guided-inquiry based laboratory instruction: investigation of critical thinking skills, problem solving skills, and implementing student roles in chemistry

Abstract

The Chemistry Laboratory: Overview of the Three Courses in the Study…………………………………………………………………... Study Participants……………………………………………………. Data Collection………………………………………………………………... Data Analysis………………………………………………………………….. vi Hoyo Rubric…………………………………………………………... York Technical College (YTC) Rubric……………………………… Results and Discussion……………………………………………………….. Distribution(s) for Groups in the Study…………………………….. Baseline Comparison for 177L, 167L, 401L for Scores on First Laboratory Activity…………………………………………………... Distribution(s) of Traits Based on YTC Rubric……………. Test(s) of Significance………………………………… Distribution(s) of Scores Based on Hoyo Rubric…………… Test(s) of Significance………………………………… Correlations…………………………………………………………… Two-Way ANOVA Tests……………………………………………... Effect of Time and Course on YTC Score…………………………... Effect of Treatment and Time on YTC Score………………. Effect of Time and Course on Hoyo Score………………………….. Effect of Treatment and Time on Hoyo Score……………… Inter-Rater Reliability………………………………………………... a) The YTC Rubric…………………………………………… b) The Hoyo Rubric…………………………………………... Conclusion(s)………………………………………………………………….. Limitations……………………………………………………………………. Further Studies……………………………………………………………….. References……………………………………………………………………... CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSIONS……………………………………………………... vii General Conclusions………………………………………………………….. Future Investigations…………………………………………………………. APPENDIX A. Bauer's ASCI v.2……………………………………………………. APPENDIX B. Test of Logical Thinking (TOLT) Instrument……………………..

Developing critical thinking skills using the Science Writing Heuristic in the chemistry laboratory

“…This finding is consistent with those of Fostveldt et al (2012) and Gupta (2012) who, in separate studies, found that students using the SWH approach had significantly better critical thinking scores than their counterparts in TRAD streams. This finding is consistent with those of Fostveldt et al (2012) and Gupta (2012) who, in separate studies, found that students using the SWH approach had significantly better critical thinking scores than their counterparts in TRAD streams.…”

“…This finding is consistent with results obtained by Gupta (2012) and Solon (2007), who both reported modest gains in critical thinking for students in traditional classes, and suggest that gains in critical thinking can occur even in the absence of deliberate interventions. This finding is consistent with results obtained by Gupta (2012) and Solon (2007), who both reported modest gains in critical thinking for students in traditional classes, and suggest that gains in critical thinking can occur even in the absence of deliberate interventions.…”

“…The SWH approach itself has been linked to critical thinking, although that research is much more limited. Gupta (2012) also found that SWH freshmen had higher levels of critical thinking than their traditional counterparts, and that this skill improved as the semester progressed. Fostveldt, McGill, Shelley, Hand and Thierren (2012), in comparing the critical thinking skills of fifth grade students exposed to the SWH with those who were not, found that generally SWH students showed greater improvement in critical thinking ability as measured using the Cornell Critical Thinking Test.…”

Student feedback in inquiry-based laboratories for Medical Electronics course

“…Previous reports indicate that Biomedical Engineering junior students who participated in one inquiry-based physiology laboratory outperformed classmates who engaged in a conventional laboratory experience on exam questions dealing with the topic explored in the laboratory [1] . Likewise, students involved in inquiry-based laboratories in a first-year general chemistry courses obtained higher scores on standard course exams and on laboratory practical exams compared to matched students engaged in traditional follow-the-steps laboratories [2] . They also prepared higher-quality laboratory reports when compared to the students who had the conventional laboratory experience.…”

“…When questioned about the instructions, students are often incapable of explaining why the instructions asked them to proceed in a certain way rather than in a different way. In addition, the traditional approach does not promote creativity in the laboratory since students are told what to do in exact detail [2] .…”