This week’s readings were concerned with the topic of discipline based education research. The articles specifically dealt with chemistry and biology. The subject of teaching physics was not covered (thankfully). The first article, by Brownell and Kloser, discussed the topic of CUREs (2015). CUREs stands for Course-based Undergraduate Research Experience. CURE’s are an approach to labs that moves away from the traditional cookbook style of lab and toward a more subject appropriate lab model focused on inquiry and the learning of lab skills as well as the scientific method. One thing that I would like to have seen in this article is an example of a CURE type lab. The reason for this is that the table on page 528 describes cookbook labs as only focusing on the conclusions and communication aspect of the lab. The labs that I have done in the past, which I would refer to as cookbook, seem more similar to a blend of the four types of CUREs listed in the table. For example, in many chemistry labs the lab began with a review of theory, then the methods were given in cookbook fashion, analysis was usually open ended (relying on the lecture for the right approach) and then conclusions would be drawn. This seems like a CURE style of lab but I can’t be sure without a more concrete example. Also, what problem is the CURE method meant to address? Labs have been taught cookbook style for decades and many scientists have been produced from this learning approach. As a student I hated cookbook style labs but is that the main motivation for reform?
The second paper, by Galloway et al., addressed this issue of affect directly (2015). The authors surveyed students to determine how they felt about the lab. The idea behind this was that learning requires emotions as well as thought and action. The main questions that this paper raised for me was: would the results of this paper be different if the student who were surveyed were chemistry majors and if the responses to the survey corresponded to student retention. Retention in this case referring to student’s staying with their chosen major. The first question came to mind because the way a student feels about an experience can often be influenced by their motivation for completing the coursework. For example, a biology major might have no interest in chemistry but is doing the lab because they are required to. In this case generating interest or positive affect might be a significantly different undertaking then it would be for someone who is actually interested in the chemistry. Second, does a lack of interest or positive affect cause students to score poorly and/or leave the major? If so, then improving positive affect would be a hugely important topic.
The third paper, by Hofstein and Lunetta, is similar to the first paper in that it deals with the issue of reforming science labs for the modern world (2003). This paper does not seek to investigate a single form of lab instruction, like CUREs, but is more of a review paper that highlights changes in the application of labs in a learning setting over the past twenty years. The focus is still on how to move away from the cookbook style of lab and toward a more authentic style. I think that this pursuit is an important one. I have taken many chemistry labs, for example, and yet I would have no idea where to start if someone asked me to synthesize anything. The reason for this is that the labs that I did focused on learning physical tasks and following directions but never taught me why I was doing the steps in the lab. As a result, I had a tool chest of chemistry techniques but no idea of where or when to apply them, just how to apply them. I hope that this new push for lab reform solves this type of shortcoming.
References
Brownell, S. E., & Kloser, M. J. (2015). Toward a conceptual framework for measuring the effectiveness of course-based undergraduate research experiences in undergraduate biology. Studies in Higher Education, 40(3), 525-544.
Galloway, K. R., Malakpa, Z., & Bretz, S. L. (2015). Investigating affective experiences in the undergraduate chemistry laboratory: Students’ perceptions of control and responsibility. Journal of Chemical Education, 93(2), 227-238.
Hofstein, A., & Lunetta, V. N. (2004). The laboratory in science education: Foundations for the twenty‐first century. Science education, 88(1), 28-54.
Hi Zac,
I think your concerns with CURE and the paper by Galloway et al have similar origins. Cookbook labs have been around for a long time, but the issue with them is that they misrepresent what the scientific enterprise is all about. Students who go through a cookbook lab, even ones who have eventually made it big in scientific careers unanimously hate these labs for the same reasons that you have quoted. By reducing science and research to a sequence of steps, we strip the activity of any form of scientific meaning. The idea with CURE is to legitimise the activities that happen in the labs and to provide students with an opportunity to engage in authentic practice. Through this engagement, the hope is to both increase the rentention of students and improve the affective experiences of students going through these labs. The focus is on scientific practices and ways of thinking, rather than a ‘tool chest of [chemistry] techniques.
This transformation of the lab experience is particularly relevant at the undergraduate level, considering that a majority of students at this level are probably going to end up pursuing careers that involve the kinds of critical thinking and inquiry based practices that lie at the foundation of the design. That being said, there is a lot of nuance involved and hopefully we can talk about some of those in class
Zac, you bring up two interesting points in your blog post, with the first one regarding cookbook labs. I tend to think of cookbook labs as treating students almost like robots: they are told what to do, when to do it, and how to do something. Brownell and Kloser (2015) argue against these types of labs in their article, and favor CURE or more “authentic” content and laboratory experiences for students. I think that CURE is an approach that advocates for providing opportunities to students in which they learn how to apply knowledge and to figure out how to solve a problem, they have not previously seen, when it arises. The way cookbook labs are set up, students are pretty much given an ‘instructional checklist’ of what they need to do in order to complete an experiment. CURE, on the other hand, has students figure out how to solve problems. I think in some ways, ambitious science teaching incorporates various CURE aspects. In AST, students are introduced to a specific problem (such as an aspect of the happy and sad balls bouncing or not bouncing), and try to solve it given various materials that they use to create an experiment. This ability for students to create an experiment/methods with various materials to solve a given problem, rather than being given the necessary materials and ‘correct’ procedure, has some authentic aspects that CURE advocates for.
The second idea from your blog post I found interesting was when you ask “would the results of this paper be different if the student who were surveyed were chemistry majors and if the responses to the survey corresponded to student retention” in regards to the article written by Galloway, Malakpa, and Bretz (2016). The paper only states the participants in this study were “8 biology or health sciences majors, 3 engineering majors, and 1 geology major” (p. 229), but I think that this idea would be interesting to be discussed in class. If a course relates to students’ field of study and/or future job aspirations, then those students’ feeling may vary from those who are solely taking the lab/course as an elective or requirement for their degree. It would be curious to see if the affective responses varied for chemistry versus non-chemistry majors, both in this study and if it was done again, and even more broadly for health-science majors versus non-STEM majors.
Zac, I was thinking about your reflection and how you mentioned in the first paragraph that cookbook labs have managed to produced scientists for a long time and thus what would need to be changed about them. I think you almost answer this in your final paragraph when you say that “the reason for this is that the labs that I did focused on learning physical tasks and following directions but never taught me why I was doing the steps in the lab. As a result, I had a tool chest of chemistry techniques but no idea of where or when to apply them, just how to apply them.” I think you make a good argument here and articulate exactly why we should change laboratory instruction, or at least adjust how we teach higher education lab classes to better develop individuals in when and where to apply chemistry (and other domains) techniques, not just how to use them.
Zac, I think CURES are attempting to solve the problem that you addressed in your last paragraph– that students can successfully read and follow directions but don’t necessary know the significance of doing each step. I think that implementing CUREs sounds good on paper, but actually pulling them off with undergrads in “real life” may be more of a challenge. Perhaps lower level classes can start out with cookbook labs (so that students actually know how to use equipment, read protocol, etc) and then as they get older labs can become more open-ended CURE-style.
Hi Zac – To address the CURE labs, from my understanding the goal would be to do something more akin to “legitimate peripheral participation”, where the students would be able to work on a problem that would actually benefit the field. So, the labs might be set up in conjunction with research faculty at the university. So, a cookbook lab would be a lab with clear steps and a defined outcome, an inquiry lab would be a lab with student-generated steps and a defined outcome, and a CURE lab would be a lab with student-generated steps and an unknown outcome. I would also think that a CURE lab would involve more lab time than traditional labs, so maybe a project lasting multiple lab periods, or the whole semester, instead of a single lab period. Papers on CURE labs typically link retention in science fields, and the pursue of higher level science degrees, with participation in undergraduate research experiences. However, most students, even ones who are interested in the field, will have a chance to participate in undergrad research, so this would give the opportunity for more students to participate and possibly increase retention. I think implementation of this type of lab may be challenging, but it could be interesting to do with labs intended for majors.
In regards to the Galloway paper, I think it would be interesting to address motivation for nonmajors in lab courses. I think chemistry is useful for bio majors to know, but they may not feel the same way. The general chemistry labs available here at Penn State include some specialty labs (there are materials, bio, and food science sections, I believe), so I think this may be something that would positively affect student motivation.