Analysis of an undergraduate general chemistry laboratory course is a recurring theme in chemical education. What do students gain from investing three hours a week in a laboratory setting? The answer depends on how the laboratory course is structured with respect to the application of a specific pedagogy. Most chemistry instructors insist their laboratory course is designed to promote inquiry and active learning, but few instructors can list critical aspects of any pedagogy being implemented in their course. It was twenty years ago today that we developed and implemented the Science Writing Heuristic (SWH) in an undergraduate chemistry laboratory course in a large university. We then combined the best aspects of the SWH with Process Oriented Guided Inquiry Learning (POGIL). We wanted our students to have experience developing laboratory techniques, the skill of asking a research question, and then designing an experiment to answer the research question. Our research methodology included analysis of the performance of students on lecture exams, laboratory practical exams, and the ability of students to communicate in writing. Conveying to graduate teaching assistants (GTAs) how to teach in a student-centered active learning laboratory course was another key aspect for the fidelity of implementing our approach. Our research results strongly indicated students in a SWN/POGIL laboratory setting led by GTAs who implemented critical aspects of the pedagogy on lecture examinations, laboratory practical examinations, and on effective written communication outperformed students led by GTAs who did not. The results of this research will be discussed.

Using results from the performance of students on lecture and laboratory practical examinations and on laboratory notebooks to assess the effectiveness of the Science Writing Heuristic

2019 Spring National Meeting

The official archive and repository for all ACS Meetings & Expositions abstracts and select posters or presentations.