Article

Cite This: J. Chem. Educ. XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX pubs.acs.org/jchemeduc

Modifying Laboratory Experiments To Promote Engagement in

Critical Thinking by Reframing Prelab and Postlab Questions
Jon-Marc G. Rodriguez and Marcy H. Towns*
Department of Chemistry, Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana 47907, United States

ABSTRACT: As described by the National Research Council, science practices reflect, in

part, the way science is done. When researchers are developing an explanation for a
phenomenon, they are using a combination of knowledge and skills reflected in the
science practices. Laboratory-based chemistry courses provide the opportunity for
See https://pubs.acs.org/sharingguidelines for options on how to legitimately share published articles.

students to move beyond surface-level thinking as they use quantitative reasoning skills,
analyze data, and draw connections between observations and explanations. Thus, when
Downloaded via UNIV OF SUNDERLAND on October 13, 2018 at 15:06:29 (UTC).

students in a laboratory course are utilizing science practices, they are making use of the
shared set of tools used by researchers. Here we discuss laboratory curriculum
development that focuses on taking current laboratory experiments and modifying them
by framing the prelab and postlab questions in terms of science practices, which provides
the opportunity for students to engage in critical thinking. This approach toward creating
a practice-centered curriculum is an easy way instructors can promote engagement in
science practices without having to expend the time and resources needed to completely
redesign laboratory experiments.
KEYWORDS: First-Year Undergraduate/General, Laboratory Instruction

C hemistry education is implicitly associated with labo-

ratory instruction; however, it is worth validating the
assumption that laboratory instruction is effective at promoting
student learning. A review of the literature reveals there is a
lack of evidence that directly correlates student learning with
laboratory instruction, with some researchers using this gap in
the literature to build an argument that chemistry courses
should not have a laboratory component.1−5 Taken within the
context of the enormous cost and time expenditure exhausted
by laboratory courses, there is a need for research that
evaluates the role of laboratories in learning chemistry. As
indicated in the literature, part of the problem with learning in
laboratory courses is the need for the goals of laboratory work
to be more intentional, communicated more explicitly, and
assessed more systematically, with multiple studies confirming
there is a general disconnect between student and faculty goals
in chemistry laboratory courses.6−12 In order to adequately
address these claims and state whether or not learning is
occurring it is necessary to be explicit about the nature of
learning expected from these courses. In agreement with the
National Research Council,13 this work asserts that the primary
purpose of science education (e.g., chemistry laboratory
coursework) is to emphasize the nature of science as the
confluence of knowledge and skills by focusing on engagement
in science practices, which encompasses:
1. Asking questions
2. Developing and using models
3. Planning and carrying out investigations
4. Analyzing and interpreting data
5. Using mathematics and computational thinking
6. Constructing explanations
© XXXX American Chemical Society and
Division of Chemical Education, Inc.
7. Engaging in argument from evidence
8. Obtaining, evaluating, and communicating information
The importance placed on student engagement in skills such
as these in university-level science education, particularly in
chemistry education, has been recognized in the literature, and
has been described in the ACS guidelines for bachelor degree
programs as critical for a “rigorous and excellent” chemistry
program that adequately prepares students for careers in
chemistry.14−19 Therefore, our intent is to provide a resource
for instructors to develop laboratory curriculum that explicitly
promotes student engagement in science practices, which
makes the goal of laboratory coursework clear, concise, and
measurable.
■ PRACTICE-CENTERED LABORATORY
COURSEWORK
Why Practices?
As seen in the description for each of the science practices
provided in Table 1, there is some overlap. For example,
developing and using models often involves describing a process
using mathematical formalisms (i.e., using mathematical and
computational thinking) that fit empirical data. The blending of
the descriptions provided is a result of the nature of scientific
inquiry; scientists have a set of tools they use to address
questions, often making use of multiple tools at once.
However, the key point is that students are engaging in
Received: August 20, 2018
Revised: September 20, 2018
A DOI: 10.1021/acs.jchemed.8b00683
J. Chem. Educ. XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX
Journal of Chemical Education Article

Table 1. Science Practices (Adapted from NRC Framework)13

Science Practice Description
1. Asking questions Asking scientific questions that can be investigated and addressed empirically
2. Developing and using Using a variety of models (mathematical, conceptual, etc.) as tools that reflect evidence, explain phenomena, and have predictive
models power; understanding the limits of models and the appropriate context to use a particular model
3. Planning and carrying Taking into account experimental design considerations; gathering data that addresses research questions; deciding on appropriate
out investigations tools/instruments to collect data
4. Analyzing and Using tools to look for patterns and trends in data; considering implications of sources of error or evidence that conflicts with existing
interpreting data models; refining models based on emerging evidence
5. Using mathematics and Expressing relationships mathematically; using computational methods for data analysis and mathematical modeling; using
computational thinking mathematical models to make predictions and describe phenomena
6. Constructing Providing coherent explanations for processes; making connections between evidence and models
explanations
7. Engaging in argument Collaborating with peers; critically considering the validity of proposed explanations; communicating connections between claims and
from evidence data
8. Obtaining, evaluating, Oral and written dissemination of concepts and results (including the use of data, figures, graphs, and mathematical formalism to
and communicating communicate meaning); using primary literature as a source of information; critically evaluating claims presented in primary
information literature and other media

activities that reflect the nature and process of science, and
practices (as a unit) are clearly defined by the National
Research Council (NRC),13 and thus lend themselves to be
systematically measured, assessed, and identified.
We acknowledge the important role laboratory coursework
plays in chemistry education.18,19 On the basis of the nature of
the science practices presented in Table 1, which center on
generation, analysis, and discussion of empirical data,
laboratory work provides an excellent opportunity for students
to engage in science practices. When looking at the NGSS
science practices, the ACS guidelines for B.S. degree programs,
and the goals chemistry faculty have for laboratory coursework,
there is an emerging consensus: They each view critical
thinking as an important part of instruction (see Figure
1).6−8,13,18,19 As mentioned by Stowe and Cooper,21 “critical
Figure 1. Diagram illustrating the common emphasis placed on
critical thinking, as presented in the literature: NGSS science
practices, ACS guidelines for B.S. degree programs, and faculty goals.
thinking” is a term that is often vaguely defined but can be
reframed in a readily measurable way by describing course
objectives using the “language of practices”. In terms of the
NGSS practices, critical thinking skills are involved in each of
the practices, such as when analyzing and interpreting data,
constructing explanations, or engaging in argument f rom evidence.
B DOI: 10.1021/acs.jchemed.8b00683
Similarly, critical thinking skills are involved when engaging in
multiple practices simultaneously, for example, using new data
(analyzing and interpreting data) to refine existing models
(developing and using models).
Development of Tasks That Promote Engagement in
Science Practices
Research has identified the need for explicitly articulated and
systematically measurable goals, and through qualitative and
quantitative surveying three common goals have emerged that
are consistent among faculty that teach undergraduate
chemistry laboratory-based courses; namely, in addition to
engaging in critical thinking, students should be familiar with
considerations of experimental design and learn laboratory
skills/techniques.6−8 Experimental design considerations are
encompassed in the science practice planning and carrying out
investigations, and although learning chemistry laboratory
skills/techniques is not explicitly outlined in the NGSS science
practices, it is also implied when planning and carrying out
investigations. Being able to design experiments involves
considering which instruments to use and which techniques
will be useful for collecting data that will address the research
question. Due to the nature of the science practices as domain-
general, they do not explicitly address learning specific data
collection techniques (creating a standard curve, pipetting,
titrating, etc.), and instead emphasize the overarching practices
used in all science domains. For the purposes of this work, we
will focus on the development and emphasis of science
practices that are relevant to all scientific fields.
As mentioned previously, faculty goals are addressed and
clearly articulated in the NGSS science practices. Thus, from
an assessment standpoint, the recent movement from science
involving the vaguely defined act of inquiry (National Science
Education Standards released in 1996) to a practice-centered
view (Next Generation Science Standards released in 2012) is
a positive step for educators, due to the clearly defined nature
of the set of practices.15,20,22,23 The clearly defined practices
have the potential to improve the ability to create and assess
goals in laboratory courses, with a single item on an exam
potentially assessing student ability with respect to multiple
practices. The challenge then becomes assessing engagement
in science practices in courses with large enrollment, which is
not trivial since practices are noncontent goals that involve
more than simple recall; this requires adaption of current
assessments without losing the validity, reliability, and
convenience afforded by traditional forms of assessment.14,17,22
J. Chem. Educ. XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX
Journal of Chemical Education
On a similar note, due to the extent to which information is
readily accessible, it becomes increasingly important to develop
assessments and tasks that go beyond content knowledge and
require more than factual recall, rote memorization, or simply
looking up answers online.15,24,25
Addressing the need to develop assessments that measure
engagement in the science practices, a group of researchers
designed the Three-Dimensional Learning Assessment Proto-
col (3D-LAP), which provides a systematic way to evaluate test
items based on whether the test item involves student
engagement with the three dimensions of the NRC framework:
science practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas.16 Due
to the scope of this work, we will focus on the portion of the
3D-LAP related to science practices. The protocol developed
by the researchers is straightforward to use, involving a simple
and practical set of criteria for each science practice. In order
for an assessment item to be described as involving student
engagement in a specific science practice, the assessment item
must meet each of the criteria outlined by the 3D-LAP.16 It is
also important to note that the research group that designed
the protocol created two different sets of criteria for evaluating
test items, one for assessment tasks that involve “constructed
responses” (free-response or short answer) and one for
assessment tasks that involve “selected responses” (multiple-
choice questions), with the development of two separate sets
of criteria serving as an acknowledgment of the need for
assessments that cater to large-enrollment courses.16
■
COMPARISON OF TRADITIONAL AND MODIFIED
PRELAB AND POSTLAB QUESTIONS
In order to clearly communicate what it would entail to
develop a modified laboratory curriculum, we provide an
example of a traditional laboratory experiment26 and a
modified laboratory experiment that has been adapted to
promote student engagement in science practices. The
laboratory experiments are placed in the context of acid−
base titrations, which was chosen as a context because it is
ubiquitous in undergraduate general chemistry. A survey of
acid−base titration experiments from different general
chemistry courses reveals that the protocol is largely the
same (i.e., students do multiple colorimetric and/or potentio-
metric titrations to determine the concentration of an
unknown solution), with the difference between the courses
being how the experiment is framed in terms of the prelab
questions and the postlab discussion/report. Taking a standard
protocol and framing it in terms of science practices provides a
simple model instructors can follow; rather than completely
developing new laboratory experiments, which takes significant
time and resources, they can simply modify their existing
laboratory experiments by focusing on adapting prelab/postlab
questions to engage students in critical thinking. This is
analogous to the suggestion made by Underwood et al.25 for
faculty to adapt current assessments to more explicitly engage
students in critical thinking, rather than develop completely
new assessments. Therefore, the modified laboratory experi-
ment was developed by using the 3D-LAP to adapt the
traditional laboratory prelab and postlab questions.
In the sections that follow we present our discussion of the
extent in which a traditional laboratory experiment promotes
engagement in science practices. This analysis was informed by
the work of Reed, Brandriet, and Holme,17 in which the
authors used the 3D-LAP to analyze the role of science
practices in ACS Exams Institute (ACS-EI) test items. In the
C DOI: 10.1021/acs.jchemed.8b00683
Article
context of this paper, the prelab and postlab questions for the
traditional and modified laboratory experiments were charac-
terized using the “Criteria for Constructed Response Assess-
ment Tasks” from the 3D-LAP developed by Laverty et al.;16
thus, each question was assigned the appropriate code if it met
the criteria for engagement in a particular science practice (see
Table 2). After initial assignment of codes to each prelab and
Table 2. Assigned Codes for Analysis of Prelab/Postlab
Questions
Code Science Practice
N/A Not applicable
NSP No science practice
SP1 1. Asking questions
SP2 2. Developing and using models
SP3 3. Planning and carrying out investigations
SP4 4. Analyzing and interpreting data
SP5 5. Using mathematics and computational thinking
SP6/7a 6. Constructing explanations
7. Engaging in argument from evidence
SP8 8. Obtaining, evaluating, and communicating information
a
Science practices 6 and 7 are combined in the 3D-LAP.
postlab question, an additional researcher independently coded
the questions; the code assignments were then adjusted as
necessary to reach a consensus between researchers.27 Having
an additional researcher involved in this process was
particularly useful to operationalize the criteria provided by
Laverty et al.16 From a practical standpoint, when adapting
prelab and postlab questions using the 3D-LAP we suggest
instructors collaborate with other faculty members to help
make decisions regarding what would need to be added to a
question in order to elicit engagement in science practices.
Traditional Prelab and Postlab Questions
Initial analysis of the traditional laboratory questions revealed
that, among the six prelab questions, four required the students
to do calculations, one acted as a reminder for students to
bring a USB memory storage device, and one asked the
students to copy the procedures into their laboratory
notebook. Further analysis using the 3D-LAP indicated that
only one of the prelab questions elicited engagement in science
practices (SP5; using mathematics and computational thinking).
As stated by Reed, Brandriet, and Holme,17 it is important to
keep in mind that practices involve content and skills, which
involves demonstrating what you can do with content
knowledge. For this reason, simply performing a calculation,
without any subsequent prompting that requires the student to
think about the value or demonstrate an understanding of the
value, is not adequate for evidence that the student is engaging
in the science practice of using mathematics and computational
thinking. This is encompassed in the 3D-LAP criteria; in order
for a task to promote engagement in the science practice using
mathematics and computational thinking, it must meet the
following criteria:16
1. Question gives an event, observation, or phenomenon.
2. Question asks student to perform a calculation or
statistical test, generate a mathematical representation,
or demonstrate a relationship between parameters.
3. Question asks student to give a consequence or an
interpretation (not a restatement) in words, diagrams,
J. Chem. Educ. XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX
Journal of Chemical Education
Table 3. Traditional Prelab and Postlab Questions
symbols, or graphs of their results in the context of the
given event, observation, or phenomenon.
That said, although multiple prelab questions had students
perform calculations, in most cases students were not asked to
assign any meaning to the values, so it did not involve
engagement in science practices. Applying this analysis to the
four postlab questions, only the first postlab question elicited
engagement in sciences practices, SP4 (analyzing and
interpreting data) and SP5 (using mathematics and computa-
tional thinking). Table 3 provides a summary of the codes
assigned to each prelab and postlab question. Overall, the
general impression of the traditional laboratory experiment was
that it emphasized calculations without connecting the
mathematics to chemistry, and science practices as a whole
were not well-represented.
From previous work that involved analyzing ACS test items
for engagement in science practices, generally science practices
were not common among the test items, but when the items
D DOI: 10.1021/acs.jchemed.8b00683
Article
were sorted using the ACS Anchoring Concepts Content Map
(ACCM), certain science practices were more common for
specific big ideas.17 In their analysis, Reed and colleagues17
noted that for test items that assessed content related to the
big idea category of “Chemical Reactions”, which is the
category that is relevant for our discussion here regarding
acid−base reactions, developing and using models was the most
common science practice. The idea that certain practices may
be more relevant or better suited for a particular topic is useful
to keep in mind for assessment and was perhaps a missed
opportunity for this traditional laboratory experiment, which
did not involve student engagement in developing and using
models.
Modified Prelab and Postlab Questions
The development of the modified laboratory experiment
centered on science practices involved starting with the
traditional lab discussed above and focusing on modifying
J. Chem. Educ. XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX
Journal of Chemical Education
Table 4. Modified Prelab and Postlab Questions
the prelab and postlab questions to more explicitly engage
students in science practices. Additionally, the modified
laboratory experiment was designed so that students would
engage in each of the eight science practices over the course of
the laboratory experiment. Furthermore, in addition to using
the 3D-LAP criteria to write these questions, a recently
published review paper by Agustian and Seery28 provided some
input regarding how to frame prelab assignments. Agustian and
Seery28 discussed how students have too much to think about
in lab (chemistry concepts, procedure, lab techniques, safety,
etc.), and it is best to minimize the amount of information
given to the students before the laboratory session by only
focusing on “supportive information” in prelabs (what the
students need in order to have a general understanding and
overview of the theory behind the task), instead of “procedural
information” (the specific information students need to
complete each step of the task). These ideas were used to
help frame the prelab questions in the modified laboratory
experiment by primarily focusing on ideas such as the
connection between the content, the question at the center
of the lab experiment, and how the method/approach is well
suited to answer the question of interest. Due to the nature of
E DOI: 10.1021/acs.jchemed.8b00683
Article
the science practices as being rooted in both content and skill,
focusing on a conceptual understanding in the prelab fits well
with how the science practices are conceptualized.
As shown in Table 4, in comparison to the traditional prelab
and postlab questions, the general format for the modified
laboratory experiment involves the representation of each of
the science practices, fewer questions, and a greater emphasis
on conceptual understanding. In addition, for the prelab, the
first question prompts students to consider the general
questions that are being investigated in the experiment and
how the data generated from the method used will help
respond to these questions. This reflects engagement in the
science practice planning and carrying out investigations, and it
addresses Augustian and Seery’s28 suggestions regarding
emphasizing the general overview of the experiment instead
of specific details (such as how to calculate the concentration
of analyte in a titration or simply writing down all the
procedures in the laboratory manual).
■
CONCLUSION
In our discussion of placing this study in the context of science
practices, we integrated recommendations from the National
J. Chem. Educ. XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX
Journal of Chemical Education
Research Council, input from the American Chemical Society,
and research regarding goals communicated by chemistry
faculty, but we did not mention any student-generated ideas. It
is important to note that there exists ample literature on
student goals for laboratory coursework. A review of the
literature reveals that students are not engaging in a deeper
conceptual understanding in the laboratory in part due to
primarily being motivated by affective constructs (such as the
desire to leave lab early or get a good grade); although
currently overlooked by faculty, these goals can be properly
addressed by creating the space for students to engage in
laboratory work and make conceptual connections without
concern about academic consequences for making “mis-
takes”.9−11,29−32
Currently there is a lack of literature that supports the claim
that chemistry laboratory coursework helps students learn,
suggesting the need for changes at the level of curriculum. By
using science practices as a lens to make connections between
the lecture content and laboratory coursework, the underlying
aim of a practice-centered curriculum is to help students
develop a more sophisticated view of chemistry and, more
generally, science. This work serves as a resource for
practitioners interested in providing the opportunity for
students to engage in critical thinking in a way that can be
easily implemented and readily assessed.
■
AUTHOR INFORMATION
Corresponding Author
*E-mail: mtowns@purdue.edu.
ORCID
Jon-Marc G. Rodriguez: 0000-0001-6949-6823
Marcy H. Towns: 0000-0002-8422-4874
Notes
The authors declare no competing financial interest.
■ ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
We wish to thank the Towns research group for their support
and helpful comments on the paper and gratefully acknowl-
edge Kinsey Bain and Kathleen Jeffery for their suggestions on
this work.
■
REFERENCES
(1) Elliott, M. J.; Stewart, K. K.; Lagowski, J. J. The Role of the
Laboratory in Chemistry Instruction. J. Chem. Educ. 2008, 85 (1),
145−149.
(2) Hawkes, S. J. Chemistry Is Not a Laboratory Science. J. Chem.
Educ. 2004, 81 (9), 1257.
(3) Hofstein, A.; Lunetta, V. N. The Laboratory in Science
Education: Foundations for the Twenty-First Century. Sci. Educ.
2004, 88 (1), 28−54.
(4) Hofstein, A.; Lunetta, V. N. The Role of the Laboratory in
Science Teaching: Neglected Aspects of Research. Review of
Educational Research 1982, 52 (2), 201−217.
(5) Singer, S. R.; Nielson, N. R.; Schweingruber, H. A. Discipline-
Based Education Research: Understanding and Improving Learning in
Undergraduate Science and Engineering; National Academies Press:
Washington, DC, 2012. http://doi.org/10.17226/13362.
(6) Bretz, S.; Fay, M.; Bruck, L. B.; Towns, M. H. What faculty
interviews reveal about meaningful learning in the undergraduate
laboratory. J. Chem. Educ. 2013, 90 (3), 281−288.
(7) Bruck, A. D.; Towns, M. Development, Implementation, and
Analysis of a National Survey of Faculty Goals for Undergraduate
Chemistry Laboratory. J. Chem. Educ. 2013, 90 (6), 685−693.
F DOI: 10.1021/acs.jchemed.8b00683
Article
(8) Bruck, L. B.; Towns, M.; Bretz, S. L. Faculty perspectives of
undergraduate chemistry laboratory: Goals and obstacles to success. J.
Chem. Educ. 2010, 87 (12), 1416−1424.
(9) DeKorver, B. K.; Towns, M. H. General Chemistry Students’
Goals for Chemistry Laboratory Coursework. J. Chem. Educ. 2015, 92
(12), 2031−2037.
(10) Galloway, K. R.; Bretz, S. Development of an Assessment Tool
to Measure Students’ Meaningful Learning in the Undergraduate
Chemistry Laboratory. J. Chem. Educ. 2015, 92 (7), 1149−1158.
(11) Galloway, K. R.; Bretz, S. Measuring Meaningful Learning in
the Undergraduate Chemistry Laboratory: A National, Cross-
Sectional Study. J. Chem. Educ. 2015, 92 (12), 2006−2018.
(12) Reid, N.; Shah, I. The role of laboratory work in university
chemistry. Chem. Educ. Res. Pract. 2007, 8 (2), 172−185.
(13) National Research Council. A Framework for K-12 Science
Education: Practices, Crosscutting Concepts, and Core Ideas; National
Academies Press: Washington, DC, 2012. http://doi.org/10.17226/
13165.
(14) Brandriet, A.; Reed, J. J.; Holme, T. A Historical Investigation
into Item Formats of ACS Exams and Their Relationships to Science
Practices. J. Chem. Educ. 2015, 92 (11), 1798−1806.
(15) Cooper, M. M. Chemistry and the Next Generation Science
Standards. J. Chem. Educ. 2013, 90 (6), 679−680.
(16) Laverty, J. T.; Underwood, S. M.; Matz, R. L.; Posey, L. A.;
Jardeleza, E.; Cooper, M. M.; et al. Characterizing College Science
Assessments: The Three-Dimensional Learning Assessment Protocol.
PLoS One 2016, 11 (9), e0162333.
(17) Reed, J. J.; Brandriet, A. R.; Holme, T. A. Analyzing the Role of
Science Practices in ACS Exam Items. J. Chem. Educ. 2017, 94 (1), 3−
10.
(18) Wenzel, T. J.; Larive, C. K.; Frederick, K. A. Role of
Undergraduate Research in an Excellent and Rigorous Chemistry
Curriculum. J. Chem. Educ. 2012, 89 (1), 7−9.
(19) Wenzel, T. J.; Mccoy, A. B.; Landis, C. R. An Overview of the
Changes in the 2015 ACS Guidelines for Bachelor’s Degree Programs.
J. Chem. Educ. 2015, 92, 965−968.
(20) Stowe, R.; Cooper, M. Practicing What We Preach: Assessing
“Critical Thinking” in Organic Chemistry. J. Chem. Educ. 2017, 94
(12), 1852−1859.
(21) Stowe, R. L.; Cooper, M. M. Practicing What We Preach:
Assessing "Critical Thinking" in Organic Chemistry. J. Chem. Educ.
2017, 94, 1852 DOI: 10.1021/acs.jchemed.7b00335.
(22) National Research Council. Developing Assessments for the Next
Generation Science Standards;Pellegrino, J. W.; Wilson, M. R.; Koenig,
J. A.; Beatty, A. S., Eds.; The National Academies Press: Washington,
DC, 2014. DOI: 10.17226/18409
(23) Osborne, J. Teaching Scientific Practices: Meeting the
Challenge of Change. Journal of Science Teacher Education 2014, 25,
177−196.
(24) Reed, J. J.; Holme, T. A. The Role of Non-Content Goals in the
Assessment of Chemistry Learning. In Innovative Uses of Assessment for
Teaching and Research; Kendhammer, L. K., Murphy, K. L., Eds.;
Amercian Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2014; pp 147−160.
(25) Underwood, S.; Posey, L.; Herrington, D.; Carmel, J.; Cooper,
M. Adapting Assessment Tasks To Support Three-Dimensional
Learning. J. Chem. Educ. 2018, 95 (2), 2017−207.
(26) Chemistry Department, Purdue University. “Acid-Base
Equilibria: Monoprotic Acids”. In Chemistry 12901: Laboratory
Manual; Hayden-McNeil, LLC, 2016; pp 115−132.
(27) Charmaz, K. Constructing Grounded Theory: A Practical Guide
through Qualitative Analysis; Sage Publications: Thousand Oaks, CA,
2006.
(28) Agustian, H. Y.; Seery, M. K. Reasserting the role of pre-
laboratory activities in chemistry education: a proposed framework for
their design. Chem. Educ. Res. Pract. 2017, 18, 518−532.
(29) Galloway, K. R.; Bretz, S. Measuring Meaningful Learning in
the Undergraduate General Chemistry and Organic Chemistry
Laboratories: A Longitudinal Study. J. Chem. Educ. 2015, 92 (12),
2019−2030.
J. Chem. Educ. XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX
Journal of Chemical Education Article

(30) Galloway, K. R.; Bretz, S. Using cluster analysis to characterize

meaningful learning in a first-year university chemistry laboratory
course. Chem. Educ. Res. Pract. 2015, 16 (4), 879−892.
(31) Galloway, K. R.; Bretz, S. Video episodes and action cameras in
the undergraduate chemistry laboratory: eliciting student perceptions
of meaningful learning. Chem. Educ. Res. Pract. 2016, 17, 139−155.
(32) Galloway, K. R.; Malakpa, Z.; Bretz, S. Investigating Affective
Experiences in the Undergraduate Chemistry Laboratory: Students’
Perceptions of Control and Responsibility. J. Chem. Educ. 2016, 93
(2), 227−238.

G DOI: 10.1021/acs.jchemed.8b00683
J. Chem. Educ. XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX