INT. J. SCI. EDUC.,
2003, VOL. 25,
NO.
3, 351–372
RESEARCH REPORT
Benefiting from an open-ended experiment? A
comparison of attitudes to, and outcomes of, an
expository versus an open-inquiry version of the same
experiment
C. Anders R. Berg, V. Christina B. Bergendahl, Bruno K. S. Lundberg,
Chemistry Education R and D, Department of Chemistry, Umeå University,
90187 Umeå, Lena A. E. Tibell, Department of Biomedicine and Surgery,
Linköping University, 58183 Linköping, Sweden; e-mail:
[email protected]
In this article we compare outcomes of an open-inquiry and an expository version of a chemistry laboratory
experiment at university level for 190 students. The aim of the study was to investigate if these two versions
would result in different outcomes depending on the students’ attitudes towards learning. We used a
questionnaire to find out their attitude position prior to the laboratory experiment. The outcome in the different
versions of the experiment was evaluated by interviews, questions asked during the experiment and students
self-evaluations. The main findings were that the open-inquiry version shows the most positive outcomes
regarding learning outcome, preparation time, time spent in the laboratory and student perception of the
experiment. The students with low attitude position needed more support to meet the challenge of an openinquiry experiment, the support being a clearer explanation of the aims, and feedback from the instructor
during the experiment.
Introduction
Important general goals in university education are, for example, problem-solving
skills, independent thinking, critical thinking, willingness to explore new ideas and
the development of a creative mind (Johnstone et al. 1981, Byrne and Johnstone
1987, Swedish Higher Education Act 1992). To be sure that these are not just empty
phrases in our course objectives, we need to ask ourselves how we can arrange for
the students to achieve these desired goals and develop knowledge in their subject
and, then, how do we know if the students have reached the goals? Ausubel et al.
(1968) said that:
. . . the most important single factor influencing learning is what the learner already knows.
Ascertain this and teach him accordingly.
This very important factor of meeting the students where they are refers to the
cognitive domain. Another important factor, from the affective domain, is the
student’s attitude. Is the student ready for the challenge? Can students, for instance,
plan an experiment? Many teachers have experienced disappointment when
apparently brilliantly planned student activities have failed due to the fact that some
International Journal of Science Education ISSN 0950–0963 print/ISSN 1464–5289 online © 2003 Taylor & Francis Ltd
http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
DOI: 10.1080/09500690210145738
352
C. A. R. BERG ET AL.
of the students were not ready for a challenge; it was beyond their reach. In this
article we have focused on laboratory work, generally considered to be an essential
part of science education. At Umeå University the time the chemistry students
spend doing experiments is about 40% of the total scheduled time. Since the 1960s
the quest for more ‘open’ experiments has been a never-ending story with a lot of
contradictions and not always encouraging results (Hodson 1996). In a recent
extensive report about laboratory work in Europe (Tiberghien et al. 1998) it was
concluded that, for chemistry at the university level, the main learning objectives are
how to carry out a standard procedure rather than planning an investigation to
address a specific question or problem. Beyond the discussion over the effectiveness
of different laboratory instruction styles, the terminology for ‘open experiments’ is
varied and sometimes even confusing. Domin (1999), in his review of laboratory
instruction styles, has suggested a taxonomy. He suggests four laboratory
instruction styles: expository, inquiry (or open-inquiry), discovery and problembased. These styles can be differentiated by three descriptors: outcome (predetermined or undetermined), approach (deductive or inductive) and procedure
(given or student generated). In this article we have used his classification and our
focus is on the openness of laboratory work and the effect it has for students with
different attitudes. Our research questions were:
1. Will an expository versus open-inquiry version of the same experiment
have different outcomes for our students?
2. Can the instructions for a laboratory experiment be better suited to some
of the students than to others and, if so, has it a bearing upon their attitudes
towards teaching, learning and experimental work?
To address these questions, and to describe the attitudes and cognitive learning of
the students we have used two tools, Perry’s Scheme (Perry 1970, Moore 1984) to
describe the students’ attitudes towards learning and Bloom’s Taxonomy (Bloom et
al. 1956) for describing cognitive learning. William Perry was interested in the
intellectual and ethical development of students. In particular he documented
qualitative change in attitudes during education, a change from dualism to
contextual relativism. He described a series of nine stages, each of which
represented a particular way of understanding the world. The last four steps dealt
with ethical and identity development, steps that we found irrelevant in this project.
Perry’s original scheme, which is quite complex and comprehensive, has been
modified and simplified by Finster and others (Fitch 1984, Finster 1989, 1991),
and recently by Johnstone and co-workers (Johnstone 2001).
As a tool to estimate learning outcomes, we used the cognitive domain of
Bloom’s taxonomy, which separates into major subcategories: knowledge, comprehension, application, analysis, synthesis and evaluation. We question the hierarchical structure in the taxonomy (we prefer to use the term ‘facets of cognition’) but we
find the classification terms useful for our description of the nature and quality of
the learning outcome. This taxonomy has been applied to the analysis of selfassessment questionnaires and interviews. The first gave more quantitative and the
second more qualitative information.
Overall, the Perry-like scheme, in its modified form, has provided us with a way
to describe students’ attitudes. Furthermore, the Bloomian taxonomy has given us
a language that we can use to describe the way students are handling their
knowledge and skills.
BENEFITING FROM AN OPEN-ENDED EXPERIMENT?
353
Experimental design
Sample
Our investigation was carried out with a total of 190 students in their first year of
chemistry studies at university level. The course length is 20 weeks of full time study.
The study was performed during the laboratory period of the section ‘Chemistry of
life’ in the latter part of the course. The course participants are students from
different study programs (majoring in chemistry, biology, engineering chemistry,
engineering biology and teacher training). The course is given three times a year,
which provides us with the opportunity to involve a large number of students, to test
new ideas, and to make relevant adjustments and changes with new test groups
during the year. Expository and open-inquiry versions were compared in the
autumn semester and during the spring this was followed up with a revised openinquiry version of the laboratory experiment.
The first part of the study was carried out on the autumn course, with 105
students, split into two groups of 65 (expository version) and 40 (open-inquiry
version) students respectively. In the design of the investigation we tried to match
the groups of students for their background, choice of study program and overall
performance.
The second part of the study was performed on a course run during the spring
with 85 (revised open-inquiry version) students. The proportions of students from
different study programs were about the same in the first two groups (65 and 40),
while the third group (85) consisted of mainly engineering chemistry students. The
results from the written examination prior to the ‘Chemistry of life’ section
indicated that the two first groups did not differ in performance. Examination
results for the first two groups (points out of maximum 40): 18.33 SD 8.6, n = 57
(expository), 19.57 SD 9.0, n = 44 (open-inquiry). The third group showed a
slightly higher mean score on a similar examination, 22.56 SD 6.79, n = 107
(revised open-inquiry) possibly explained by a higher admission level compared to
the other two groups.
The laboratory experiment studied
The laboratory experiment we have studied, ‘Comparison of the catalytic effect of
MnO2 and catalase’ is one out of four experiments in the course section ‘Chemistry
of life’. The experiment is very similar to the one described by Kimbrough et al.
(1997) except that we also included MnO2 . The task was to compare both the
efficiencies and the sensitivities to different physical and chemical conditions of the
enzyme catalase and the inorganic catalyst. The students were given the possibility
of using the laboratory for one full day.
The different laboratory instructions
The first group (65 students) were provided with an expository instruction (Exp)
for the experiment, the second group (40 students) were provided with an openinquiry version (Ope) and the last group were given a modified form of the openinquiry version, a revised open-inquiry version (Rev). The theory needed for the
experiment had been covered earlier during the theoretical part of the course.
354
C. A. R. BERG ET AL.
In the expository instruction the entire experiment was described in detail. The
details given were the masses of potatoes (the source of catalase) and MnO2 needed,
how to prepare the cell extract, which substrate to use and exactly how to measure
the reaction velocity, how to determine temperature and pH-optima, and how to
evaluate the results (according to Domin (1999) outcome was predetermined, the
approach deductive and the procedure given).
In the open-inquiry version the students were provided with written information that the task was to compare the two catalysts in any way they found relevant.
They were expected to use their existing knowledge to formulate a hypothesis,
propose how to test it and to plan, perform, evaluate and discuss their experiment
(using Domin (1999), the outcome was undetermined, the approach inductive and
the procedure student generated).
In the revised open-inquiry version two changes were made: it was pointed out
that planning and evaluation of the experiment were also important aims (apart
from learning chemistry), and a discussion, checkpoint, between the students and
the instructors was scheduled half way through the experiment. During this
discussion the students described what they had done so far and they had the
chance to discuss their results and their plans for further laboratory work.
Laboratory instructors
The authors of this article were not involved in the teaching of the students during
any part of the courses. The instructors during the laboratory period were graduate
students from the department of biochemistry. They were instructed prior to the
laboratory period about the different types of experiment, how to guide the students
during the different styles of experiment and how to fill in the check sheets for
questions asked during the laboratory work (see below).
Interviews and questionnaires
Attitude questionnaire
For the investigation of the qualitative change in the students’ attitudes during their
education, Johnstone (2001) developed a questionnaire, based on the work of Perry.
Our questionnaire is an adaptation that enables us to describe the attitudes of the
students in the context of chemistry. This attitude questionnaire was used to
categorize the students’ attitude positions. Our purpose at that stage was to find out
the current positions of individuals compared to the whole group and not to
measure attitude change. In the questionnaire five areas were considered; the
student’s view of knowledge, perception of the role of the teacher, perception of the
role of themselves, perception of assessment, and perception of experiments. The
students were asked to respond to 19 statements according to agreement or
disagreement in a Likert type questionnaire. The five response categories were;
strongly agree, agree, neutral, disagree and strongly disagree. Each response was
scored on a scale of 1 to 5, with a 5 corresponding to the most favourable response
and 1 to the least favourable. The scoring direction was reversed for about half of the
statements in order to provide variation in the responses and information about the
consistency of responses. A few translated statements are given in Appendix 1,
although there may be different nuances in the Swedish and English languages. The
BENEFITING FROM AN OPEN-ENDED EXPERIMENT?
355
students answered this questionnaire during the theory part of the course section
‘Chemistry of life’, prior to the laboratory experiment.
In contrast to Magolda (1987) we did not try to place the resulting scores on an
absolute Perry-scale. However, the responses from the students made it possible for
us to categorize the students in relative attitude positions. Each student’s mean
value was calculated from the 19 statements. In this way the answers to the
questions gave us a profile from which we could identify students with low positions
(LoPos) and high positions (HiPos) respectively.
In-depth semi-structured interview
On the basis of the responses of the attitude questionnaire six students (three
LoPos and three HiPos) from the expository instruction style were selected for
interviews. In the same way six students from the open-inquiry version and six
students from the revised open-inquiry version were also selected. The interviews
were performed on the same day or the day after the laboratory experiment and
were tape-recorded and analysed independently by two of the authors. During the
analysis of each interview a check sheet was used comprising nine different items
(Appendix 2). The items were used to record issues from whether the students
used a chemistry terminology (yes correctly and to large extent, yes but to a lesser
extent/partly wrongly, or not at all) to the ability to generalize about the findings
and make connections to related areas of theory (yes correctly, yes but wrongly,
not at all).
In the interviews the students had the alternative experiment (Exp or Ope)
described to them. They were then asked to choose which they would prefer and
then to justify that choice. This part of the interview was summarized as
shortened quotations.
Checksheets for questions asked during the laboratory work
It has been suggested that the frequency of ‘thoughtless’ questions asked by
students during an experiment reflects the learning process during laboratory work
(Johnstone 1997). Arguing that the questions the students ask are not only
thoughtless ones, we developed a more detailed classification using three dimensions; practical/theoretical, detailed/contextual, and spontaneous/reflective. During
the laboratory session the instructors used check sheets (Appendix 3) in which they
noted the questions that were asked by the students, and classified them within
these three dimensions. Each question asked by a student was classified as to
whether it was about practical aspects or dealt with theory, and then whether it
concerned details or was more contextual in nature. In order to classify whether the
question was spontaneous or reflective, the instructor had to discuss and follow up
the student’s question to be able to decide whether the student had thought about
the question before it was asked (reflective question) or whether it was asked
spontaneously. The instructors had been trained in this type of categorization, prior
to the laboratory session, with some examples of probable questions. This
investigation was not performed during the revised open-inquiry experiment. The
number of questions asked after what was noted as reflection divided by the total
number of questions asked was calculated in each of four categories; practical
detailed, practical contextual, theoretical detailed and theoretical contextual.
356
C. A. R. BERG ET AL.
Students’ self-evaluation questionnaire
After the experiment the students filled in a questionnaire associated with the
experiment. The questions covered three areas:
1. The time spent for preparation and carrying out the experiment.
2. The students’ opinion of the experiment and proposed improvements.
3. A self-assessment of their learning outcome from the experiment.
In the third area the question was formulated as follows: ‘which description best
describes the kind of knowledge you have gained by doing this experiment?’ The
students were given the Bloom categories in the cognitive domain; knowledge,
comprehension, application, analysis/synthesis, and evaluation to characterize their
learning outcome. To guide the students in understanding the meaning of each
category, keywords were given. These keywords are sometimes hard to translate with
exact meaning, but here are two examples: knowledge (to learn, remember,
understand, recognize facts, terms and phenomena); comprehension (to interpret,
to be able to explain knowledge gained to other students in your own words and so
that they understand), etc. The students evaluated their own learning outcome on
the scale: very much, a lot, some, a little or nothing for each of the Bloomian
categories.
Interview with the laboratory instructors
The laboratory instructors were interviewed after the laboratory period to collect
their experiences and thoughts concerning different versions of the laboratory
experiment.
Results
Examples of experiments designed by the students
In the expository version of the experiment the students performed the experiment
in accordance with the instruction. In the open versions of the experiment the
students studied a wide range of problems. Typical problems investigated were effect
of pH, temperature, inhibitors, substrate concentration, and catalyst concentration,
etc. on the rate of reaction. Some students came up with problems such as, ‘what is
the distribution of enzyme in different parts of a plant?’ and ‘are there differences
between species?’
Several experimental procedures were used, methodically most of them
included some kind of oxygen volume measurement, but some students used a
spectrophotometric determination and others used a ‘time to float’; measure for
filter papers impregnated with catalyst.
The attitude questionnaire
The attitude measurement conducted before the laboratory experiment gave us the
students’ attitudes to teaching, learning and experimental work. All of the 179
students’ attitudes are presented in the same diagram, figure 1.
Students exhibit values from just below 2 up to 4. It is recognized that assigning
numerical values to students, relating to their position in a Perry type scale, is
mathematically doubtful. The purpose was merely to identify the extreme HiPos and
BENEFITING FROM AN OPEN-ENDED EXPERIMENT?
Figure 1.
357
Attitude values for all students (n = 55 + 41 + 83 = 179).
LoPos. A more complex analysis of the student’s response on the questionnaire is
possible and work is currently being done in our research group. For the purpose of
finding contrasting groups of students, calculated mean values gave two separate
groups since we have chosen to compare the extremes. Support for real differences
between HiPos and LoPos was found in the interviews. The interviewer could always
tell to which group the student belonged, without knowing beforehand. Attitude
values presented by us are not directly transferable to the original Perry levels.
Interviews with the students
In the analysis of the interviews striking differences for four items were detected (see
table 1). These four items were: could easily describe the experiment (item c),
evaluation of experiment (item d), suggest improvements (item e) and suggest new
experimental objectives (item f).
Table 1. Analysis of interviews with the students (n = 6, in each group),
for interview guideline and item description see Appendix 2.
Positive responses
Item
Could easily describe the experiment (c)
Exp
Ope
Rev
3
6
6
Evaluation of experiment, strange results, origin of error (d)
1
4
4
Suggests improvements of experiment (e)
0
5
5
Suggests experiment with new experimental objective (f)
1
2
3
358
Table 2.
C. A. R. BERG ET AL.
Excerpts from interviews with LoPos and HiPos, in the different
experimental settings.
Expository version
LoPos (3): All three preferred the expository version.
Their reasons were:
I want clear instructions. It would have been chaos for me without detailed instructions.
It was so close to the exam I would not have had time to plan on my own.
I don’t like to do experiments. I’ll do what I am told, I am no leader.
HiPos (3): Two preferred the expository version and one was ambivalent.
Their reasons were:
The practical part should have been difficult for me without detailed instructions.
I prefer, in principle, the open version but the practical part would not have worked for
me.
Ambivalent because both versions could be valuable in different ways.
Open-inquiry version
LoPos (3): All three preferred the open-inquiry version, but two of them with some
doubts.
Their reasons were:
Interesting to do something on your own. It makes you think, which a recipe does not.
You can make mistakes and learn from them.
You learn better when you have to find out by yourself but I personally have difficulties in
planning. I was worried about planning before I started but it went well.
It was frustrating to come to lab and there be told that the equipment I needed would
take too long to set up.
HiPos (3): All three were very positive to the open-inquiry version.
Their reasons were:
Extremely funny to plan your own experiment. We could bounce our knowledge around in
our minds and understand what would work.
The data that came out were lousy but that did not matter, I knew why! The idea to make
us think is just OK.
I wanted to be even more creative but the equipment was not there. Sometimes the lab
assistant gave us more hints than I wanted.
Revised open-inquiry version
LoPos (3): All three preferred the open-inquiry version.
Their reasons were:
Interesting, more like a real experimental situation. OK as soon as you get started but it
seemed frightening beforehand. Talking to the others helped me.
I will remember this one better than all the others. If you try to do something more
advanced it will take too much of your time, though.
This gave me a lot of self-confidence. I was not just rolling along, I could do something
myself, a challenge.
HiPos (3): All three preferred the open-inquiry version.
Their reasons were:
I got more interested. It might take more time but you also learn more.
Good to try your own ideas. Freedom in the laboratory, jolly good.
Nice to be able to do something by yourself, but I should have prepared myself better. I
took an easy way out, planning a simple experiment, to save time for reading for the
exam.
BENEFITING FROM AN OPEN-ENDED EXPERIMENT?
359
All of the students who had carried out the open-inquiry version and the revised
open-inquiry version could easily describe what they had done during the
experiment. Only half of the students who had carried out the expository
experiment could do that. Almost none of the students who had carried out the
expository experiment could evaluate and suggest changes in the experiment. On
the other hand almost all of the students who had done the open-inquiry or the
revised open-inquiry version could suggest changes in the experiment and evaluate
what they had done. The same tendency is apparent when we look for the ability to
come up with an idea for a new experiment with a significantly new perspective
(new research questions).
For the items g–i, which represent the highest facets of Bloom taxonomy,
almost no positive responses were detected in any of the experimental settings (data
not shown).
Another area covered in the interviews was which kind of experiment they
preferred (response given from student when the alternative version was described
during the interview) and their reasons for their preference.
Table 2 presents excerpts from the interviews where their preferences and
reasons for preferences are summarized. In each experimental setting LoPos and
HiPos are presented separately. In the interviews it can be seen that HiPos readily
accepted the challenge in an open experiment. LoPos on the other hand did not
accept the challenge in an open experiment as easily as the HiPos. The challenge was
a bit too demanding for the LoPos students in the open experiment but in the
revised experiment they accepted the challenge.
Questions asked by the students during the experiment/laboratory work
During the open-inquiry experiment, the questions that the students asked about
practical details and theoretical context had a higher frequency of reflective
questions than during the expository version. In the expository experiment, only
15% of the questions were asked about practical details after reflection in contrast
to 41% in the open-inquiry experiment (see table 3). Questions asked about
theoretical context during the open-inquiry experiment were all after reflection in
contrast to 62% in the expository experiment. The questions asked were rather
Table 3.
Frequency of reflective questions asked by the students during the
laboratory experiment.
Tot Q
Reflective
Reflective %
Practical details
Exp
Ope
34
29
5
12
15%
41%
Practical context
Exp
Ope
10
8
6
4
60%
50%
Theory details
Exp
Ope
9
11
6
8
67%
73%
Theory context
Exp
Ope
13
9
8
9
62%
100%
360
C. A. R. BERG ET AL.
Figure 2. Students’ self-evaluation of learning gained from the expository
(Exp), open-inquiry (Ope), and revised open-inquiry (Rev) experiment respectively.
BENEFITING FROM AN OPEN-ENDED EXPERIMENT?
361
Figure 3a.
LoPos and HiPos self-evaluation of learning gained in the facet
application.
Figure 3b.
LoPos and HiPos self-evaluation of learning gained in the facet
analysis and synthesis.
362
C. A. R. BERG ET AL.
Figure 3c.
LoPos and HiPos self-evaluation of learning gained in the facet
evaluation.
evenly distributed among the students. No extreme situations, where one student
asked many questions, were reported from the laboratory instructors.
Students’ self evaluation after the experiment
In figure 2 we have summarized the students’ self-evaluations on the Bloomian
scales after performing the experiment.
It is clear that, with regard to knowledge and comprehension, there are no
obvious differences between the three groups of students. Regarding the other three
categories of application, analysis/synthesis, and evaluation, the ratings made by the
students is in the order, from lowest to highest, expository, open-inquiry and revised
open-inquiry. This rating indicates that the students have gained more from the
open versions of the experiment compared to the expository version.
We also analysed a subset of the same data using the 15 extreme HiPos and
LoPos students respectively, in each experimental setting (Exp, Ope, Rev). We
analysed each set of students separately to compare the effect of the different types
of experiment on the learning outcome as evaluated by their self-assessments.
In the categories of knowledge and comprehension no major differences for
LoPos or HiPos could be seen (data not shown). For application, analysis/synthesis,
and evaluation both LoPos and HiPos are more positive to the open experiment and
even more positive to the revised open experiment. This rating made by the students
is always in the order expository, open-inquiry and revised open-inquiry (figures
3a–c). For this trend we use the term ‘shift to the right’ (as data is presented in
figure 3) to describe the student rating, more positive to Rev than Ope, and more
positive to Ope than Exp. In figure 3a (application) LoPos shows a clear shift to the
BENEFITING FROM AN OPEN-ENDED EXPERIMENT?
363
Figure 4. Time spent for preparation by the students before the experiment in the expository (Exp), open-inquiry (Ope) and revised openinquiry (Rev) versions of the experiment.
right (Exp, Ope, Rev) and HiPos shows a small shift to the right in the revised
version. In figure 3b (analysis/synthesis) LoPos again shows a shift to the right
especially in the revised version. For HiPos a tendency for right shift is apparent. In
figure 3c (evaluation) both LoPos and HiPos show a shift to the right. It is
interesting to note that the LoPos are at least as positive as the HiPos regarding the
learning outcome from the open and revised experiments.
Figure 5. Time spent in the laboratory during the expository (Exp), openinquiry (Ope) and revised open-inquiry (Rev) versions of the
experiment.
364
Figure 6.
C. A. R. BERG ET AL.
Students’ judgement of how interesting they found the
experiment.
The students were better prepared in the open and especially the revised open
versions of the experiment and also worked for longer time in the laboratory. In the
revised version more than 70% of the students had a preparation time longer than
30 minutes, in contrast less than 10% had a preparation time exceeding 30 minutes
in the expository version (figure 4). In the open, and especially the revised open
experiment, the students worked for a longer time in the laboratory than they did in
the expository version of the experiment. The most common time spent doing the
experiment is 2 hours for the expository and open inquiry versions, but 4 hours in
the revised open version (figure 5). All students had a maximum of 7 hours
available.
Figure 7.
Students’ judgement of how much they learned during the
experiment.
BENEFITING FROM AN OPEN-ENDED EXPERIMENT?
365
We also asked the students how interesting and valuable they found the
experiment. For how interesting the students found the experiment, the differences
are not big but the tendency is that the revised version shows the most positive
evaluation followed by the open and expository versions (figure 6).
In the students’ judgement of how much they have learned more than 50%
claim they learned a little in the expository version but in the open and revised more
than 50% claimed they learned a lot (figure 7).
Interviews/informal discussions with the laboratory instructors
The laboratory instructors were convinced that it was important and useful for the
students to plan their own experiments. They saw that students felt satisfaction
when they found that their plans and thoughts were right or important. One
instructor said:
A new idea gives the student a new idea and so on.
One of the authors is director of studies in biochemistry and she observed a growing
interest among the PhD students for open experiments and a positive development
in the PhD students’ interest and self-confidence to supervise laboratory work.
However, they found it more difficult to supervise the open versions since the
students asked more diverse questions. This is in accordance with findings by Gallet
(1998).
Discussion
Expository versus open-inquiry versions
Taken together, our results indicate that the revised open-inquiry version was the
most beneficial one for the students. A general pattern that appears in the different
types of data we have collected is that the revised open inquiry version shows the
most positive outcomes followed by the open inquiry version and then the
expository. The triangulation of methods and the stability of the pattern is a good
indication that we have shown that there is a true difference between the outcomes
from the three versions of the experiment.
In the interviews we found striking qualitative information for the ranking of the
experiments. The information clearly shows a higher degree of reflection among the
students who had performed the open-inquiry or revised experiments. This deeper
reflection is seen in that the students could easily describe the experiment, evaluate
or suggest changes and come up with a new experimental objective.
The frequency of reflective questions asked during laboratory work gave
valuable information about students’ thinking while they perform laboratory work.
The result from the analysis supports the finding of deeper understanding and
reflection during the open-inquiry version. If students ask more reflective questions
this indicates that they know what they are doing and have knowledge of the theory
connected with the experiment.
In the self-evaluation we obtained quantitative information telling the same
story as the interviews and the questions asked during laboratory work. The
students claim that they have learnt more from the higher facets of the Bloom
taxonomy (especially analysis/synthesis and evaluation) and taken together with
366
C. A. R. BERG ET AL.
the qualitative information from the interviews, we believe that this is indeed
the case.
The students were also more positive and more willing to put effort into the
open versions of the experiment compared to the expository one. This is illustrated
by the time they spent preparing for the experiment, time spent in the laboratory
and also in their judgement of how valuable and interesting they found the
experiment. Obviously they had to be better prepared since that was part of their
task but they stayed with their experiments because they found it stimulating to get
results from something that they had planned themselves.
Different students benefit differently
A lot of research in science education is focused on learning outcome for the
undifferentiated cohorts of students. We did not only want to know if, but also
which students will benefit from different experimental designs. Our approach was
to identify LoPos and HiPos students in order to describe how the outcome differs
for those two groups. When we interviewed LoPos and HiPos it was striking how the
questionnaire had singled out students with very different views of or attitudes to
the teacher, to student responsibility, to experimental work and to examinations.
Later in the analysis of the interviews this first impression was confirmed.
(i) LoPos and HiPos in interviews
The LoPos students who had done the expository experiment said that they
preferred that version of the experiment and gave arguments such as: ‘I want clear
instructions’ and ‘I would not have had the time to plan on my own’. Those LoPos
who had done the open-inquiry experiment partly accepted the challenges with the
open experiment, showing arguments similar to those who had done the expository
version. It was very interesting to hear that those LoPos who experienced the revised
open-inquiry version showed a clear acceptance of it and they gave no arguments for
an expository version of the experiment.
HiPos who had done the expository version of the experiment also preferred the
expository version (as the LoPos) but here we can see some reasoning suggesting
that an open version could have some advantages. Those HiPos who had
experienced the open version readily accepted the idea behind the experiment and
gave reasons such as ‘Extremely fun to plan your own experiment’ and ‘The data
that came out were lousy but that did not matter, I knew why’. For HiPos working
with the revised open version we got the same kind of positive response and
arguments.
(ii) LoPos and HiPos self-evaluation
In the analyses of the self-evaluation for the 15 HiPos and LoPos students
respectively in the three experimental settings, both LoPos and HiPos are more
positive to the open experiment and even more positive to the revised open
experiment. We also note that the LoPos students seemed to gain most from the
revision. In the analysis we have used only 15 students in each category and it can
be argued that the sample is too small for extensive conclusions. On the other hand,
BENEFITING FROM AN OPEN-ENDED EXPERIMENT?
367
in both the interviews and the self-evaluation we get ‘the same story’; LoPos gain at
least as much from the revised experiment as the HiPos.
(iii) Challenge for LoPos and HiPos
Briefly from the interviews we see that the HiPos readily accepted the challenge in
an open experiment. This is not especially surprising since it confirms the attitude
expressed by them in the questionnaire that caused us to classify them as HiPos. On
the other hand LoPos do not accept the challenge in an open experiment as easily
as the HiPos and this is not surprising either, since it confirms the attitude of a
LoPos. The findings in the interviews that LoPos need special attention when it
comes to introducing open experiments together with a feeling that LoPos students
sometimes got stuck in the process of doing the experiment caused us to introduce
the revisions. In the comparison of our findings from the expository experiment and
the open-inquiry experiment we concluded that the challenge was a bit too
demanding for the LoPos students in the open experiment, too demanding,
according to their present attitude position but also too great a challenge in the
higher facets of the Bloom taxonomy. However the minor adjustments that we made
in the revised experiment were sufficient to enable LoPos students to accept the
challenge. It has been described by Finster (1991) that progression along the
Attitude Scheme occurs when students are challenged to function one step above
their level, Perry + 1.
The revision consisted of two minor changes, to make the aim of planning an
experiment on their own more explicit, and introducing the checkpoint with the
laboratory instructor halfway through the experiment. The checkpoint gave the
students important feedback where they had got stuck, and our findings are in
accordance with the observation by Berry et al. (1999) that students in open
investigations may design and persist with an inadequate procedure. It is also in
accordance with a statement by Hodson (1996):
The only effective way to learn to do science is by doing science, alongside a skilled and
experienced practitioner who can provide on-the-job support, criticism and advice, and is
able to model the processes involved and invite criticism from the learner.
We also noted that we should consider more carefully the challenge given to the
HiPos students and that perhaps a more complicated open-inquiry experiment
could be included. If such an experiment is introduced we think it should be
available as a special option for the student. It is important to remember that HiPos
students might just need a greater challenge in order to develop even further.
Implications for teaching and research
This research project was designed to answer two questions: will an expository
versus open-inquiry version of the same experiment have different outcomes for our
students and can these instructions for a laboratory experiment be better suited to
some of the students than to others and, if so, has it a bearing upon their personal
attitudes towards teaching, learning and experimental work? For the first question
we have shown that the open version shows the most positive outcomes in the
setting studied. For the question of whether the different versions of the experiment
could be better suited to some of the students the answer is ‘yes’ which is not very
368
C. A. R. BERG ET AL.
surprising. What is more interesting is that we could use their attitude position to
shed some light on why the different versions of the experiment were better suited
to some students. LoPos students needed some extra attention when it came to
explaining and motivating them for the task of planning and performing an
experiment on their own. This insight was new for us even though we had written
and supervised the original open inquiry version several times before our
investigation. The emphasis in the first research question is on comparing the
outcome from an expository and open-inquiry activity. However, looking at our
results the differences between the revised open-inquiry and the open-inquiry
version is of the same magnitude as the differences between the expository and the
open-inquiry version. In a way the research question was developed during the
research due to new insights gained in the comparison between the expository and
open-inquiry versions. The revision was a ‘spin off’ effect of our first attempt to
compare an expository and an open-inquiry version. The second part of the study,
revised open-inquiry version, depended on these insights and can be seen as action
research with an updated research question.
How should the open-inquiry version of the experiment be revised according to
the information gained? The revisions then introduced (clearer explanation of the
aims and feedback from the instructor during the experiment), were shown to have
positive effects especially for the LoPos. In our opinion this is very encouraging
since good results are easy to achieve with motivated and mature students but
teachers and researchers always face problems with less motivated and less mature
students.
As researchers we learned something new and the project also gave the
laboratory instructors (research students) an incentive for discussions about
teaching and learning. The new insights gained by the laboratory instructors led to
a positive development in their interest for teaching and ability to supervise practical
work. Research in Chemistry Education should naturally aim to gain new
knowledge and enhance development. We feel confident that not only have we as
researchers learned a lot from our findings, but also that the findings will be
beneficial to our future students and teachers.
Acknowledgements
We would like to gratefully acknowledge financial support from the Swedish
National Agency for Higher Education. We also thank Steve Carter, Alex Johnstone,
Norman Reid and Uri Zoller for constructive feedback on earlier drafts of this
paper.
References
AUSUBEL, D. P., NOVAK, J. D. and HANESIAN, H. (1968) Educational Psychology a cognitive view
(New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston).
BERRY, A., MULHALL, P., GUNSTONE, R. and LOUGHRAN, J. (1999) Helping students learn from
laboratory work. Australian Science Teachers Journal, 45, 27–32.
BLOOM, B. S., ENGELHART, M. D., FURST, E. J., WALKER, H. H. and KRATHWOHL, D. R. (1956)
Taxonomy of educational objectives. Handbook 1 Cognitive domains (London: Longman).
BYRNE, M. S. and JOHNSTONE, A. H. (1987) Critical thinking and science education. Studies in
Higher Education, 12, 325–339.
DOMIN, D. S. (1999) A review of laboratory instruction styles. Journal of Chemical Education, 76,
543–547.
BENEFITING FROM AN OPEN-ENDED EXPERIMENT?
369
FINSTER, D. C. (1989) Developmental instruction: Part I. Perry’s model of intellectual
development. Journal of Chemical Education, 66, 659–752.
FINSTER, D. C. (1991) Developmental instruction: Part II. Application of the Perry model to
general chemistry. Journal of Chemical Education, 66, 753–756.
FITCH, P. (1984) Educational activities to stimulate intellectual development in Perry’s scheme.
Paper presented at ASEE annual conference proceedings.
GALLET, C. (1998) Problem solving teaching in the chemistry laboratory: leaving the cooks.
Journal of Chemical Education, 75, 72–77.
HODSON, D. (1996) Laboratory work as scientific method: three decades of confusion and
distortion. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 28, 115–135.
JOHNSTONE, A. H., PERCIVAL, F. and REID, N. (1981) Is knowledge enough? Studies in Higher
Education, 6, 77–84.
JOHNSTONE, A. H. (1997) Chemistry teaching: science or alchemy? Journal of Chemical Education,
74, 262–268.
JOHNSTONE, A. H. (2001) Improve projects: (iv) case studies, evaluation of innovation. Available
at: http://science.ntu.ac.uk/chph/improve/improve.html. Accessed August 2001.
KIMBROUGH, D. R., MAGOUN, M. A. and LANGFUR, M. (1997) A laboratory experiment
investigating different aspects of catalase activity in an inquiry-based approach. Journal of
Chemical Education, 74, 210–212.
MAGOLDA, M. B. (1987) A rater-training program for assessing intellectual development on the
Perry scheme. Journal of College Student Personnel, 28, 356–364.
MOORE, W. S. (1994) Student and faculty epistemology in the college classroom. In K. W. Prichard
and S. R McLaren (eds), Handbook of College Teaching (London: Greenwood Press),
45–67.
PERRY, G. W. JR (1970) Forms of intellectual and ethical development in the college years: a scheme (New
York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston).
SWEDISH HIGHER EDUCATION ACT (1992) Swedish Higher Education Act, Chapter 1, section 9 (SFS
1992: 1434).
TIBERGHIEN, A., VEILLARD, L., BUTY, C. and LE MARECHAL, J. (1998) Analysis of labwork sheets
used at the upper secondary school and the first years of university. Working paper 3 of the
European Commission Labwork in Science Education Project, PL 95–2005.
370
C. A. R. BERG ET AL.
Appendix 1
Some examples from the attitude questionnaire
sa: strongly agree
a: agree
n: neutral
d: disagree
sd: strongly disagree
sa
3. If I read something that does not agree
with the teacher’s description, I stick with
what the teacher said.
5. It is a waste of time to work on a problem
where it is not possible to arrive at a single
unambiguous answer.
6. I like to tackle problems where the teacher
hasn’t shown exactly how it should be
solved.
8. I prefer exam questions that allow me to
show that I have my own suggestions for
problem solving.
10. A laboratory exercise should be approached first after having gone through all the
theory it is designed to illustrate.
14. A laboratory exercise should be designed
such that I obtain good data, which verifies
the relevant theory.
19. I believe that I best learn the theory illustrated in the lab by planning and carrying
out the experiment myself.
a
n
d
sd
BENEFITING FROM AN OPEN-ENDED EXPERIMENT?
371
Appendix 2
Semi-structured interview scheme:
1.
2.
3.
4.
Please tell me about the experiment you have done today.
What are your thoughts/feelings about the experiment?
How did you prepare for this experiment and for how long?
What did you learn from this experiment? Was there anything specific that made
your task difficult or anything specific that made it easier?
5. If you were given more time in the laboratory for the problem that this
experiment is supposed to cover, what would you suggest could be beneficial?
6. You have done this experiment with a cook-book recipe, you could on the other
hand be given an open instruction (or vice versa). What do you think it would
have been like to do have had that instruction? Which would you prefer?
7. Could you tell me if we in any way could make improvements in the laboratory
course?
Scopes used to analyse the interviews:
a) Using chemistry
terminology
Yes correctly and
throughout
b) Seriously wrong about
facts
No
Yes
c) Finds it easy to
describe the
experiment
Yes
No
d) Evaluates/Commenting
on results, sources for
bad data, possible
origins for failure
Yes
e) Suggests
improvements of the
actual experiment e.g.
more data
Yes
No
f)
Yes
No
Suggests a new or
elaborated experiment
leading to a new
objective for the
experiment
Yes but incorrectly
or to a lesser extent
Yes, partly, only
some obvious
problem
No, not
at all
No
g) Finds applications
Yes – correctly
Yes – incorrectly
No
h) Does analyse, connects
theory with
experiment, catalysis
with enzymes
Yes – correctly
Yes – incorrectly
No
i)
Yes – correctly
Yes – incorrectly
No
Generalizations
372
BENEFITING FROM AN OPEN-ENDED EXPERIMENT?
Appendix 3
Checksheets for questions asked during the experiment
Detailed
Contextual
Practical
Theoretical
Questions marked as: S = spontaneous, R = reflective
Number of students working in the laboratory with the experiment after 2 h
Number of students working in the laboratory with the experiment after 3 h
Number of students working in the laboratory with the experiment after 4 h
Type of questions asked by the students during the experiment