Skill development in experimental coursesJournal of Technology and Science Education SKILL...

Journal of Technology and Science Education

SKILL DEVELOPMENT IN EXPERIMENTAL COURSES

Héctor Bagán1, Rosa Sayós2, José F. García1

1Departament de Química Analítca, Universitat de Barcelona2Departament de Filologia Catalana/Insttut de Ciències de l’Educació, Universitat de Barcelona

Spain

[email protected], [email protected], [email protected]

Received January 2015Accepted March 2015

Abstract

Experimental courses ofer a good opportunity to work with competences, promotng the incorporaton ofstrategies oriented towards motvatng students to actvely involve in the learning process, promotng refexivelearning and developing generic skills. This study presents diferent ways of developing and evaluatng someimportant general skills, setle on four specifc objectves:

• to increase student motvaton using samples of potental interest to students and explaining real-liveapplicaton of their samples analyses;

• to assist students’ self-regulaton and learning autonomy by using the portolio;• to promote group work through experiments in pairs and small-group discussions;• to develop communicaton skills through small-group discussions and oral presentatons.

Results show that the type of sample used and real-life applicaton has important infuence on motvaton. Theportolio is a good tool to promote refecton and to evaluate both specifc and generic skills in experimentalcourses, the dynamics of a laboratory course permit students to develop their group-work and communicatveskills, and peer evaluatons both improve students’ communicaton skills and promote metacognitve refecton.Finally, the project demonstrates that it is possible to train students in general skills using the specifc coursecontent and that the incorporaton of partcipatory methodologies encourages students to become actvelyinvolved in the teaching-learning process.

Keywords – Cooperatve grouping, Critcal thinking, Laboratory science, Lifelong learning.

----------

1 INTRODUCTIONThe European Higher Educaton Area (EHEA) has defned a new educatonal paradigm with the central conceptof learning-focused educaton (Altbach & Knight, 2007; Ministerio de Educación, Cultura y Deporte, 2003; TheEuropean Higher Educaton Area, 1999). This change of focus, which prioritses students’ learning over teachers’teaching, implies that in additon to disciplinary knowledge, students need to acquire generic or transversalskills that permit them to develop professionally, personally, and socially (Ballantne & Larres, 2007; Bennet,Dunne & Carré, 1999; Clanchy & Ballard, 1995; Gilbert, Balat, Turner & Whitehouse, 2004; Sin, Jones & Petocz,2007; Smith, Mcknight & Naylor, 2000; Sung, Ng, Loke & Ramos, 2013; Yorke, 2006).In today’s world, where knowledge not only increases more rapidly every day but also becomes obsolete veryquickly, it is essental for professionals to be able to constantly update their knowledge and adapt it to new andrapidly changing situatons. They must learn how to learn, and they must learn throughout their lives (Black,

Journal of Technology and Science Educaton. Vol 5(3), 2015, pp 169On-line ISSN 2013-6374 – Print-ISSN 2014-5349 DL: B-2000-2012 – htp://dx.doi.org/10.3926/jotse.158

mailto:[email protected]



Journal of Technology and Science Educaton – htp://dx.doi.org/10.3926/jotse.158

McCormick, James & Pedder, 2006; Cornford, 2002; Crebert, 2000; Rawson, 2000; Simons, 1989; Wingate &London, 2007; Zeegers & Martn, 2001).Universites must accept the relatvity of knowledge and assume the challenge of ofering their studentstraining that allowing them to functon in the environment of uncertainty and complexity that characterises theknowledge society (Barber, 2000; Fullan & Ballew, 2001; Hargreaves, 2003; Monereo & Pozo, 2003).In this context, one of the most important changes promoted by the EHEA is a change in teachers’ and students’roles (Barr & Tagg, 1995; Cañado, 2010; Sursock & Smidt, 2010). The learning process is now considered acollaboratve task between students and teachers in which students must be thoughtul apprentces (meaningthat they must take responsibility for their own learning processes) and teachers must become counsellors orguides (Bienefeld & Almqvist, 2010; Boekaerts, 1997, 1999; Corno, 1992; Morales Vallejo, 2008; Shepard, 2000).It is not surprising that learning ability is one of the most important general skills. To develop this skill, teachersmust provide students with tools and areas for refecton that help them to be accountable for the developmentof their own learning processes so that they can self-regulate and become autonomous learners (Brockbank &McGill, 2007; Kolb & Kolb, 2005; Parker & Heywood, 2013).To reach the objectves of the European convergence process, a fundamental strategic queston arises: how cana teacher atain the pedagogical knowledge necessary to provide efectve and high-quality instructon (Dierking& Fox, 2012; Gibbs, 2001; Michalsky, 2012; Miguel Díaz, 2003; Vázquez-Bernal, Mellado, Jiménez-Pérez &Leñero, 2012)? According to Cruz, today, quality university teaching is impossible without specifc training thatprovides the knowledge, skills, attudes, values, and virtues needed by university-level teachers (De la CruzTomé, 2003).For this reason, academic insttutons should promote training policies for their teachers that provide them withspecifc training in teaching skills and help them to advance in their professional careers (Bricall, 2000; Torra etal., 2013).The University of Barcelona’s teacher-training program ofers a Master’s in University Lecturing for NewLecturers, in which young teachers begin a process of professionalisaton that will expand and improvethroughout their academic careers. In this inital process, they are mentored by senior teachers with extensiveteaching and research experience who advise, guide, and motvate them to innovate in their classes (AmadorCampos, Carrasco Calvo, Díaz Álvarez, González Fernández, Gracenea Zugarramurdi, Marzo Ruiz, L. et al., 2012).In this learning context, as a result of the collaboratve process between one of the young lecturers and hismentor, a project was developed to incorporate some general skills development into the University ofBarcelona’s Basic Analytcal Chemistry Laboratory course. The project was advised by the University ofBarcelona’s Insttute of Educaton Sciences (ICE) and was launched in 2011-2012.The present work describes this innovaton experience and analyses the impact of its various components onstudent motvaton and learning results.

1.1 Developing general skills: an innovaton project of the Basic Analytcal ChemistryLaboratoryExperimental courses ofer an ideal framework to teach skills because they acclimate students to theprofessional practces that they will need to develop in the future (Baird, 1990; Bybee, 2000; Graham Gibbs &Simpson, 2004; Hofstein & Luneta, 1982, 2004; Okebukola & Ogunniyi, 1984; Zeidler, 1997). In such courses,students must independently apply their previous knowledge to planning and developing diferent actvitesproposed by the teacher. These actvites allow students to achieve signifcant, profound, and constructvelearning. Moreover, the reduced number of students in these courses’ groups makes these courses optmalcurricular areas for the integrated development of the skills needed to become a good professional.The Basic Analytcal Chemistry Laboratory is a frst cycle compulsory subject performed in the second year ofthe chemistry degree. To take this course, it is necessary to pass the Applied Chemistry II course (to learn how towork in a laboratory) and the theoretcal course Analytcal Chemistry. The subject have 4.5 ECTS thatcorresponds to 112.5 h (60 h atendance, 20 h tutored and 32.5 h of autonomous work) it was performedduring 3 weeks, 4 hours per day, in groups of approximately 30 students (25 students during the term in whichthe innovaton project was conducted), distributed among three sub-groups corresponding to three teachers.The three teachers have enough experience in teaching this course even when they have diferent level ofexperience. In the laboratory, students must apply their knowledge of the quanttatve analysis of majority and

Vol. 5(3), 2015, pp 170


minority components using classical determinatons, ttratons and gravimetries explained in the theoretcalcourse Analytcal Chemistry, which the students take prior to the laboratory course.The development of this course required students’ contnuous interacton with their classmates and theteacher. The process began when the teacher proposed the determinaton of the concentraton of a compoundin a sample. The proposed determinaton was selected depending on each student’s characteristcs and hispositon in the learning process. Some of the proposed analyses were determining water hardness, determiningthe presence of actve chlorine in a domestc bleach botle, determining the presence of phosphoric acid in acola drink, and determining the concentraton of copper in a 10-centme euro coin (89% Cu, 5% Al, 5% Zn and1% Sn).To perform these tasks, students searched the literature for diferent procedures to develop their assigneddeterminatons and selected the most appropriate procedure in terms of safety, reagent availability, and qualityof results. The selected procedure was then discussed with the teacher, and agreement was reached aboutwhat procedure to follow. Next, each student performed the assigned task and obtained results. The studentwas required to evaluate the results and to compare them with the results obtained by classmates. Finally, eachstudent showed his results and conclusions to the teacher, who then discussed the results, evaluated thestudent’s work, and assigned the student a new determinaton. All this procedure was registered in a notebookwhich was to be performed in the atendance tme in the laboratory. Additonally, during the autonomous worktme, the students have to answer questons about this determinaton in the notebook.The course has an inital presentaton session and two seminars performed in the frst day (2 hours). Somedeterminatons were performed in specifc days due to material availability and its corresponding seminarieswere performed the day before with the students that will perform these determinatons (30 minutes). Ingeneral, the determinatons have not specifc tmings and are the students’ responsibility to distribute the tmefor the realizaton of the diferent determinatons. Finally, the last day is fully dedicated to perform the oralpresentatons.The assessment of the course was contnuous during all the laboratory work. Mainly, the assessment takes intoaccount the understanding of the determinatons, the evaluaton of the results and the soluton of theproblems appeared during the development of these determinatons. This was observed by the discussionswith the teacher, the answers to the questons and the revision of laboratory notebooks. Also, the oralpresentaton, attude and tme distributon was tacked into account for the assessment. During the discussionwith the teacher feedback was provided to students. This feedback consists on a formatve assessment abouthow this determinaton was performed and the aspects that needs to be improved for the next determinatonsthat were selected to maximize these aspects.Given the possibilites ofered by this course, diferent actvites were incorporated into the teachingprogramme that would permit the development and evaluaton of some general skills included in the degreecurriculum (Sayós, Amador & Pagès, 2012); these skills are considered important to students’ futuredevelopment. To reach this goal, a teaching innovaton project was designed with the following specifcobjectves:

• To increase student motvaton and consequently to involve students in their own learning processesthrough actvites that are as meaningful and functonal as possible.

• To assist students in self-regulaton and learning autonomy, encouraging them to conductmetacognitve refectons that ensure their personal control over knowledge acquisiton and thelearning process.

• To promote group work, for two reasons: frst, the interacton that occurs in collaboratve actvitesamong students is a good strategy for improving learning results; second, to respond to the demandsof a labour market that is increasingly interested in organising work groups that generate synergies toachieve beter results than those obtained by the sum of separate individual capacites.

• To contribute to the development of students’ communicatve skills. Given the importance ofinformaton properly fow between professionals and between the workplace and society, this courseaimed to improve both oral and interpersonal communicaton. Good oral communicaton must allowstudents to be efectve in transmitng ideas, thoughts, and feelings in various communicatvecontexts, such as conversatonal situatons, group actvites, and public presentatons in front of largeaudiences. Interpersonal communicaton facilitates the establishment of positve relatonships amongpeople through actve listening and discussion ability.

Vol. 5(3), 2015, pp 171


2 DESIGN/METHODOLOGY/APPROACH2.1 Changes introduced in the courseThe actons implemented to reach the expected learning outcomes as a functon of the objectves described inthe innovaton project were the following:

• To increase student motvaton, samples of potental interest to the students were chosen. Explanatonof the real-life utlity of these samples analyses was emphasised, and students were encouraged tobring and use their own samples to easily relate the analysis to their own life experiences.

• To promote the refectons of students on their own learning and that students conduct their self-regulatory processes, as an essental step towards autonomy, the use of portolios or learning folderswas analyzed. The functon of this actvity was twofold. First, students were required to presentevidence of their learning processes, explaining their decisions and strategies that led to the obtainedresults. This process was used to prompt students to refect, self-evaluate, and propose futureimprovements. Second, in additon to this formatve assessment, learning portolios allowed studentsto perform accreditaton assessments because they contained evidence of the level that each studentachieved. Therefore, by using the portolio, it was possible to evaluate both student and teacherperspectves.

• To strengthen group work, some learning situatons were proposed in which students had tocollaborate with classmates, organise themselves, and make decisions to reach common goals thatwould improve the quality of their results. First, complex experiments to be performed in pairs wereproposed. Second, small-group discussions were organised.

• Finally, work on communicatve skills was performed through student partcipaton in small-groupdiscussions and oral presentatons. The frst learning actvity mainly focused on interpersonalcommunicaton. Students were required to assert themselves in discussions with classmates, toconsider the contributons of others, and to reach agreements. The second actvity involved theinstrumental components of oral expression: forming a clear and structured discourse that is adaptedto the communicatve context, paying atenton to the reactons of the audience, properly usingnonverbal language, and ensuring that the message reached the audience without interference and ina fuent and understandable way.

The general methodology followed in this course was the same than previously but introducing themodifcatons above mentoned. These modifcatons lead to change the general development of the subject ina more partcipatve course, with more discussions and interactons between the students and teachers andalso promotng the refexion of the students about his own learning. This makes that some of the tme thatstudents normally spend in the realizaton of the determinatons was used in the diferent discussions andexplanatons as well as in the preparaton of the diferent actvites.

2.2 Instruments for the collecton and evaluaton of the resultsThe instruments, techniques, and methods of evaluaton used to assess the achievement of the objectves andstudents’ learning results were as follows.

2.2.1 FormsTwo forms (Tables 1 and 2) were used to evaluate objectves 1 (motvaton) and 4 (communicatve skills). InForm 1, through open questons, comments, and closed questons with ratng scales, students were askedwhich practces they liked more or less and the reasons for their ratngs of those practces. Form 2 implementedthe peer assessment, in which students were asked to evaluate diferent formal and content aspects of theirclassmates’ oral communicatons.

Vol. 5(3), 2015, pp 172


Evaluaton form for the determinatons Course: Basic Analytcal Chemistry Laboratory

Nº: 00001 Page 1/2 List the 3 determinatons that you liked the most:1:2:3: Why?

What factors infuenced your answers:Type of sample: Greatly Moderately LitleObjectve of the analysis: Greatly Moderately LitleDifculty: Greatly Moderately Litle The samples related to the determinatons mentoned in the frst queston belonged to:Determinaton 1 You Laboratory OthersDeterminaton 2 You Laboratory OthersDeterminaton 3 You Laboratory Others In average, the level of your learning in these three determinatons was:

High Medium Low

In average, your efort in performing these three determinatons was:High Medium Low

Comments:

Vol. 5(3), 2015, pp 173


Evaluaton form for the determinatons Course: Basic Analytcal Chemistry Laboratory

Nº: 00001 Page 2/2 List the 3 determinatons that you liked the least:1:2:3: Why?

What factors infuenced your answers:Type of sample: Greatly Moderately LitleObjectve of the analysis: Greatly Moderately LitleDifculty: Greatly Moderately Litle The samples related to the determinatons mentoned in the frst queston belonged to:Determinaton 1 You Laboratory OthersDeterminaton 2 You Laboratory OthersDeterminaton 3 You Laboratory Others In average, the level of your learning in these three determinatons was:

High Medium Low

In average, your efort in performing these three determinatons was:High Medium Low

Comments:

Table 1.Form 1 used to evaluate objectve 1

Vol. 5(3), 2015, pp 174


ORAL PRESENTATION EVALUATION

Name:Formal aspects: Yes NoThe presentaton was clear:(voice tone, dicton, speed, visual slides) 6 5 4 3 2 1

The presentaton was well organised:(structure, contents, including all sectons)

6 5 4 3 2 1

The presentaton was adjusted to the tme allowed:(total tme, adequate tme for the diferent sectons)

6 5 4 3 2 1

Contents: Yes NoProvided all of the necessary informaton: 6 5 4 3 2 1Knew the content well: 6 5 4 3 2 1Evaluated the obtained results: 6 5 4 3 2 1Answered questons correctly: 6 5 4 3 2 1Comments:

Table 2. Form 2 used to implement the peer assessment

2.2.2 The teacher’s direct observatonsThis procedure was applied to evaluate objectves 3 and 4. The teacher’s direct observaton of the group work(objectve 3) took into account the commitment with the common objectves, the organisaton and planning ofthe work, the distributon of roles, the method of decision making, and the general operaton of the group. Oralpresentatons provided evidence with which the students’ communicatve skills could be evaluated (objectve4). Clear expositon, the precision of vocabulary, the use of proper registraton, argumentatve ability, thedynamics of the discussions, and willingness to value and accept the opinions of colleagues and the obtainedconsensus were all evaluated.

2.2.3 Portolios or learning foldersPortolios were conceived as learning tools to understand and monitor development as well as collecton ofevidences on efort, it can be defned as a collecton of materials or evidences selected to show, refect andevaluate a learning process during a period of tme (Cano, 2005). One of the classifcatons of portolios takesinto account two diferent dimensions, if are assessment or formatve and if are mandated by externalrequirements or self-directed for personal use, leading to four types of portolios: the dossier(used to evaluatea subjects or competences degree by the university),the training (used to promote the refecton in the studentsabout his own learning), the refectve (used as a personal initatve to show or demonstrate the skills acquired)and the personal development portolio(used for personal evaluaton and refecton of the professional growthin long-term process) (Smith & Tillema, 2003). For this study, the training portolio was selected in a showcasemodality. This selecton was performed because the main purpose of this innovaton is promote the self-regulaton and learning autonomy. Also, using only one selected proof, it is necessary that students perform thisselecton in a refectve way, producing only one page portolio that permits focus students’ tme in theselecton, and refecton not in writng long materials.Learning portolios were used to evaluate objectve 2 (self-regulaton and learning autonomy). In their learningportolios, the students were required to select a single determinaton as the most signifcant evidence of theirlearning. They were required to describe that evidence, explain the reasons it was relevant, and refect onpotental changes that they could make in that determinaton if they were required to repeat it.

Vol. 5(3), 2015, pp 175


3 RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONThe results obtained in the diferent actvites, grouped according to the specifc objectves, are shown below.

3.1 Objectve 1To study the increase in student motvaton, the results obtained through the questons on Form 1 wereanalysed.Figure 1 shows the results of the analysis of the frst queston on Form 1 (Table 1). Specifcally, Figure 1 showsthe number of tmes that each determinaton was selected as one that was liked more or less. Thedeterminatons were classifed into two categories depending on whether their real-life applicatons wereexplained during their introductons (lef) or not (right).

Figure 1. Answer frequency of the determinatons that students liked more or less when their real-lifeapplicatons were explained (lef) or not explained (right)

The results have important variability, but the determinatons for which real-life applicatons were explainedhad more positve answers (determinatons that students liked more) 65%, whereas the determinatons forwhich real-life applicatons were not explained showed a larger number of answers corresponding to less-likeddeterminatons 61%.Following the analysis of Form 1, the second queston asked students, in an open-ended manner, to specify thereasons why they had stated that they liked certain practces more or less. All of the comments can be groupedaccording to the following factors.

• Determinatons that students like more have the following qualites:

• Permit students to apply and consolidate theoretcal knowledge obtained in other courses

• Use samples closer to students’ contexts and experiences

• Provide knowledge with real-life applicatons

• Are interestng and complex in both their executon and calculatons

• The determinatons that students like less have the following qualites:

• Confront students with unsolvable problems

• Are long

• Have specifc practcal issues related to difcultes in observing the endpoints of somevolumetric determinatons.

Vol. 5(3), 2015, pp 176


To summarise, the reasons that explain why a determinaton is liked more by students are related to the use ofcommon samples and an understanding of the relatonship between the determinaton and real life. Thearguments provided to justfy why a partcular determinaton is liked less by students are related to difculteswith performance.Figure 2 shows the results obtained for the remaining questons on Form 1. In these last questons, diferentfactors were proposed: the type of sample, the objectve of the determinaton (applicaton to real life), anddifcultes encountered in the determinaton’s practcal development. Students were asked to evaluate, on athree-level scale, the infuence of these factors on whether they liked the determinatons selected in the frstqueston more or less. An additonal queston about the origin of the samples (to reveal which samples wereprovided by the students) was included. In the last two questons, students were asked about the learning andlevel of efort required to perform these determinatons.In the determinatons that were liked more by students, the type of sample is the factor that has the greatestinfuence, the objectve is secondary, and the difculty has no infuence. In the determinatons that are lessliked by students, the distributon is more centred, with a slight emphasis on difculty (the diferences betweenpopulatons were established by Mann-Whitney U tests at 95% confdence level). These results are inaccordance with the previous results observed in the free comments queston.In both cases, for the determinatons that are more and less liked, the resultng learning is high and the efort ismedium. This result is found even for those determinatons that, according to the students, present higherdifculty. Additonally, it was observed that in most of the cases involving student-provided samples, those samples arethe high-infuence factor.From these results, it is possible to conclude that the proximity of the sample, especially if it is a student-provided sample, has the highest infuence on motvaton. The explanaton of a determinaton’s real-lifeapplicaton also has an infuence, but at a lower level. Finally, difculty hinders motvaton, but it is lessimportant.

Figure 2. Answer frequency of the factors that infuenced the assessment ofdeterminatons along with the degree of learning and efort invested

Vol. 5(3), 2015, pp 177


3.2 Objectve 2Observatons of students’ self-regulaton and autonomy were performed using their portolios or learningfolders.It is important to note that the students experienced considerable difculty in preparing this material because itwas the frst tme that they had performed exercises related to the selecton of evidence and self-refecton.Furthermore, the fact that the course was developed in a very short period of tme hampered the assimilatonof the portolio concept, thus increasing the difculty of implementng this concept.The portolios were writen free-style, and students selected the structure and format. Consequently, theanalysis shows that diferent students’ personalites are clearly manifested in their portolios, corroboratngsome of the laboratory observatons. For example, some portolios were writen formally, whereas others werewriten informally. Portolios were writen in either the frst or third person.The selecton of determinatons as evidence of learning was very diverse. Some students chose to demonstratethat they could perform valid analyses, selectng determinatons in which they did not make any mistakes andtheir results were correct. Other students selected determinatons that included mistakes to allow theopportunity to refect on the sources of their errors and to propose potental solutons to implement if theywere to repeat the determinaton in the future.In all of the cases, it was possible to observe the satsfactory accomplishment of the objectve of self-refectonin students’ learning using the portolio as a learning tool.Finally, it is interestng to note the character of the portolio as a reliable method for summatve evaluaton.Table 3 presents the students’ grades, divided according to the three sub-groups of the course. It can beobserved that the marks assigned to the portolio (which were evaluated by the same teacher for all groups)and the global marks assigned for the laboratory (evaluated by the diferent teachers of the sub-groups withoutknowledge of the portolio marks) statstcally have no diferences at a 95% confdence level (Wilcoxon signedrank test). Therefore, it can be concluded that is possible to conduct a reliable and adjusted evaluaton of theskills developed in a laboratory course through the use of portolios.

Group 1 Group 2 Group 3 Portolio Global Mark Portolio Global Mark Portolio Global Mark

6 8.5 7-8 7.5 6 6.57-8 7 5 6 6-7 5.57 7.5 8-9 8.5 7-8 8.5

9.5 9 6-7 7.5 6-7 8.59 9 6 7.5 7-8 9.59 9 7-8 8 8 7.5

9-10 8 6-7 7.5 7 6.59-10 9.5 7-8 8 7-8 7.58-9 7

Table 3. Portolio and global marks of the course divided in the three sub-groups

3.3 Objectve 3The group work was evaluated by directly observing the teacher during the development of complexdeterminatons that were performed in pairs.In general, the development of these collaboratve learning situatons was very easy because each groupcontained only two persons and the compositon of each group was chosen by the students themselves. Insome cases, minor problems appeared due to a lack of knowledge about group dynamics. These problems weresolved using solutons or guides that were provided by the teacher who conducted the direct observaton.The teacher’s direct and contnuous observaton of the group throughout the working process allowed him toassess both the end product of the work (through the results obtained and the corresponding discussions) andthe process of collaboraton established between the group members. With regard to the collaboraton process,

Vol. 5(3), 2015, pp 178


the following aspects were taken into account: task planning and management, the contributons of each groupmember to the fnal product, and the dynamics established between the students in developing the work.The small-group discussions ofered additonal opportunites to develop competence in group work andfacilitated the development of both linguistc and interpersonal communicatve skills, as discussed inobjectve 4.These groups, which contained a maximum of fve students, provided a relaxed context for pooling problems,discussing these problems, and reaching consensual solutons. The teacher moderated the discussions in aninformal way and provided criteria or ideas that students could use. Discussion groups provided an idealframework to promote refecton and facilitate students’ comprehension of the fact that it is easier to solveproblems in a collegial way and that problems can be solved in diferent ways, all of which may be correct.It is especially interestng to note that the idea that a problem can have diferent, correct solutons was difcultfor the students to accept. This idea was easier to understand afer peer discussions comparing the diferentindividual solutons adopted by diferent students.As a result, it is possible to afrm that these two learning actvites—experiments performed with peers andsmall-group discussions—facilitate the acquisiton of specifc knowledge of the course and familiarise studentswith the dynamics of group work. The advantages derived from collaboraton allowed the students to be moreefectve and to achieve higher-quality results. Moreover, direct observaton by the teacher was very helpful toguide and regulate the manner in which students learned these dynamics. It is noteworthy that contnuous andclose contact over many days in the laboratory facilitated the integraton of the teacher as an element of thecourse’s routne dynamic.

3.4 Objectve 4The course’s contributon to the students’ communicatve skills was primarily accomplished through twoactons: small-group discussions and oral presentatons.In the small-group discussions, which were briefy explained in the previous secton, the students felt free todiscuss their ideas, results, and solutons. Interventon in these discussions required students to structure theirspeech and speak with clarity and precision. This exercise also helped students learn how to interact positvelywith their classmates and with the teacher through dialogue and to express their opinions assertvely,defending their views and listening to others while considering and valuing all contributons.The oral presentaton performance required students to employ their communicatve skills and to adapt themto a more formal context. These presentatons, which were previously prepared using the teacher guide andstudents’ own group work, allowed to consider diferent learning styles that had previously emerged in the oraldiscussions.During the presentatons, all students had a peer review Form 2 (Table 2), which had a formatve but not asummatve evaluaton character. This form was used to evaluate diferent formal and content-related aspects ofthe presentatons of the students’ classmates. This exercise required the student to refect on his ownpresentaton and therefore on his own learning. These objectves were transmited to the students. It was alsoexplained that the purpose of the form was to improve the students’ own communicatve skills but that itwould have no impact on the fnal marks. This allowed the students to have more freedom and to be morehonest when completng the forms. The performance of these peer evaluatons required students to focusduring their classmates’ presentatons, which encouraged their refectons on their own presentatons.The analysis of the comments contained in the evaluaton forms showed that the students ofered genuine andconstructve critcism of their classmates’ skills, with useful ideas for improvement in clear and respectullanguage. These results demonstrate the high utlity of this tool as a method for improving students’communicatve skills and for promptng students’ refecton on their own learning process.

Vol. 5(3), 2015, pp 179


4 CONCLUSIONSFrom the analysis of the results obtained, the following conclusions can be made:

• The choice of the type of sample proposed to the students for determinaton has a direct infuence onincreasing students’ motvaton. Therefore, it is important to provide students with interestng samplesthat are related to their personal experiences and linked to their environments.

• The explanaton of the meaning and utlity of the proposed analysis in real life makes learning moremeaningful and functonal, which is also a source of motvaton.

• A portolio or learning folder is an excellent tool to promote refecton, which favours students’ self-regulaton and learning autonomy. This tool is also very useful to evaluate a degree’s general skills andan experimental course’s specifc skills.

• The dynamics of a laboratory course, which involves a close and deep trust relatonship betweenstudents and teachers, permits students to easily develop their group-work skills. In the same way, alaboratory course is a good context in which to work on communicatve skills.

• Peer evaluatons, as forms used during oral presentatons, are a good tool to improve students’communicaton skills and to promote metacognitve refecton that will help students to becomeautonomous learners.

Finally, the project demonstrates that it is possible to train students in general skills through the substantvecontent of a course and that the incorporaton of partcipatory methodologies in educatonal planningencourages students to become actvely involved in the teaching-learning process and trains them in a way ofthinking and actng that allows them to make knowledge their own.The innovatons implemented in this study were applied in other courses with satsfactory results. It isimportant to highlight that some students that partcipates in this study ask in advances course to repeat someof the experiences (as the peer review classmates’ oral presentaton) because they considered helpful tools toimprove their skills.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTSThe authors thank all of the group 2Q students in the Basic Analytcal Chemistry Laboratory (2011-2012) fortheir collaboraton and involvement in developing this study.

REFERENCESAltbach, P.G., & Knight, J. (2007). The Internatonalizaton of Higher Educaton: Motvatons and Realites.Journal of Studies in Internatonal Educaton, 11(3-4), 290-305. htp://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1028315307303542

Amador Campos, J.A., Carrasco Calvo, S., Díaz Álvarez, A., González Fernández, E., Gracenea Zugarramurdi, M.,Marzo Ruiz, L. et al. (2012). La formación del profesorado novel en la Universidad de Barcelona. Barcelona:Octaedro.Baird, J.R. (1990). Meta-cogniton, purposeful enquiry and conceptual change. In E. Hegarty-Hazel (Ed.), Thestudent laboratory and the science curriculum (pp. 183-200). London: Routledge.Ballantne, J., & Larres, P.M. (2007). Cooperatve learning: a pedagogy to improve students’ generic skills?.Educaton + Training, 49(2), 126-137. htp://dx.doi.org/10.1108/00400910710739487

Barber, M. (2000). High expectatons and standards for all, no mater what: The leadership challenge for aworld-class educaton service. Notngham: Natonal College for School Leadership, 1-25.Barr, R.B., & Tagg, J. (1995). From Teaching to Learning — A New Paradigm For Undergraduate Educaton.Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 27(6), 12-26. htp://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00091383.1995.10544672

Bennet, N., Dunne, E., & Carré, C. (1999). Paterns of core and generic skill provision in higher educaton.Higher educaton, 37(1), 71-93. htp://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1003451727126

Bienefeld, S., & Almqvist, J. (2010). Student Life and the Roles of Students in Europe. European Journal ofEducaton, 39(4), 430-441.Black, P., McCormick, R., James, M., & Pedder, D. (2006). Learning How to Learn and Assessment for Learning: atheoretcal inquiry. Research Papers in Educaton, 21(2), 119-132. htp://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02671520600615612

Vol. 5(3), 2015, pp 180

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02671520600615612

http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1003451727126

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00091383.1995.10544672

http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/00400910710739487

http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1028315307303542


Boekaerts, M. (1997). Self-regulated learning: A new concept embraced by researchers, policy makers,educators, teachers, and students. Learning and Instructon, 7(2), 161-186. htp://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0959-4752(96)00015-1

Boekaerts, M. (1999). Self-regulated learning: where we are today. Internatonal Journal of EducatonalResearch, 31(6), 445-457. htp://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0883-0355(99)00014-2

Bricall, J.M. (2000). Informe Universidad 2000. Conferencia de Rectores de las Universidades españolas (CRUE).Barcelona.Brockbank, A., & McGill, I. (2007). Facilitatng Refectve Learning In Higher Educaton (2nd ed.). London: OpenUniversity Press.Bybee, R. (2000). Teaching science as inquiry. In J. Minstrel & E. H. Van Zee (Eds.), Inquiring into inquiry learningand teaching in science (pp. 20-46). Wasington, DC: American Associaton for the Advancement of Science.Cano, E. (2005). El portafolios del profesorado universitario. Un instrumento para la evaluación y para eldesarrollo profesional. Barcelona: Octaedro-ICE. Cañado, M.L.P. (2010). The Transformaton of Teacher and Student Roles in the European Higher EducatonArea. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 1(2), 103-110. Clanchy, J., & Ballard, B. (1995). Generic Skills in the Context of Higher Educaton. Higher Educaton Research &Development, 14(2), 155-166. htp://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0729436950140202

Cornford, I.R. (2002). Learning-to-learn strategies as a basis for efectve lifelong learning. Internatonal Journalof Lifelong Educaton, 21(4), 357-368. htp://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02601370210141020

Corno, L. (1992). Encouraging Students to Take Responsibility for Learning and Performance. The ElementarySchool Journal, 93(1), 69-83. htp://dx.doi.org/10.1086/461713

Crebert, G. (2000). A snapshot of generic skills development at Grifth University. Inaugural InternatonalLifelong Learning Conference.De la Cruz Tomé, M.Á. (2003). Necesidad y objetvos de la formación pedagógica del profesor universitario.Revista de Educación, 331, 35-66.Dierking, R.C., & Fox, R.F. (2012). “Changing the Way I Teach”: Building Teacher Knowledge, Confdence, andAutonomy. Journal of Teacher Educaton, 64(2), 129-144. htp://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0022487112462893

Fullan, M., & Ballew, A.C. (2001). Leading in a culture of change (Vol. 1). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Gibbs, G. (2001). La formación de profesores universitarios: Un panorama de las práctcas internacionales.Resultados y experiencias. Boletn de la RED-U, 1, 9-13.Gibbs, G., & Simpson, C. (2004). Conditons Under Which Assessment Supports Students ’ Learning. Learningand Teaching in Higher Educaton, (1), 3-31.Gilbert, R., Balat, J., Turner, P., & Whitehouse, H. (2004). The generic skills debate in research higher degrees.Higher Educaton Research & Development, 23(3), 375-388. htp://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0729436042000235454

Hargreaves, A. (2003). Teaching in the knowledge society: Educaton in the age of insecurity . Teachers CollegePress.Hofstein, A., & Luneta, V.N. (1982). The Role of the Laboratory in Science Teaching: Neglected Aspects ofResearch. Review of Educatonal Research, 52(2), 201-217. htp://dx.doi.org/10.3102/00346543052002201

Hofstein, A., & Luneta, V.N. (2004). The laboratory in science educaton: Foundatons for the twenty-frstcentury. Science Educaton, 88(1), 28-54. htp://dx.doi.org/10.1002/sce.10106

Kolb, A.Y., & Kolb, D.A. (2005). Learning Styles and Learning Spaces: Enhancing Experiental Learning in HigherEducaton. Academy of Management Learning & Educaton, 4(2), 193-212. htp://dx.doi.org/10.5465/AMLE.2005.17268566

Michalsky, T. (2012). Shaping self-regulaton in science teachers’ professional growth: Inquiry skills. ScienceEducaton, 96(6), 1106-1133. htp://dx.doi.org/10.1002/sce.21029

Miguel Díaz, M. (2003). Calidad de la enseñanza universitaria y desarrollo profesional del profesor universitario.Revista de Educación, 311, 13-35.Ministerio de Educación, Cultura y Deporte. (2003). La integracion del sistema universitario español en elespacio europeo de enseñanza superior.

Vol. 5(3), 2015, pp 181

http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/sce.21029

http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/AMLE.2005.17268566


http://dx.doi.org/10.3102/00346543052002201

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0729436042000235454

http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0022487112462893

http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/461713

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02601370210141020

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0729436950140202

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0883-0355(99)00014-2

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0959-4752(96)00015-1

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0959-4752(96)00015-1


Monereo, C., & Pozo, J.L. (2003). La universidad ante la nueva cultura educatva. Enseñar y aprender para laautonomía. Barcelona: Editorial Síntesis.Morales Vallejo, P. (2008). Nuevos roles de profesores y alumnos, nuevas formas de enseñar y aprender. In L.Prieto Navarro (Ed.), La enseñanza universitaria centrada en el aprendizaje. Barcelona: Octaedro.Okebukola, P.A., & Ogunniyi, M.B. (1984). Cooperatve, compettve, and individualistc science laboratoryinteracton paterns—efects on students’ achievement and acquisiton of practcal skills. J. Res. Sci. Teach.,21(9), 875-884. htp://dx.doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660210903

Parker, J., & Heywood, D. (2013). Exploring How Engaging With Refecton on Learning Generates PedagogicalInsight in Science Teacher Educaton. Science Educaton, 97(3), 410-441. htp://dx.doi.org/10.1002/sce.21049

Rawson, M. (2000). Learning to Learn: More than a skill set. Studies in Higher Educaton, 25(2), 225-238. htp://dx.doi.org/10.1080/713696137

Sayós, R., Amador, J.A., & Pagès, T. (2012). Estrategias para desarrollar y evaluar las competencias transversalesen las ttulaciones de grado. In L. Del Río Bermúdez & I. Teva Álvarez (Eds.), IX Foro Internacional Sobre laEvaluación de la Calidad de la Investgación y de la Educación Superior (FECIES) (pp. 91–96). Granada:Asociación Española de Psicología Conductual (AEPC). htp://dx.doi.org/10.1080/713696137Shepard, L.A. (2000). The Role of Assessment in a Learning Culture. Educatonal Researcher, 29(7), 4-14.Available online in: htp://www.jstor.org/stable/1176145 htp://dx.doi.org/10.3102/0013189X029007004

Simons, P.R.J. (1989). Learning to learn. In P. Span, E. de Corte & B. van Hout Wolters (Eds.),Onderwijsleerprocessen (pp. 15-25). Amsterdam: Swets & Zeitlinger.Sin, S., Jones, A., & Petocz, P. (2007). Evaluatng a method of integratng generic skills with accountng contentbased on a functonal theory of meaning. Accountng and Finance, 47(April 2005), 143-163.Smith, J., Mcknight, A., & Naylor, R. (2000). Graduate Employability: Policy and Performance in Higher Educatonin the UK. The Economic Journal, 110(464), 382-411.Smith, K., & Tillema, H. (2003). Clarifying diferent types of portolio use. Assessment & Evaluaton in HigherEducaton, 28(March 2015), 625-648. Sung, J., Ng, M.C.M., Loke, F., & Ramos, C. (2013). The nature of employability skills: empirical evidence fromSingapore. Internatonal Journal of Training and Development, 17(3), 176-193. Sursock, A., & Smidt, H. (2010). Trends 2010  : A decade of change in European Higher. Brussels: EuropeanUniversity Associaton asbl.The European Higher Educaton Area (1999). Joint declaraton of the European Ministers of Educaton.Torra, I., Màrquez, M.D., Pagès, T., Solà, P., García Campos, R., Molina, F., et al. (2013). Retos insttucionales de laformación del profesorado universitario. RED-U. Revista de Docencia Universitaria, 11(1), 285-309.Vázquez-Bernal, B., Mellado, V., Jiménez-Pérez, R., & Leñero, M.C.T. (2012). The process of change in a scienceteacher’s professional development: A case study based on the types of problems in the classroom. ScienceEducaton, 96(2), 337-363. Wingate, U., & London, C. (2007). A Framework for Transiton  : Supportng “Learning to Learn” in HigherEducaton. Higher Educaton Quaterly, 61(3), 391-405.Yorke, M. (2006). Employability Employability in higher educaton  : what it is – what it is not. Learning andEmployability. UK: The Higher Educaton Academy.Zeegers, P., & Martn, L. (2001). A Learning-to-learn Program in a First-year Chemistry Class. Higher EducatonResearch & Development, 20(1), 35-52.Zeidler, D.L. (1997). The central role of fallacious thinking in science educaton. Science Educaton, 81(4),483-496.

Citaton: Bagán, H., Sayós, R., & García, J.F. (2015). Skill development in experimental courses. Journal ofTechnology and Science Educaton (JOTSE), 5(3), 169-183. htp://dx.doi.org/10.3926/jotse.158

On-line ISSN: 2013-6374 – Print ISSN: 2014-5349 – DL: B-2000-2012

Vol. 5(3), 2015, pp 182

http://dx.doi.org/10.3926/jotse.158

http://dx.doi.org/10.3102/0013189X029007004

http://www.jstor.org/stable/1176145

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/713696137


http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660210903


AUTHOR BIOGRAPHYHéctor Bagán

Héctor Bagán obtained his PhD in Chemistry in 2011 at the University of Barcelona, he also obtained a Masterdegree in University Lecturing for New Lecturers in 2012 at the University of Barcelona. Since 2008 he isperforming teaching tasks in the Pharmacy and Chemistry degrees. At present, he is performing hispostdoctoral stay at the Lunds University. His research work is focused on synthesis of polymeric materials forits applicaton on radioactvity measurements. Also, he is involved in analytcal chemistry applied to artworkcharacterizaton.

Rosa Sayós

Rosa Sayós Santgosa is a Senior Lecturer at the Faculty of Educaton at the University of Barcelona, Spain. She isa teacher of Catalan Studies and a teacher trainer at the Insttute of Educaton in the same university. Hercurrent research interests include University Teacher Educaton and Applied Linguistcs. She is involved ininnovaton project about refectve practce.

José F. García

José F. García obtained his PhD in analytcal chemistry in 1989 at the University of Barcelona. At present, he is afull professor at the Analytcal Chemistry Department from the University of Barcelona. Since 1982, he has beenworking in Radioanalytcal Chemistry; since 1997, he is involved in Analytcal Chemistry applied to culturalheritage. He acts as tutor of the Chemistry degree students at the University of Barcelona.

Published by OmniaScience (www.omniascience.com)

Journal of Technology and Science Educaton, 2015 (www.jotse.org)

Artcle's contents are provided on a Atributon-Non Commercial 3.0 Creatve commons license. Readers areallowed to copy, distribute and communicate artcle's contents, provided the author's and JOTSE journal's

names are included. It must not be used for commercial purposes. To see the complete licence contents, pleasevisit htp://creatvecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/es/

Vol. 5(3), 2015, pp 183

http://www.jotse.org/

http://www.omniascience.com/

Skill development in experimental coursesJournal of Technology and Science Education SKILL...

Documents

Transcript of Skill development in experimental coursesJournal of Technology and Science Education SKILL...