Novelty of Student-designed Experiments

On course pre-surveys, the vast majority of students indicated that they had previously done every part of the typical scientific process.  However, these experiences had been very fragmentary for them.  For example, they may be asked to develop a scientific question and hypothesis in one activity, and then in another activity might be given an experimental protocol and asked to gather data and analyze results.  They rarely completed the whole scientific process as one integrated activity.

The reality of students’ prior experiences seemed to be captured by the following question:  “Before this class, have you completed your own experiment from beginning to end, including asking your own question, designing an experiment, carrying it out, analyzing data, and presenting results/conclusions?”  Only 20% of students answered yes.  Since Elon University students represent an above average selection of American high school graduates from across the country, this does not speak well about science experiences on a national level.  Conversations with colleagues at other institutions suggest the same conclusion – students are not being asked to complete scientific investigations from beginning to end.  In the Reinventing Life course, this meant that 80% of students were completing their own experiments for the first time.

Student Learning and Performance

In terms of learning outcomes, the open inquiry pedagogy used in this study resembles undergraduate research (albeit on a small scale) more than it does the traditional introductory lab course.  Specifically, students made significant improvements in terms of understanding scientific process, experimental skills, and critical thinking.

Student performance improved significantly with each experiment, especially from the first to the second.  This trend included mastery of scientific process as seen in videotapes of lab sessions, lab reports, and interviews.  Furthermore, some students were able to do truly outstanding experiments.  This is very different from labs with pre-determined results, where the best a student can do is find “the” correct answer.  When students design their own experiments, there is no glass ceiling.

A common concern about using open inquiry is that students might learn less “content.”  In this study, student surveys, lab reports, and exit interviews did not suggest that they learned any less content.  However, it was true that every student group learned a different set of content which depended on their experimental topics.  As a result, content learning became more difficult to evaluate.  Student content learning in open inquiry situations must be judged primarily from writing and speaking, and not from a common set of test questions.

Student Perceptions

Student perceptions of their learning experiences were very positive.  A sample of student comments from evaluations is shown below:

“I learned a lot.  Giving us freedom and responsibility to design our experiments made a huge difference.”

“Working with a group allowed me to come up with interesting experiments, and I found that the experiments and reports got better over time.”

“At the beginning of the semester, I was not confident in my lab skills.  I am proud to have performed my own experiments and found success.”

“At the beginning of the semester, it was difficult to figure out what to do.  But by Lab 2, we did incredibly well at designing an experiment.”

Comments emphasizing improvement were very common.  In interviews and on post-surveys, students were often adamant in saying that they felt much better about doing science at the end of the semester.  Likewise, on post-surveys students were asked “After this lab, do you feel more comfortable doing science?” and “After this lab, do you have a better understanding of how science works?”  To both questions, 100% of students answered “Yes.”