Brigham Young University BYU ScholarsArchive Theses and Dissertations 1946-01-01 A study of form and content for a laboratory manual to be used by students in general chemistry laboratory Berne P. Broadbent Brigham Young University - Provo Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/etd BYU ScholarsArchive Citation Broadbent, Berne P., "A study of form and content for a laboratory manual to be used by students in general chemistry laboratory" (1946). Theses and Dissertations. 8176. https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/etd/8176 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by BYU ScholarsArchive. It has been accepted for inclusion in Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of BYU ScholarsArchive. For more information, please contact [email protected], [email protected]. ?_(j;, . , i. ~ ~ (12 ' -8?5: 11% -· • A STUDY OF FOFM CONTENTFOR A LABORATORY -\ .AND MANUALTO BE USED BY STUDENTSIN GENERALCEEi/IISTRY LABORATORY' A THESIS SUBMITTEDTO \ THE DEPAR'.I3\t1Ell."'T OF CHEMISTRY OF ··! BRIGHAMYOUNG UNIVERSITY,. IN PARTIALFULFII.lllENT OF THEREQ,UIREMENTS·FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTEROF SCIENCE ... .,; . •·' .. ...• • .• . • "f ... ·.. .. ,. ·: :. !./:.•:-.:.lo>•.-,:... ... ... ..........• • • • p ,.. .,• • • ...• • . ~. ••,,. ................. :... ~•••,,.c • ..............• • • • • • .. f" ·~•-~-·"••• • • • ... • .., : :·.•··•:'"'•••:'"',. ·.-··.::· 147141 BY BERNEP. BROADBENT . " 1946 .,_ - ii \ ., This Thesis by Berne P.- Broadbent is accepted in 1ts P:esent form by the Departm·ent of Chem�stry as satisfying the Thesis requirement.for the degree of .J Master of Science • ,• . - .} .. iii PREF.ACE The constantly broadening field assigned to general chemistry demands that material be carefully selected and that ever increasing attention be given to preparing this material and presenting it_ to the student.- The following study was made to develop a laboratory manual that would increase the effectiveness of laboratory work. One im- portant feature of the outline is its very close correlation with class recitation. Experiments are timed to·follow as nearly as possible the class discussion so that the student will be somewhat familiar with.the problem before beginning laboratory work. Each student does individual work at all times and the reports he makes are written up in full state- merits rather than by filling in a series of blanks on a printed fonn. Justification for this procedure is given in the section dealing with methods used to determine the form of the manual. The writer makes no claim to a manual that is adaptable to all classes, to be used with any text, but suggests that for any class a manual planned and correlated with class work and assignments and which aims to teach certain definite skills and fundamental principles is much more effective than one which provides many• and varied experiments ' from which a laboratory course is chosen. Many experiments,. have been carefully tested and many discarded. Those,finally used are experiments on which the majority of students can get accurate results and from which they can draw correct conclusions. The writer wishes to acknowledge the members of the staff of the Chemistry Department of the University of Idaho, Southern Branch, for 1V .. .· .. ' many of the expe riine:flt s developed here and· used(~ tli very little change, ' and especially Dr; Junius Larsen and Dr. Albert E. Taylor for v~_luable .. '" suggestions and· cri t'icisms in Jthe wri tin'g of other experiments -tand -in ~ testing many of them. Berne P. Broadbent ,\ ·"'-.,,. .. Provo, Utah .,..,.. \ August 1946 ., •' c I .. .. V TABLE OF CONTENTS PREFACE . -~-•. ... ~.. --• . • • • • • iii . INTRODUCTION. • • • • • • • • vi HISTORICAL. • • • • • • • ·•• • • • • • viii C . • • • PART-ONE PRELIMINARYTESTiNG THE OUTLINE FORM:·-. • • • • • • • . .. •, •· ...... :x:i TE.STING • EXPERIMENT • • • • ~ . •-, •· . • • • • • • • • • :x:iv ~1JM1v1A.RYAND CONCLUS_ IONS " • • • • • ., • ; • • • • • • • • • xx · BIBLIOGRAPHY• • • • . :x::x:i PART TWO LABO:f!.ATORYOUTLINE LABORATORYPROCEDURE • • • • • • • .• • • • • • • • • • • • 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS,FOR EXPERIIi~NTS • • --•. ·•- .~ • • • • • • . • 2 INSTRUCTIONSTO STUDENTS.. .,.... EXPERIMENTS•·· . • • . ... • • • • • • • • • • • 8 CHECKINGIN LOCKER• • • . ..,.. ' . .._. • • • • • • 68 INTRODUCTION The past decade has seen considerable critic:i.sm directed·at general chemistry laboratory procedure. A continual controversy is being waged o~ such issues as· individual versus group or demonstration methods, short fill-in answer form versus fonn.al report, sectioning for various curriculum gr·oups versus one general _section, and finally, the content problem of what to include and wnat can best be omitted. The purpose of this. paper i:s 'to present a laboratory manual which has proved to be reasonably effective and to jµstify the stand taken on some of the above-mentioned issues. • This outline is not in any sense to.. be considered a final answer to the problems involved but is suggested as a step tci'ward more effect- ive laboratory procedure. The work wa·s originally begun at Gila Junior College with' a view to determining the effectiveness of indiv!dual;work as compared to that in which two or, in rare instances,. ., three students ·worked to- gather on experiments. Also, to determin~ the value of the short f.ill-in answer type of report as compared" to. , the more formal report in which complete statements are required for."-all answers and obser- vations. Later at University_ of ..Idah"o, Southern Branch, a testing and selecting program on experiments, anct individual answers within the experiments, was carried out in order.to eliminate any experiment or - ., question which repeatedly failed ~o produce the desired results. Just what results are expected might best be explained by a statement of objectives. Sheerer (~l) suggests·obJectives' of laborat~ry work in a first course of general chemistry at· college level I ,vfi from a survey of 299 representative college:s and universities., His list emphasizes essentially the objectives stated below: In chemistry laboratory work the student should: (a) d'eveloP' the ability· to make accurate observations,;.:.from these observ~tions draw logical conclusions, and write a clear report of the.observed facts (in a broader·sense, develop scientific• method), (b) develop skill and 'ability in th"e use of simple scientific· ~ instruments and laboratory "apparatus, (c) develop habits of ~ccuracy, hon~sty, self-reliance and order- liness, ,. .. ( d) acquire new. knowledge. '· .~ The degree to which ~hese objectives are realized will measure ., . accomplishment. Student interest and ~espect. ,for· laboratory work will/ in most cases, be found to be directly _proportional to the confidenc·e the student has gained in his own ability. Finally, additiohal' experiments were added in an attempt to give 1.... • students 9:.better understanding of certairi_phases.., of the semester's work. A review of final examination papert·ha~ revealed certain weak points that in some instances could be~strengthe~ed by new experiments. The Thesis is devided int<? two parts in order that the ..complete~ outline (Part Two) In.B.Ybe· presented a·s "a unit in the same form in which . .- it will be printed tor use in the laboratory classes~at University Of ,, Idaho, ·southern Branch. viii HISTORICAL An abundance of material is available in the nature of exper- iments for laboratory work in General Chemistry. It seems, however, from a review of literature that surprisingly little has been done to improve ways of presenting material or to test the value of various experiments used to teach the same principle. Most of the work; which has been done has centered attention on the que'stion of demonstration versus indi v'idua:l laboratory work and the great maj_ori ty of testing done has been done by written.tests which fail to measure one .labora- tory objective of recognized importance: that is, development of skill - j . in the use of laboratory apparatus. Consequently the results obtained are not very enlightening. Horton and Smith (8, 9) made a study relative to the question in 1928. Their work is significant because they did use actual per- formance tests. While their work vm.s not directly on the question as here stated, it do.es seem to be relevant in part. Some of .the final conclusions of this two year investigation were: 1. The customary method of measuring achievement in elementary chemistry measures chiefly the outcome of but one major objective: vis., acquisition of information. 2. At the conclusion of a laboratory course in beginning chemistry those pupils vm.o have had individual instruction do co~sis- tently better than those who have seen the experiments.performed. 3. Contrary to the conclusions of many previous investigators, the individual method of laboratory instruction is superior, particu- larly for superior st~dents, while~the lecture-demonstration method may be somewhat better for students of the lower intelligence levels. ix Degering and Rennner (5) concluded that demonst'ration is as ~ . effective as laboratory work for·the mastery of theoretical material., but ~hat labora~ory work is essential where laboratory technique* is to be deve~oped~ Ad.ams (1) states., '.!The controversy_ over th~ me"rits < of the individual labora_tory ,v;ersus the demonstration laboratoz:y still go,es on.,. with' ai-gumen~s on both sides still .incd.nclusl ve. 11 Cook (4) f'ound that., ~Contrary to ..the conclusions