Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-lj6df Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-18T01:13:55.106Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Web-Based Data Analysis and Feedback for General Chemistry Laboratory: Improving Analysis with Timely, Distance Feedback

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 February 2011

Joseph F. Lomax
Affiliation:
United States Naval Academy, Chemistry Department Annapolis, MD 21402, (lomax@usna.edu)
Debra K. Dillner
Affiliation:
United States Naval Academy, Chemistry Department Annapolis, MD 21402, (lomax@usna.edu)
Melonie A. Teichert
Affiliation:
United States Naval Academy, Chemistry Department Annapolis, MD 21402, (lomax@usna.edu)
Get access

Abstract

In a general chemistry course, while the hands-on experience of the laboratory is important, the goals of the laboratory are not fulfilled until the calculations and analysis are complete. Quite often students are capable of following laboratory instructions and generating excellent data, only to fail in the data analysis, which rarely occurs in the confines of the laboratory or the presence of the instructor. All too often, students are unable to learn important information from the interpretation of experimental results and draw correct conclusions because they make calculational errors, which are most often discovered by the instructor in the grading process. There is an opportunity for distance learning to help bridge the gap between collection of data and its correct analysis. At the United States Naval Academy (USNA), we have developed a Web-based system where the students input their data and calculational results into a web form with immediate feedback. The students are then allowed to correct their errors and resubmit. This system has been in successful use for 5 years. A description of a typical experiment will be discussed along with an assessment of student and faculty satisfaction with the program.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © Materials Research Society 2003

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

1. Holmer, L. L., Journal of Management Education, 25, 590 (2001).Google Scholar
2. Kramarski, B. and Zeichner, O., Educational Media International, 38, 77 (2001).Google Scholar
3. Holme, T., Journal of Chemical Education, 75, 574 (1998).Google Scholar
4. For example, see (a) Collis, B., DeBoer, W., and Slotman, K., Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 17, 306 (2001).Google Scholar
(b) Weston, T. J., and Barker, L., Educational Technology, 41, 15 (2001).Google Scholar
(c) Russo, A., School Administrator, 4, 6 (2002).Google Scholar
5. Penn, J. H., Nedeff, V. M., and Godzik, G., Journal of Chemical Education, 77, 227 (2000).Google Scholar
6. Guernsey, L., Chronicle of Higher Education, 45, A21 (1999).Google Scholar
7. The only example for general chemistry labs to our knowledge is PlayLab at Rutgers, which allows students to submit their final lab results and obtain feedback. MOLS moves beyond the Rutgers system by giving students feedback on intermediate calculations, allowing them to catch their mistakes at various points before submitting the lab for a grade. This work is unpublished but was presented at a conference. Kluiber, R.W. “A Computerized Classical General Chemistry Laboratory“, Paper #524, 15th Biennial Conference on Chemical Education, Waterloo, Ontario, 1998.Google Scholar
8. Jonich, M. J., Solka, B. H., and Bower, J.E., Journal of Chemical Education, 44, 598 (1967).Google Scholar
9. Lomax, J. F., Dillner, D. K., and Verde, J. W., Chemical Educator, 3(6), (1998). Avail. URL:http://journals.springer-ny.com/chedr/.Google Scholar