20.7 A Reflection from the University of Sydney
20.7.4 Post-pandemic and into the Future
In common with colleagues and peers across the globe, we are now consid- ering how to move forward with laboratory learning. These decisions will be supported by the digital tools trialed in our teaching, and the experiences that others have shared so openly at conferences during the pandemic and that are emerging in the literature. While we are still undertaking this review, it is clear that digital tools will play a more prominent role in our teaching in the future. In their implementation we must keep our students and their learning needs at the forefront and be particularly mindful of the equity, diversity and inclusion considerations highlighted in this period.
In our own practice, we intend to continue using simulations as pre- laboratory preparation whereas recorded experiments will likely shift from a replacement of the on-campus activities to a pre-laboratory supporting role. additionally, citizen science will continue to be investigated and incor- porated as they provide unique research experiences that complement the on-campus activities.
Outside of our own practice, the use of the remote-activated laboratories or the ‘kitchen chemistry’ at home will continue to be vital for rural or remote institutions. Students with decreased on-campus access or those with other competing responsibilities, can benefit greatly from such asynchronous experiences. While undoubtedly urban institutions have students in similar situations, we feel that digital tools should supplement rather than super- sede on-campus activities where possible as we believe they provide the most impactful and positive learning experience.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to acknowledge the substantial contributions of both our colleagues and students. Without their collective experiences, progress in our practice would not occur.
References
1. C. a. Caủizares and Z. T. Faur, IEEE Trans. Educ., 1997, 40(3), 166.
2. D. laurillard, Teaching as a Design Science: Building Pedagogical Patterns for Learning and Technology, routledge, new York, nY, 3rd edn, 2012.
3. J. r. Brinson, Comput. Educ., 2015, 87, 218.
4. S. l. Bretz, J. Chem. Educ., 2019, 96, 193.
5. M. k. Seery, J. Chem. Educ., 2020, 97(6), 1511.
6. J. B. Morrell, Ambix, 1972, 19, 1.
7. n. reid and I. Shah, Chem. Educ. Res. Pract., 2006, 8(2), 172.
8. G. a. Miller, Psychol. Rev., 1956, 63, 81.
9. a. H. Johnstone, J. Chem. Educ., 1997, 74, 262.
10. B. p. koehler and J. n. Orvis, J. Chem. Educ., 2003, 80, 606.
Downloaded from http://books.rsc.org/books/edited-volume/chapter-pdf/1746393/bk9781839165238-00249.pdf by RMIT University user on 06 February 2024
265 Digital Tools for Equitable In-person and Remote Chemistry Learning
11. B. Dalgarno, a. G. Bishop, W. adlong and D. r. Bedgood, Comput. Educ., 2009, 53(3), 853.
12. T. D. Clemons, l. Fouché, C. rummey, r. E. lopez and D. Spagnoli, J.
Chem. Educ., 2019, 96, 1491.
13. S. Schmid and a. Yeung, Res. Dev. Higher Educ., 2005, 28, 471.
14. r. a. r. Blackburn, B. Villa-Marcos and D. p. Williams, J. Chem. Educ., 2019, 96(1), 153.
15. See Chapter 21: M. Milner-Bolotin and V. Milner, in Digital Learning and Teaching in Chemistry, ed. Y. J. Dori, C. ngai and G. Szteinberg, royal Soci- ety of Chemistry, united kingdom, 2023.
16. J. B. Ferrell, J. p. Campbell, D. r. McCarthy, k. T. Mckay, M. Hensinger, r.
Srinivasan and S. T. Schneebeli, J. Chem. Educ., 2019, 96(9), 1961.
17. See Chapter 17: J. Y. Han and F. M. Fung, in Digital Learning and Teaching in Chemistry, ed. Y. J. Dori, C. ngai and G. Szteinberg, royal Society of Chemistry, united kingdom, 2023.
18. M. Schultz, D. l. Callahan and a. Miltiadous, J. Chem. Educ., 2020, 97(9), 2678.
19. S. Saxena and S. p. Satsangee, J. Chem. Educ., 2014, 91(3), 368.
20. S. George-Williams, a. Motion, r. pullen, p. J. rutledge, S. Schmid and S.
Wilkinson, J. Chem. Educ., 2020, 97(9), 2928.
21. l. Wang and J. ren, J. Chem. Educ., 2020, 97, 3002.
22. k. Woelk and p. D. Whitefield, J. Chem. Educ., 2020, 97, 2996.
23. C. a. Supalo, M. D. Isaacson and M. V. lombardi, J. Chem. Educ., 2014, 91(2), 195–199.
24. a. Motion, Chemistry World, 2019, accessed 22 March 2022 at: https://
www.chemistryworld.com/opinion/how-teenagers-are-disrupting-drug- discovery/3010027.article.
25. Y. n. Golumbic and a. Motion, Citiz. Sci.: Theory Pract., 2021, 6(1), 31.
26. J. a. Miller, F. khatib, H. Hammond, S. Cooper and S. Horowitz, Nat.
Struct. Mol. Biol., 2020, 27, 769.
27. a. Motion, Chemistry World, 2019, accessed 22 March 2022 at: https://
www.chemistryworld.com/opinion/bringing-video-games-into-the- protein-fold/3010769.article.
Downloaded from http://books.rsc.org/books/edited-volume/chapter-pdf/1746393/bk9781839165238-00249.pdf by RMIT University user on 06 February 2024
249 Advances in Chemistry Education Series No. 11 Digital Learning and Teaching in Chemistry
Edited by Yehudit Judy Dori, Courtney Ngai and Gabriela Szteinberg
© The Royal Society of Chemistry 2023
Published by the Royal Society of Chemistry, www.rsc.org
20.1 Introduction
In this chapter, we aim to provide a resource to guide practitioners and researchers in future implementation or evaluation of digital or remote labo- ratories. While extensive research has been disseminated regarding the use of digital technology in STEM education for teaching,1 this is a constantly chang- ing space within Higher Education (and more broadly) and requires regular re-examination. Most recently the rapid change to online teaching necessitated by the COVID-19 pandemic has led to a period of introspection and a global review of how teaching can occur in online and remote learning environments.
For chemistry educators, while teaching as a whole has been impacted, laboratory learning poses a unique challenge given the historical emphasis on students physically engaging with experiments and developing hands- on-skills. In common with colleagues from across the globe, the changes to our laboratory program have prompted us to consider the digital tools that can positively impact learning and create an equitable student experience in the teaching laboratory. Further, we consider the potential for their inclusion
CHapTEr 20
Digital Tools for Equitable In-person and Remote
Chemistry Learning
r. pullEn*a, a. MOTIOna, S. SCHMIDa, S. GEOrGE- WIllIaMSa, S. WIlkInSOna anD S. lEaCHa
aSchool of Chemistry, university of Sydney, Sydney, nSW, australia
*E-mail: reyne.pullen@sydney.edu.au
Downloaded from http://books.rsc.org/books/edited-volume/chapter-pdf/1746393/bk9781839165238-00249.pdf by RMIT University user on 06 February 2024
Chapter 20 250
beyond the pandemic, as tools to improve the effectiveness and accessibility of laboratory learning.
20.2 Theoretical Framework
In order to consider the interactions between students and technology when learning we have applied laurillard’s Conversational Framework to each of our highlighted examples.2 The Conversational Framework was developed to critically analyse the use of digital technologies in student learning. This is accomplished through a description of the various forms of interactions and learning that can occur within a classroom or activity, which have been synthesised into six distinct forms of learning: (1) acquisition (e.g., engaging with static digital content that is one-way in nature such as reading articles or listening to recordings); (2) inquiry (e.g., utilizing digital resources or tools to explore questions of interest); (3) practice (e.g., using interactive tools to practice or develop skills); (4) production (e.g., the creation of digital content to demonstrate an understanding of concepts); (5) discussion (e.g., using tools that enable discussion and exchanging of ideas); and (6) collaboration (e.g., using tools that facilitate collaborative work or artefacts).
While this framework is content-dense, we believe this is a useful tool to capture and describe a diverse range of digital tools and laboratories. In the following sections, we will use these six forms of learning to highlight key features and strengths of the digital tools and laboratories we have included in this chapter for discussion.
a full review of all innovations in digital learning and remote laboratories would require far more depth than feasible for a chapter of this length. We have instead selected published examples that are of interest to the authors and exemplify aspects of the Conversational Framework. We believe this selection offers a range of distinct and innovative approaches to digital learning that could inspire further innovation and or reflection on our practice as a commu- nity. We also point interested readers towards Brinson’s detailed 2015 review of the impact of digital tools on learning outcomes in the teaching laboratory.3
20.3 The Purpose of the Chemistry Teaching Laboratory
The primary purpose of a chemistry teaching laboratory has not changed substantially from the inception of the modern format in the early 1800s by von liebig,4,5 despite considerable changes to the mindsets of practitioners and the organisational structure of laboratory programs. Through the teach- ing laboratory, it has primarily been intended that students will develop lab- oratory techniques, hands-on skills and scientific thinking.6
In this chapter, we have chosen to base our discussions on the more recent learning outcomes emerging from an extensive review by reid and Shah7 which explores the role of laboratory work within tertiary-level chemistry.
Downloaded from http://books.rsc.org/books/edited-volume/chapter-pdf/1746393/bk9781839165238-00249.pdf by RMIT University user on 06 February 2024
251 Digital Tools for Equitable In-person and Remote Chemistry Learning
The review summarises four broad learning outcomes that are achievable through a laboratory experience: (1) skills relating to learning chemistry;
(2) practical skills; (3) scientific skills; and (4) general skills.
Within the highlighted examples that follow, each incorporates learning outcomes (1) and (4), but within a digital context, we believe incorporation of (2) and (3) are the most challenging. We have grouped the selected articles into two sub-sections. The first features digital tools designed to prepare or support students in the laboratory but to run contiguously with in-person practical sessions (although some were recently adapted as online-only offerings); and the second features digital tools that have been designed to replace in-laboratory learning in chemistry.
Equity and inclusion consideration are central to effective and affective teaching and research. We have therefore included an accompanying note for readers that considers how equity and inclusion has or could be more explicitly addressed in each of the highlighted examples.
20.4 Preparative and Supportive Digital Tools
20.4.1 Pre-laboratory Instruction
First year chemistry undergraduate laboratories are a place where vast amounts of new information are presented to students. In addition to the procedures, underlying theoretical concepts and analyses required to com- plete any given experiment, students must also contend with the physical layout of the laboratory, new glassware and instruments being used and health and safety considerations among others. The sheer amount of infor- mation that novices need to absorb, and process can be overwhelming. The origin of this problem can be brought back to the limited capacity of working memory (7 ± 2 concepts),8 i.e., if too much information is presented, some will be judged as unimportant and filtered out, or will be discarded from working memory without integration. Therefore, instruction needs to take account of existing knowledge if integration is to be facilitated, especially in situations where a large amount of new information is presented.
It has been shown that conceptual understanding developed prior to the laboratory session influences students’ ability to process information in the laboratory.9 pre-laboratory work, if well designed, serves to pre-construct a scaffold that the students can use to help integrate laboratory-presented information into their existing knowledge structures. So, the principal rea- son for using pre-laboratory work is that exposure to related theoretical concepts and experiments increases deep learning and performance in the laboratory. However, there are other benefits. pre-laboratory work eases the transition into new laboratory experiments by allowing students to famil- iarise themselves with the experiment and gain a clearer understanding of what is expected of them in the laboratory. In addition, effective preparation reduces anxiety while increasing student confidence. This produces a more productive and a more positive learning experience for the student.10
Downloaded from http://books.rsc.org/books/edited-volume/chapter-pdf/1746393/bk9781839165238-00249.pdf by RMIT University user on 06 February 2024
Chapter 20 252
pre-laboratory work, incorporating both introduction to the physical lay- out of the laboratory as well as introduction to the theoretical and practical aspects of the scheduled laboratory exercise has been implemented effec- tively in a number of contexts. In one such example from Dalgarno and coworkers,11 a 3D virtual chemistry laboratory, allowed students to famil- iarise themselves with the real laboratory space and to explore procedures and apparatus. Students reported that they felt better prepared due to being familiar with the environment prior to attending in-person laboratory ses- sions and less anxious. More recently a similar idea was employed within a more realistic environment, where the simulation is based on a combination of photographs from the physical laboratory that enable a 360° interactive lab tour.12 The results from this larger study agree broadly with the earlier example, supporting the utility of such introductory modules.
Similarly, simulations that allow students to work through concepts and step through the procedures required to carry out an experiment, greatly enhance performance, even if prior instruction has occurred. For example, Schmid and Yeung13 reported that students with limited high-school chem- istry background performed as well as students who had completed pre- university level high school chemistry, in a titration assessment, after they worked through a simulation on standard solution preparation. While the complexity of this simulation did not match those described in the following section, a trade-off between sophistication and cognitive overload may occur (Table 20.1).
20.4.2 Interactive Simulations
Many pre-laboratory tasks contain quizzes and videos (as previously dis- cussed) which are passive tasks. It could be argued that simply asking a stu- dent to read the laboratory manual and answer a range of questions would have limited impact on their ability to visualise (or better yet, ‘practice’) a given methodological step. a potential solution to this limitation is the use of interactive technique-based simulations that would, theoretically, allow a student to ‘practice’ a given technique without significant safety concerns.
One such set of simulations was considered by Blackburn, Williams and Villa-Marcos14 as provided by the company learning Science ltd and imple- mented at the university of leicester. These simulations were incorporated into the students’ pre-laboratory materials but were not directly assessed nor Table 20.1 pre-laboratory instruction as discussed in light of laurillard’s conver-
sational framework.
acquisition Yes, students acquire knowledge of physi-
cal space and laboratory techniques. Discussing no
Inquiry no production no
practicing Yes, the simulations were designed to let students ‘practice’ outside of the laboratory.
Collaboration no
Downloaded from http://books.rsc.org/books/edited-volume/chapter-pdf/1746393/bk9781839165238-00249.pdf by RMIT University user on 06 February 2024
253 Digital Tools for Equitable In-person and Remote Chemistry Learning
compulsory to complete. an example is shown in Figure 20.1 in which stu- dents are given access to a simulation focused on the use of a rotary evaporator.
The learning Science ltd simulations are generally free-form; students can click on any of the given options (e.g., turning the water bath on or off) in any order they choose. If a student clicks ‘check’ with an incorrect setup, the simulation will often display issues that this could cause in the lab. For example, an unsupported condenser can fall over, or an untethered water hose can detach pouring water outside of the internal glassware. In response to an incorrect setup, a hint is displayed to the student who is provided with an opportunity to rectify their initial choices (see Table 20.2).
In Blackburn, Williams and Villa-Marcos’ study, student engagement with the simulations over a semester was shown to be high with a class of 99
Figure 20.1 The learning Science ltd simulation of a rotary evaporator showing (a) the introductory screen and (b) the simulation itself. reproduced from ref. 14 with permission from american Chemical Society, Copy- right 2019.
Downloaded from http://books.rsc.org/books/edited-volume/chapter-pdf/1746393/bk9781839165238-00249.pdf by RMIT University user on 06 February 2024
Chapter 20 254
students accessing the simulations more than 4000 times over the semes- ter.14 Questionnaire data also indicated a positive uptick in both student confidence and their belief that the pre-laboratory materials provided were suitable for preparation. These results were also confirmed through a stu- dent focus group wherein students raised similar feelings of increased confi- dence as a result of the simulations. lastly, laboratory teaching staff reported that students were less focused on procedural questions during laboratory time, opting instead to query deeper, theoretical concepts.
Those interested in the use of simulations, may find Chapter 21 (Smart- phone applications as a Catalyst for active learning in Chemistry: Investi- gating the Ideal Gas law)15 within this book to be of interest for an in-depth case-study.
20.4.3 Virtual Reality Simulations
knowledge of chemistry requires a navigation of three-dimensional spaces at various levels including the theoretical/microscopic level, and at the macroscopic laboratory level. Consider steric hindrances, axial and equato- rial protons, Felkin-anh trajectory, protein structures, and Fisher/newman projections—all of these microscopic-level concepts have a common requi- site knowledge of chemical space and have provided the justification for the use of molecular modelling kits for chemistry education. Similarly, practical macroscopic skills in the lab require navigation of a space to gain experience at ‘real’ chemistry through manipulation of various laboratory equipment and completion of experiments. One way to support this type of understand- ing of three-dimensional space for students is through augmented reality (ar) and/or virtual reality (Vr) methods (see Table 20.3).
a study by Ferrell and co-workers16 describes and evaluates the use of Vr (with the use of a HTC VIVE Vr headset and iMD software) to support under- standing of interactions in the dynamic molecular world for chemistry stu- dents. The overall requirement of the experiment was for students to predict whether certain molecules could move through a C60 nanotube based on their size and properties (Figure 20.2). To achieve this, students were placed into a virtual room and provided with the opportunity to interact with the nanotube and methane (and other) molecules. The students were then able to view the molecules through various models such as space filling and elec- tronic fields which enriched their predictions.
Table 20.2 The learning sciences resources as considered through the lens of lau- rillard’s conversational framework.
acquisition Yes, the students acquired knowledge of
laboratory techniques. Discussing no
Inquiry no production no
practicing Yes, the simulations were designed to let students ‘practice’ outside of the laboratory.
Collaboration no Downloaded from http://books.rsc.org/books/edited-volume/chapter-pdf/1746393/bk9781839165238-00249.pdf by RMIT University user on 06 February 2024
255 Digital Tools for Equitable In-person and Remote Chemistry Learning
The authors conducted an analysis of the student responses to the pro- gram to determine how well the experience improved their ability to predict chemical interactions, and their perceptions of the value of the experience.
In general, results indicated a positive increase in predictive ability when compared to the control group, demonstrating the efficacy of the support- ing tool. Similarly, the qualitative student responses were positive; students perceived the visualisation aspect to be a highly valuable contributor to their understanding.
“There are only benefits to using Vr as a visual tool because textbooks can only show flat images. Even using dashes and wedges can only be so helpful, whereas Vr allows for better spatial representations.” One stu- dent response.
Table 20.3 The Vr chemistry learning experience as considered through the lens of laurillard’s conversational framework.
acquisition Yes, the students acquired an understanding
of 3D chemical properties. Discussing no Inquiry Somewhat, the students are provided the
opportunity to investigate properties of molecules to enhance their under- standing, but the overall lesson is highly structured.
production no
practicing Yes, students were provided with tools to
practice with prior to the prediction. Collaboration no
Figure 20.2 Example of a problem where students were required to predict whether molecule x (pink; examples (a), (b) and (c) showing three molecule options) would fit through a C60 nanotube (green). reproduced from ref. 16 with permission from american Chemical Society, Copyright 2019.
Downloaded from http://books.rsc.org/books/edited-volume/chapter-pdf/1746393/bk9781839165238-00249.pdf by RMIT University user on 06 February 2024