the span of a few years. In light
of the low enrollments of Asians and other minority groups such as Latinos and African
Americans, it seems that more active recruitment measures are necessary to influence
these students to choose the environmental laboratory over the regular laboratory.

The intended majors of students in the environmental group were oriented more towards
Environmental Science and less towards a straight Biology major than the students in the
regular group (see Figure 1). This is no surprise, because we would expect the
environmental laboratory to attract students interested in environmental issues. It is
interesting to note that only 5–6% of the student population in the entire course intended
to major in chemistry. The difference between the intended majors of the environmental
group and those of the regular group is statistically significant (χ2 = 17.86, p < 0.01).
7 / VOL. 1, NO. 4 ISSN 1430-4171
THE CHEMICAL EDUCATOR http://journals.springer-ny.com/chedr
© 1996 SPRINGER-VERLAG NEW YORK, INC. S 1430-4171 (96) 04053-8

9% Environmental, N = 67
Chem./Chem. Eng.
5%
Regular, N = 466
15%
Environ. Sci.
4%
25%
Biology
40%
22%
Phys. Sci./Eng.
21%
15%
Non-Science
17%
13%
Undecided/NA
13%
0 10 20 30 40
Percent of group

FIGURE 1. COMPARISON OF INTENDED MAJORS OF ENVIRONMENTAL LABORATORY STUDENTS WITH

REGULAR LABORATORY STUDENTS IN THE FALL SEMESTER OF 1993.

TABLE 3. Comparison of chemistry backgrounds of environmental and regular

laboratory students.

Percent of Students Average Score on

Taking the AP the AP Chemistry
Chemistry Test Test

Environmental Laboratory 7% 2.8

Students (N = 68)

Regular Laboratory 15% 3.2

Students (N = 465)

Finally, the two groups in the Fall 1993 class may have differed with respect to their
preparedness upon entering the course. As shown in Table 3, a larger fraction of the
8 / VOL. 1, NO. 4 ISSN 1430-4171
THE CHEMICAL EDUCATOR http://journals.springer-ny.com/chedr
© 1996 SPRINGER-VERLAG NEW YORK, INC. S 1430-4171 (96) 04053-8

students in the regular group than in the environmental group had taken the Advanced
Placement Chemistry Examination in high school (Fisher Exact test, p = 0.01). Although
not statistically significant, those students who completed the AP Examination in the
regular group scored slightly higher on that test than their counterparts in the
environmental group. These data suggest that the regular group may have been better
prepared than the environmental group.

In the next section, we discuss the results of the survey.

Results and Discussion

Overview
The evaluation of the environmental laboratory sections for this course is composed of
two main parts: (1) a description of the environmental group’s attitudes toward the
environmental laboratory and (2) an analysis comparing the environmental laboratory
and the regular laboratory.

In the first section of the results, we explore the environmental group’s response to the
environmental laboratory. The results indicate that students found the modular approach
more conducive to understanding and remembering the concepts, because it allowed
them more time to process the information than a one-week experiment would. Of the
five modules tested during the course of the three-year period, the students’ favorite
modules were those that they understood the best and that were most relevant to their
own lives. We also found that the environmental students felt as if they had worked
harder and learned more than the regular students. In addition, most, but not all, of the
students enjoyed working in groups.

The second section reports our analysis of the differences in class performance on
exams, as well as differences in attitudes and perceptions of the environmental and
regular groups. As we shall see, despite a slight disparity in the preparedness of the two
groups, there were no differences in their performance on the exams in the course. The
attitudinal data indicate that the environmental group enjoyed the laboratory more than
the regular group did and emerged with a broadened perspective on the process and
limitations of science. These findings are supported by the higher rankings given to the
environmental laboratory as compared to the regular laboratory and by students’
comments about what they valued most from the laboratory section of the course.
9 / VOL. 1, NO. 4 ISSN 1430-4171
THE CHEMICAL EDUCATOR http://journals.springer-ny.com/chedr
© 1996 SPRINGER-VERLAG NEW YORK, INC. S 1430-4171 (96) 04053-8

Student views of the Environmental Laboratory

Response to the Modular Approach
The vast majority of the students in the environmental section were in favor of the
modular approach. In answer to the question, “Did you like the modular approach,
where several weeks were spent on the same topic?” 90% of the students responded
“Always” (57%) or “Mostly” (33%). This suggests that they appreciated working on the
same topic for several weeks.

Students were asked to rank the different modules on a scale of 1 to 10, where 1 =
“didn’t enjoy it at all,” to 10 = “really liked it.” The data are summarized in Table 4. All
of the modules received fairly high rankings from the students. The Water Chemistry
module, a perennial favorite, always ranked above 8.0. This suggests that students
valued the wide variety of techniques used as well as the field trips to the lakes and
parks. The most difficult modules for the students seemed to be those involving a large
amount of organic chemistry-the Pesticide, PCB, and Hair Dye modules. In spite of the
difficulty of the organic modules, the Pesticide module emerged as a favorite in later
semesters after the experiment had been revised to clarify areas of difficulty.

Student Perceptions of Workload and Material Learned

We wished to know how students perceived the amount of work they were doing and
the amount of material they learned in the environmental laboratory, as compared to
their perceptions of the workload in the regular laboratory. While it is unrealistic to
expect the environmental students to know exactly what went on in the regular labs, it
seemed that students with friends in the regular group noticed the difference in the
expectations for the two classes. We will return to this issue below. Table 5 shows the
questions asked of students and their responses.

As illustrated by Table 5, most of the environmental students thought they worked

harder and learned more than their peers in the regular laboratory sections. Student
comments on this question pointed to the fact that they learned different material and
more of it than the regular laboratory students. The response to these two questions was
independent of students’ expected grade in the course, as reported on the survey at the
end of the semester when the majority of the course work had been graded (Question 1:
2 2
χ = 2.24, p = 0.69; Question 2: χ = 3.83, p =0.43). This result suggests that the course
was not perceived as a “piece of cake” by the good students and that the material was
accessible to students at all levels.
10 / V O L . 1 , N O . 4 ISSN 1430-4171
THE CHEMICAL EDUCATOR http://journals.springer-ny.com/chedr
© 1996 SPRINGER-VERLAG NEW YORK, INC. S 1430-4171 (96) 04053-8

TABLE 4. Student rankings of the Environmental Chemistry Modules.

Module Student Ranking on a

Scale of 1-10

The Chemistry of Water 8.0-8.5a

Lead in the Environment 7.4-7.9a

Pesticides in the Food Supply 7.7-8.0a

Hair dyes and Health Effects 6.8-6.9b

Independent Project 8.0

PCBs in the San Francisco Bay N/Ac

aRange of average response over three semesters.

bRange of average response over two semesters.
cThis question was not asked the semester the PCB module was used.

In order to gauge the frame of reference that students used to compare their own
workload to that of their peers in the regular laboratory, we asked how they arrived at
their conclusions. Most students (83%) reported that they had friends in the regular
laboratory sections. A small number of students (5%) indicated that they had previous
experience in the regular laboratory sections. The remaining students (11% of the total)
had no such justifications for comparison. Instead, they based their opinions on the
experience of working unusually hard in the laboratory part of the course.

Perceived Value of Class Activities

A variety of alternative teaching techniques were explored in the course of the work,
including teamwork, role-playing and collaborative learning, peer grading, independent
study, and travel to sites of environmental interest for first-hand site observation and
sample collection. We assessed student attitudes to these alternative techniques by
asking them to rank a variety of class activities on a scale of 1 to 10 with respect to their
11 / V O L . 1 , N O . 4 ISSN 1430-4171
THE CHEMICAL EDUCATOR http://journals.springer-ny.com/chedr
© 1996 SPRINGER-VERLAG NEW YORK, INC. S 1430-4171 (96) 04053-8

TABLE 5. Student assessment of workload and material learned.

Percent of Students
Question (N = 278)

Much More About the Less Much No

More Same Less

1. How hard do you think 24% 46% 22% 4% 0 4%

you worked compared
to the students in the
Regular laboratory?

2. How much do you think 30% 43% 18% 5% 1% 3%

you learned compared to
students in the regular
laboratory?

value for helping them learn environmental chemistry. The data are summarized in
Table 6.

In general, students felt as if most of the activities in the class were useful for learning
about environmental chemistry. The field trips were perceived as the most useful
activity, with a rating of 8.4. Our own observations were that the field trips served to
excite the students about the site being investigated and motivated them to do a good job
with the analyses. They were able to correlate the data with a place they had visited and
were often able to discover problem areas in the site.

An activity that ran a close second to the field trips was reading the laboratory manual.
This result is a good indication that the manual was pitched at the appropriate level for
the students and was capable of keeping their interest in the subject matter. The “in-class
worksheets,” where much of the detailed chemistry was presented, were not generally
well-received; perhaps the worksheets were simply more difficult than the other
activities.
12 / V O L . 1 , N O . 4 ISSN 1430-4171
THE CHEMICAL EDUCATOR http://journals.springer-ny.com/chedr
© 1996 SPRINGER-VERLAG NEW YORK, INC. S 1430-4171 (96) 04053-8

TABLE 6. Student rankings of class activites for effectiveness in helping them

learn environmental chemistrya.

Activity Mean score

(out of 10)

Field Trips 8.4

Reading Lab Manual 8.3

Talking to instructor 8.0

Performing Experiments 7.8

Writing Reports 7.8

Prelab Lecture 7.3

Pesticide Debate 7.1

Working in groups 6.9

In-class Worksheets 6.3

Talking With Friends 6.2

Using Kaleidagraph™ 6.2

aData from Spring 1994, Fall 1994, and Spring 1995

Group Work and Contextual Learning

All of the modules were developed to maximize student participation and decision-
making in order to develop students’ abilities to work as part of a team. The students in
the environmental laboratory frequently worked in groups ranging in size from two to
seven students, both in the field and in the laboratory. Group work has been shown to
benefit many students and facilitate learning of difficult concepts [12]. Our evaluation
sought to assess whether the students enjoyed group work and whether they thought the
13 / V O L . 1 , N O . 4 ISSN 1430-4171
THE CHEMICAL EDUCATOR http://journals.springer-ny.com/chedr
© 1996 SPRINGER-VERLAG NEW YORK, INC. S 1430-4171 (96) 04053-8

TABLE 7. Student assessment of group activities

Percent of Students
Question (N = 278)
Always Mostly Sometimes Never

1. Did you like working in 25% 46% 26% 3%

groups?

2. Did working in groups 14% 37% 40% 8%

help you understand
the material better?

3. Did working in groups make 12% 18% 57% 12%

it too easy to ignore some of
the material that you personally
weren’t directly responsible for?

4. Did every member of the 26% 57% 12% 5%

group contribute?

group learning approach helped them learn the material. The data are summarized in
Table 7.

Most of the students liked working in groups; however, there was still a sizable
percentage of the class for which group work was thought to be enjoyable only
“Sometimes” or “Never.” Although many students enjoyed group work, students were
less likely to think that working in groups was always beneficial for helping them
understand the material. This suggests that, in order to reach all students, class work
should include both teamwork and individual activities.

The most strongly negative result appeared for the question about responsibility in group
work. Instructors are often concerned that group activities will permit students to ignore
the work for which they are not personally responsible, and the data from question 3
lend credence to this concern. In the last year of the project we drew on other educators’
work on collaborative learning to provide more structure to the group activities and
clearly delineate individual responsibility [13]. This seemed to address the problem of
14 / V O L . 1 , N O . 4 ISSN 1430-4171
THE CHEMICAL EDUCATOR http://journals.springer-ny.com/chedr
© 1996 SPRINGER-VERLAG NEW YORK, INC. S 1430-4171 (96) 04053-8

uneven student participation to some degree; however, this remains an area that requires
constant attention on the part of the instructor.

Finally, there was general agreement among the students that most of their peers
participated in the group activities. While participation is certainly not equivalent among
all group members, it is reassuring to find that students felt that each member was
involved in the activities.

Comparison of Environmental and Regular groups

In this section, we compare the performance and attitudes of the environmental and
regular groups.

Examination Performance in the Course

Despite the possible advantage of the regular group over the environmental group in
terms of high school chemistry preparation (see Table 3), there was no significant group
difference in student performance on the examinations during the Fall of 1993. The
environmental group’s mean overall score in the course was 388 points out of 600, while
the regular group’s mean was 391 (z610 = 0.33, p = 0.37).

This null result is not too surprising, since the majority of points in the course are given
for lecture-related work (e.g., tests, final exam, homework). The material learned in the
environmental chemistry laboratory sections was not specifically tested, except for an
occasional multiple-choice or short-answer question on some of the midterm
examinations. Moreover, it is difficult to separate out factors that might influence this
result, in either direction. For instance, because the environmental modules often
covered a diverse set of chemical concepts, it was difficult to coordinate the laboratory
experience with the lecture material. Some students in the environmental laboratory
commented that they felt the laboratory was like a separate course, unrelated to the
lecture. To cite a different example that may have contributed positively to the
environmental group’s experience, the instructor-to-student ratio was higher in the
environmental laboratory than in the regular laboratory. In the former case, there were
extra “instrument technicians” available to help students use an instrument for the first
time. In addition, the faculty member in charge of the environmental course had
significantly fewer laboratory sections to oversee than the faculty member in charge of
the regular laboratory course and was able to be present in the laboratory more often.
15 / V O L . 1 , N O . 4 ISSN 1430-4171
THE CHEMICAL EDUCATOR http://journals.springer-ny.com/chedr
© 1996 SPRINGER-VERLAG NEW YORK, INC. S 1430-4171 (96) 04053-8

TABLE 8. Comparison of departmental student rankings of the environmental

laboratory to the regular laboratory. a, b

Semester Means Ranking of Means Ranking of z score of p value

Environmental Regular difference
Laboratory (sd) Laboratory (sd)

Fall 1993 5.72 (1.02) 4.48 (1.22) 8.93 <0.0001

Spring 1994 5.67 (1.41) 4.33 (1.26) 6.09 <0.0001

Fall 1994 6.05 (0.66) 4.29 (1.32) 15.78 <0.0001

Spring 1995 5.92 (0.84) 5.01 (1.13) 6.17 <0.0001

aOn a scale of 1 to 7.
bDepartmental rankings were not available for Spring 1993.

Ranking of the course

On a departmental evaluation in which students were asked to rank the overall
laboratory experience on a scale of 1 to 7, the environmental laboratory outranked the
regular laboratory every semester it was offered (see Table 8), with the four-
semestermean ranking for the environmental laboratory at 5.89 and that for the regular
laboratory at 4.56. These data reveal a higher level of student satisfaction with the
environmental laboratory compared to the regular laboratory.

What Was the Most Important Thing You Learned in this Laboratory Course
Some of the most useful data for assessing student outcomes arose from an open-ended
question posed to both the environmental group (over four semesters) and the regular
group (during Spring 1996): “In a general sense, what is the most important thing you
learned in this laboratory course?” The comments from the two groups were coded into
six categories, with mixed comments placed into the highest level category. As a check
for reliability, 20% of the responses were coded by two coders. Interrater agreement was
found to be 94%.

The results are displayed in Table 9. Over the course of four weeks, two context-based
modules (“Lead in the Environment” and “Water Chemistry”) were carried out by
16 / V O L . 1 , N O . 4 ISSN 1430-4171
THE CHEMICAL EDUCATOR http://journals.springer-ny.com/chedr
© 1996 SPRINGER-VERLAG NEW YORK, INC. S 1430-4171 (96) 04053-8

TABLE 9. Comparison of Environmental Laboratory Students to Regular

Laboratory Students in Perceptions of the Importance of What They Learned.

Category number of number of

students: students:
regular lab environ. Lab
(N = 314) (N = 257)

1. Comments indicate a sophisticated view 4 (1%) 50 (19%)

of science, a recognition of the limits of
science or explicit mention of the
complexity of real world issues.

2. Student mentions real world issues 29 (9%) 87 (34%)

or the connection of chemistry to
real world.

3. Student mentions learning chemistry 152 (49%) 64 (25%)

concepts, techniques, or procedures.

4. Other Positive Comments. 45 (14%) 14 (5%)

5. Negative Comments. 35 (11%) 7 (3%)

6. No Answer. 49 (16%) 35 (14%)

students in the regular laboratory during this semester, so those students do not
constitute a pure control group. If there is any bias, however, it is in the direction of
similarity between the two groups. The full text of the comments are contained in
Appendix A.

Comments in Category 1 (Sophisticated View of Science) indicated that students had

taken a step back from the immediacy of the day-to-day details of what they were doing
in the laboratory to take a broader view of the process and limitations of science. These
attitudes were representative of students’ recognition of the fact that scientific issues are
complex and must be carefully scrutinized before conclusions are drawn. Some students
indicated they had learned the importance of making their own judgments on the validity
of information they collect or receive. The data show that significantly more students in
17 / V O L . 1 , N O . 4 ISSN 1430-4171
THE CHEMICAL EDUCATOR http://journals.springer-ny.com/chedr
© 1996 SPRINGER-VERLAG NEW YORK, INC. S 1430-4171 (96) 04053-8

the environmental group responded in this way, as compared to students in the regular
group (Fisher Exact test, p < 0.001). This suggests that the environmental laboratory
helped engender a more sophisticated view of science and of the world in students.

Category 2 responses reflected students’ recognition of the connections of chemistry to

the real world. Typically, these comments suggested that the environmental students had
gained a broader scientific and social perspective on environmental issues. While some
students simply mentioned specific environmental issues, others had integrated this
knowledge of environmental hazards with the information they had learned about risk
assessment. Other comments indicated that students felt empowered by the course to use
chemistry to solve problems. As might be anticipated, because the regular laboratory
contained predominantly traditional first-year chemistry experiments and only four
weeks of environmentally-related experiments, many fewer students in the regular
laboratory indicated that they saw the connection of chemistry to the real world
2
(χ = 54.19, p < 0.001) Interestingly, over 20% of the regular group who made
comments in this category specifically mentioned the environmentally-related
experiments.

Responses about the specific details of the processes of doing chemistry and learning
traditional chemistry concepts were placed in Category 3. Students in both groups
mentioned the need for focus and precision required to do good work. In addition, many
students made comments related to learning specific laboratory procedures, techniques,
data analysis, and scientific writing. A significantly larger proportion of the comments in
2
this category, however, came from the regular group (χ = 32.09, p < 0.001). This
suggests that the regular group was more concerned with learning standard laboratory
procedures than the students in the environmental group.

Positive comments that did not relate to specific laboratory concepts fell into
Category 4. These included remarks on how the laboratory experience helped students
improve their study and time-management skills, see the connections between laboratory
and lecture, and learn the value of cooperation and teamwork. Significantly more of the
regular group’s comments were in this category than those of the environmental group
2
(χ = 11.72, p = 0.001).

Category 5 comments indicated a negative impression of students’ experience in the

laboratory. Many of these comments were simple, one-word answers, such as “nothing.”
18 / V O L . 1 , N O . 4 ISSN 1430-4171
THE CHEMICAL EDUCATOR http://journals.springer-ny.com/chedr
© 1996 SPRINGER-VERLAG NEW YORK, INC. S 1430-4171 (96) 04053-8

A significantly larger proportion of the regular group’s comments were in this category
2
(χ = 13.65, p < 0.001). This suggests that a greater fraction of students in the regular
laboratory were dissatisfied with the experience than those in the environmental
laboratory.

In summary, the environmental group showed an increased “meta-awareness” of the

process and limitations of science (Category 1) and mentioned the importance of real-
world issues (Category 2) more often than the regular group. In contrast, the regular
group focused more on the importance of learning particular techniques and chemistry
concepts (Category 3). A greater number of students in the regular group also made
generic positive comments about the course, such as the effect of the course on
improving their study skills (Category 4). Significantly more of the regular students
made negative comments about the laboratory experience (Category 5). Taken together,
these comments suggest that the environmental laboratory was successful in helping a
number of students step back from the details of the chemistry and reflect on how
science works and how it applies to their daily lives. The data also suggest that the
environmental group had a more positive overall experience than the regular group.

It is important to note that this question only asks students to comment on the most
important thing they learned in the course. While students may have learned many
things, they only commented on the aspect of the course that struck them as most
important. Future studies on new modular curricula presently under development will
attempt to assess student opinion in each of these areas.

Conclusions
Before concluding, it is worth noting the aspects of the laboratory experience that were
altered in the environmental laboratory compared to the regular laboratory. First,
students learned chemical concepts by tackling real-world environmental problems using
state-of-the-art instrumentation. Traditional first-year chemistry experiments used
primarily wet chemical methods in experiments designed mainly to demonstrate
chemical concepts. In addition, novel approaches to teaching (e.g., field trips, group
activities, collaborative learning, role playing/debate, independent projects) were fully
incorporated into the curriculum of the environmental laboratory. This is in contrast to
the approach used in the regular laboratory, where each student typically worked on a
traditional experiment for which the result is known in advance. The quality of the
19 / V O L . 1 , N O . 4 ISSN 1430-4171
THE CHEMICAL EDUCATOR http://journals.springer-ny.com/chedr
© 1996 SPRINGER-VERLAG NEW YORK, INC. S 1430-4171 (96) 04053-8

teaching in the environmental laboratories may have been better, because the instructor-
to-student ratio was somewhat higher than in the regular laboratories. Finally, students
specifically chose to enroll in the environmental laboratory course, thus a selection effect
existed in the data set. Because some of these factors are independent of the new
pedagogy of the environmental laboratory, we must evaluate the modular approach while
controlling for those factors in order to make an unbiased comparison. Such an
evaluation is currently underway.

The data indicate that we were largely successful in meeting our goals for the project. In
spite of a heavier workload and higher expectations for student performance, the
environmental laboratory was clearly a more positive experience for students than the
regular laboratory. This conclusion is supported by the significantly higher Departmental
ranking of the environmental laboratory compared to the regular laboratory. Although
we were successful in enrolling more women students into the course, we were
unsuccessful in recruiting minority students.

We were also successful in developing students’ scientific skepticism and recognition of

the limits of science, in contrast to the traditional laboratory. Student comments
indicated that they had gained a broadened perspective on the nature and process of
science and were more critical of data obtained using scientific methods.

The inclusion of an environmental context in the chemistry experiments seemed to have

had a significant impact on students’ awareness of the connections of chemistry to the
real world, with more students in the environmental laboratory remarking on their
perceptions of chemistry as useful and applied to their lives. Students also became more
aware of the relationships between chemistry and society.

In conclusion, the student evaluation data indicate that a modular approach to teaching
chemistry based on topics relating to the lives of students is an effective method of
motivating students to work hard to learn chemistry. Because many variables were
changed, it is difficult to pinpoint any one particular aspect of the program that made it a
success with the students. We can comment, however, that the combination of changes
made a significant, positive difference in the students’ perceptions of chemistry and of
themselves as scientists.
20 / V O L . 1 , N O . 4 ISSN 1430-4171
THE CHEMICAL EDUCATOR http://journals.springer-ny.com/chedr
© 1996 SPRINGER-VERLAG NEW YORK, INC. S 1430-4171 (96) 04053-8

REFERENCES

1. Tobias, S. They’re Not Dumb, They’re Different—Stalking the Second Tier; Research
Corporation: Tucson, AZ, 1990.

2. Tobias, S. Revitalizing Undergraduate Science: Why Some Things Work and Most Don’t;
Research Corporation: Tucson, AZ, 1990.

3. Carter, C. S.; Brickhouse, N. W. J. Chem. Educ. 1989, 66, 223.

4. Seymour, E. J. Coll. Sci. Teaching, 1995, May, 392.

5. “Educational Policies for National Survival, A Statement of the American Chemical Society”;
American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 1989.

6. “Science for Non-Specialists: The College Years,” National Research Council Report, National
Academy: Washington, DC, 1981.

7. “Educating Americans for the 21st Century: A Report to the American People and the National
Science Board”; National Science Board Commission on Precollege Education in Mathematics,
Science, and Technology, National Science Foundation: Washington, DC, 1992.

8. “A Nation At Risk: The Imperative for Education Reform”; National Commission on Excellence in
Education, U.S. Department of Education: Washington, DC, 1983.

9. “Report of the Education Commission of the States”; Governers’ Report: Boulder, CO, 1996.

10. Tabor, T.E. “Curricula for Chemists in Industrial Research-An Industrial View”; Dow Chemical:
Midland, MI, 1993.

11. Kegley, S. E.; Stacy, A. M. Chemical Educator, 1996, 1(4):S 1430-4171(96)04052-6. Avail. URL:
http://journals.springer-ny.com/chedr

12. Smith, M. E.; Hinckley, C. C.; Volk; G.L. J. Chem. Educ. 1991, 68, 413.

13. (a) Goodsell, A.; Maher, M.; Tinto, V. Collaborative Learning: A Sourcebook for Higher
Education; National Center for Teaching and Learning: University Park, PA, 1992; Vol. I;
(b) Kadel, S.; Keehner, J. A. Collaborative Learning: A Sourcebook for Higher Education;
National Center for Teaching and Learning: University Park, PA, 1994; Vol. II; (c) What Works:
Building Effective Collaborative Learning Experiences; National Center for Teaching and
Learning: University Park, PA, 1994; (d) Cooper, M. M. J. Chem. Educ., 1995, 72, 162;
(e) Dougherty, R. C.; Bowen, C. W.; Berger, T.; Rees, W.; Mellon, E. K.; Pulliam, E. J. Chem.
Educ., 1995, 72, 793; (f) “Cooperative Learning in Chemistry Tutorials” J. Coll. Sci. Teach. 1995,
Sept./Oct., 20. (g) “Cooperative Learning in the Community College Classroom” J. Coll. Sci.
Teach. 1995, Nov., 94.