Developing Students’ Quantitative Reasoning By Implementing ePortfolios In The Chemistry 210 Class For Science And Engineering Majors

Nelson Núñez-Rodriguez, Na Xu, and Francisco Ordóñez

ABSTRACT

E-porfolios were implemented in the Chemistry 210 laboratory in order to develop students' scientific writing and quantitative skills. We designed an e-portfolio to host three lab reports, three-revised lab reports, three reflective statements, a final case study and a final reflective report for the laboratory class. At the end of the semester, all writing pieces were evaluated and analyzed based on the developed rubrics. Our analysis shows that implementing e-portfolios and developing a guided revision of lab reports imp roved students' scientific writing and quantitative skills.

INTRODUCTION

Competency in writing and quantitative skills is essential for college graduates regardless of their specific majors. In the biomedical field, the competiveness for research funding revolves around memorable pieces of scientific writing (Day, 1998). Science major classes at community colleges, and specifically the lab component, are critical venues for the development of these skills. Students should be exposed to meaningful experiences integrating writing- to-learn and learning-to-write practices during their first college years. In this regard, the revision of lab report writing appears as a vehicle toward strengthening scientific writing and quantitative skills in college Chemistry classes. The development of these skills also requires reaching approaches that embody different learning styles. Current students learn in different ways as they use curricular and extracurricular avenues such as the Internet and social media (Bass, 2012). On this subject, the electronic portfolio (e-portfolio) has been described as a venue integrating learning inside and outside classes (Bass, 2012), and may be considered as a way to document the progression of student learning throughout several science classes.

The word portfolio originally meant a large thin flat case for loose sheets of paper such as drawings or ma ps. 111e use of e-portfolios in education began in the lace 1980s (Barrett, 2007) and spread to wide practice in d1C: late 1990s (Wade and Yarbrough, 1996). Since then, the use of e-portfolio has become increasingly popular (Bartlett, 2002; Penny and Kin slow, 2006; Lowenthal, 201I). An e-portfolio is a collection of "electronic" evidence assembled by students, faculty members or institutions to enhance the defectiveness of learning, to assess learning outcomes and to demonstrate competence to external stakeholders (Di Biase, 2002). The e-portfolio represents an important experiential learning approach that documents a process of planning, tracking, collecting and sharing the evidence of learning and performance. There are numerous advantages in applying the e-portfolio in the classroom and Mudems' academic life, and in promoting their reflections during the learning process. The e-portfolio has helped student become proactively involved in their academic planning and performance. The e-portfolio also helps students with land a job after graduation because it provides students an opportunity to share their work with potential employers (Strudler and Wetzel , 2005; Ward and Moser, 2008; Lin, 2008; Strudler and Wetzel, 2008).

Not only is the e-portfolio beneficial for students, but it also can be of great use to faculty members. With e-portfolios, professors are able to motivate students and help them to collect and disclose authentic evidence of learning outcomes as well as promote the quality of communication between students and faculty members and among student themselves. The e-portfolio also, to helps to align students' learning outcomes with faculty member’s evaluation and assessment strategies (Strudler and Wetzel, 20 08). As the e-portfolio can help faculty to evaluate and assess what students have learned in previous classes, it also helps faculty to design their syllabi and build on student previous knowledge and skills. The e-portfolio has been described as a ''got co have.: it" tool for higher education (Treuer and Jenson, 2003; Cohn and Hobbits, 2004; Love et al., 2004). An increased number of colleges and universities, such as Pennsylvania State University, Stanford University, Florida Scare University, and Pace University, has implemented e-portfolios into their programs.

E-portfolios also provide a nexus for discussions of ownership of digital material. Students engage in traditional questions regarding citations and argumentation by using other writers' material and have at the same time a venue for considering themselves as emerging authors. Their authority becomes a site for contested knowledge production as they question who owns what and how such ownership is determined. With their digital identity, their own and char of others, the e-portfolio becomes a sire for exploring an expanded notion of ethos as students create differing online identities to meet the demands of specific situations and come to understand at the same rime how their reputations as authors help or hinder the arguments they wish to make (Clark, 2010).

The e-portfolio has been described as "student-centered" and "competence­ centered". We have aimed to reflect both app roaches when implementing e-portfolios in a Chemistry class for Science majors at Hostos Community College. For char class, we focus on documenting students' learning progression and skill development, which will undoubtedly benefit Science students in the future. Our goals of applying e-portfolios are the following: 1) co develop analytical and qualitative reasoning skills; 2) to imp rove scientific writing skills; 3) to develop within students themselves a self-assessment culture; 4) to improve online publishing skills; 5) to explore the development of the e-portfolio in Chemistry 220 as a cool with which to further assess skill development 6) co encourage a broader application of e-portfolios in other classes at Hostos Community College. Overall, this practice has been developed as rare of a N IH -IRACDA grant awarded to Albert Einstein College of Medicine at Yeshiva University in partnership with the Biology Department at Lehman College and the Natural Sciences Department at Hostos Community College. This initiative, which hopes to produce a positive impact on the science curriculum in institutions serving minorities, also provides teacher training to research postdocs ( IRACDA scholars) from Albert Einstein College of Medicine.

METHOD

The e-portfolio was designed to host three lab reports, three revised lab reports, three revised lab reports, a final case study and a final reflective report for the Chemistry 210 laboratory class during the fall 2013 semester. A coral number of 23 students were assessed. First, students received guidelines and evaluation rubrics (Appendix A) at the beginning of the semester. Students were informed about the objectives of implementing the e- portfolio in this course. They attended one general e-portfolio workshop organized by the EdTech office and one specific e-portfolio workshop tailored to meet the class’s needs. During this workshop, students set up their e-portfolio accounts and created a lab for Chemistry 210 class artifacts. Students allowed the Chemistry 210 professor co have access to their e-portfolio folders. Three of the 12 lab reports students wrote during the term were revised. Each student uploaded an original lab report, a revised lab report considering instructor comments to original lab report and a third piece including learner reflections based on hands-on experience an revised writing process. Students received written guidelines for both the initial and revised versions (See appendices A and B). At the end of the semester, each student wrote a final report based on a new case study designed by the professor and the IRACDA scholar. Some students also gave oral presentations of their e-portfolio journey with the class. Their ability to analyze and evaluate quantitative data was assessed in all these artifacts.

RESULTS

For the three labs in the fall 2013 semester, Separation of Mixture lab, Chemical Formula la b and Titration lab, the first lab reports and the revised lab reports were collected and evaluated based on four questions (Figure 1). For the first lab reports of the Separation of Mixture lab, students made an average of 0.77 times of informed judgment based on quantitative analysis (Q l). An average 0.8 rimes of these judgments was reasonable or correct (Q 2). The frequency of making informed judgments almost doubled after revision and almost all of these judgments made sense. Students recognized their mistakes and the limitations of their analysis (Q3) for an average of 1.2 rimes in the first reports. After revision, the recognition of the mistakes and limitations increased from an average of 1.2 times co an average of 2.1 times. During the lab report writing, students included their personal feelings in their lab reports (Q 4) for an average of 0.5 times before and after revision. Our analysis indicated that using e-portfolio and guided lab report revision helps students to make more informed judgments based on quantitative analysis and to scrutinize their mistakes, indicating the development of the quantitative skills in scientific writing.

Similar results were observed in the Chemical Formula labs. Students made an average of 0.9 times of informed judgment based on qualitative analysis (Q I) in their first lab reports. After revision, students made an average of 1.3 times of informed judgments. The correctness of these judgments (Q2) increased from an average of 0.75 rimes to 1.5 rimes after revision. Students also were able to recognize 4 rimes more mistakes and the limitations of their analysis (Q3) after revision. During the Chemical Formula lab, the students included their personal feelings less frequently in their revised lab reports as compared with the first lab report.1l1e improvements of making correct informed judgment (QI and Q2) and identifying mistakes (Q3) the rough lab revision were not obvious during the Titration lab report revision. However, we did observe that students included their persona l feelings (Q4) less frequently in their revised lab report for the Titration labs.

The three revised lab reports are part of a 12-lab report sequence. The Separation of Mixture one is the third lab report they wrote; the Chemical formula was the fourth one and the Titration lab was the eighth one in the 12-lab report sequence. Students received comments for the non-revised la b reports as well; thus, these comments could have contributed to the improvement throughout the semester that was shown in the revised narratives. We observed an increase in Students' informed judgments (Q1and Q2) when we compared the first lab reports for three labs throughout the semester, suggesting a development of quantitative skills in scientific writing throughout the semester. Together, our analysis indicated an improvement of students' scientific writing and quantitative skills by using e-portfolios, guided lab revisions, and reflective statements.

Q1: How many times does a student make (or attempt to make) informed judgment based on quantitative analysis?

Q2: How many times is that judgment correct or reasonable?

Q3: How many times does a student recognize mistakes or the limitations of the analysis used?

Q4: How many rimes does a student include personal feelings in the lab report writing?

Figure 1: Quantitative reasoning progression in Science students before and after revising lab reports. The numbers in the red and blue bars indicate the number of students providing the original and revised lab reports. Students improved their capacity to evaluate results and decrease their tendency to include personal feelings in their scientific narratives.

DISCUSSION

This first attempt to implement e-portfolios in a Chemistry class for Science and Engineering majors has been a learning experience for both students and faculty alike. Students have embark upon a reflective process about their learning. The fact that students have had to upload their artifacts, revise them and reflect about them opens up a new learning dimension for students. Students can also share their e-porrfolios with their classmates. Such sharing brings to the fore a panoply of multifaceted ways of learning through the photos, videos, and mind maps that students use to document their own learning progress. As they upload, reflect upon, and follow the guiding questions, they are able to focus on a new lens to the learning experience. Moreover, as they interact with each other, this online participatory culture is becoming fast and furious quite a familiar form of learning for students in this online social media era. It also adds playfulness to the learning process and opens up the possibility of enhancing students' engagement in the science classes while at the same time connecting the comment of the Chemistry, Math and Physics classes. Some students uploaded artifacts from these classes and co-curricular activities in the e-portfolio and reflected about them. Indeed, it is obvious that the e-portfolio structure, which integrates the concept of different courses and allows students to reflect upon and identify different aspects of the curriculum, co-curriculum, and the external world in their artifacts, has strengthened students' learning and engagement (Keefee and Donnelly. 2013).

This e-portfolio practice has also opened up a new realm for faculty who need to create assignments that measure the progress of student learning and allow them to evaluate this progress and reflect upon it. Using e-portfolios as evidence of student learning progress therefore requires the mutual understanding of all faculty members chat learning is on a continuum. In this regard, the e-portfolio has forced us to revise lab revision guidelines in order to enhance the role of disciplinary writing in the development of scientific skills. Overall, to is may be another avenue on which to explore curriculum coherence and connection as students naturally begin connecting Chemistry lab report revision with technical writing for their Engineering (ENG 202 ) assignments. Students' ownership of e-portfolio unleashes learning possibilities beyond specific classes and creates intentional learning moments when students make decisions about uploading different artifacts. It is a faculty and institutional role co develop a comprehensive structure to help students document their learning progress. On this manner, the e-portfolio system based on course gates shows a model requiring resources, expertise and a comprehensive institutional approach that can be used to embark students, faculty and administrators upon a practice that allows them assess student learning at individual, class, program and institutional levels (Lowenthal et al, 201l). On this subject, this first attempt in Chemistry class makes us consider exploring how different angles of Science and Engineering programs can be documented if students begin developing an e-portfolio as early as Pre-Calculus, the gate course of the engineering program. Students could document their prog test through pre-Calculus, Calculus I, 11 and Ill while at the same time documenting and reflecting upon their progress in Chemistry, Physics and Technical Writing (ENG 202) courses. Exploiting this learning dimension will also help co understand the role of the co-curricular activities char foster learning in this post-curricular learning era (Bass R, 2012).

To conclude, the e-portfolio can be a platform for documenting both students' academic experience and program evidence in order to develop ocher internally and externally funded initiatives. Indeed, recent evidence suggests that e-portfolio implementation has enhanced the critical transition of STEM students from the community college to senior colleges (Singer- Freeman et al, 2014). Because these systematic e-portfolio initiatives require an articulated effort of students, faculty and administrators that integrates the different layers of the learning process across the curriculum (Lowenthal et al, 2011), this holistic approach may create a right tide in the waters which the STEM disciplines at community colleges are navigating today.

REFERENCES

Barrett, H.C. (2007). Researching electronic portfolios and learner engagement: the REFLET initiative. Journal of Adolescent and Adult literacy)', 50 (6), 436- 449.

Bartlett, A. (2002). Preparing pre-service teachers to implement performance assessment and techno logy through electronic port folios. Action in Teacher Education, 24 (1), 90 - 97.

Bass, R. (2012). Disrupting ourselves: the problem of learning in higher education.

Educause Quarterly.

Clark, J.E. (2010). The digital imperative: making the case for a 21st-century pedagogy Computers and Composition, 27, 27- 35.

Cohn, E. R., & Hibbitts, B.J. (2004). Beyond the electronic portfolio: a lifetime personal web space. Educause Quarterly, 27(4), 7-10.

Day, R.A. (1998). How to write and publish scientific papers. Mem Inst Oswaldo Cruz, Rio de Janeiro, 93(3), 423-424.

DiBiase, D. (2012). Using e-portfolios at Penn State to enhance student learning.

E-education Penn State University.

Li n, Q. (2008) . Pre-service teachers ' learning experiences of constructing e-portfolios online. Internet and Higher Education , 11(3-4 ), 194 -200.

Love, D., McKean, G, & Gathercoal, P. (200 4). Portfolios to webfolios and beyond: levels of maturation. Educause Quarterly, 27(2) , 2 4-37.

Lowenthal, P. R., White, J. W, & Cooley, K. C. (2011). Remake/ remodel: using ePortfolios and a system of gates to improve student assessment and program evaluation. International journal of ePortfolio, 1(1 ), 61-70.

O ' Keeffe, M. & Donnelly R. (2013). Exploration of eportfolios foradding value and deepening student learning in contemporary higher education. International Journal of ePortfolio, 3(1), 1-11.

Penny , C., & Kinslow, J. (2006). Faculty perceptions of electronic portfolios in a teacher education program. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 6(4), 418-435.

Singer-Freeman, K., Bascone, L., & Skrivanek, J. (2014). Using e-Portfolios to support transfer student success. Diversity & Democracy, 17(1).

Strudler, N., & Wetzel, K. (2005). The diffusion of electronic portfolios in teacher education: Issues of initiation and implementation. journal of Research 011 Technology in Education, 37, 411- 433.

Strudler. N., & Wetzel, K. (2008). Costs and benefits of electronic portfolios in teacher education: faculty perspectives. Journal of Computing in Teacher Education, 24{4) , 135-142.

Treuer, P., & Jenson, J. D. (2003). Electronic e-Portfolios need standards to thrive.

Educause Quarterly, 26(2), 34-42.

Wade, R.C., & Yarbrough D.B. (1996). Portfolios: A tool for reflective thinking in teacher education? Teaching and Teacher Education, 12(1),63-79.

Ward, C., & Moser, C. (2008). E-portfolios as a hiring root: Do employers really care? Educause Quarterly, 31 (4).

APPENDIX A: LAB REPORTS OUTLINE AND RUBRICS FOR ASSESSMENT

Introduction and Objective

Introduction: It represents a theoretical background based on faces supporting the experiment's objective. It is also based on the importance of conducting chis experiment (No more than one or two paragraphs at this level).

Objective: A statement of intent or purpose of the lab. It answers the questions: What do you wane to demonstrate in this experiment? Or, what do you hope to learn from this experiment? It answers clearly identify the purpose of the procedure.

Rubrics to evaluate the introduction and the objectives:

Materials and Methods

It describes actual materials used for your experiment. It should not be long but as inclusive as possible. It shall contain concisely organized in formation that allows the experiment co be replicated (methods). It contains sequential information in an appropriate chronology but avoids unnecessary wordy descriptions. The results and conclusion should not be anticipated. It needs to be in a flow chart format co better explain methodology, procedures and techniques.

Rubrics co evaluate materials and methods:

1. Clearly and concisely describe the materials and the methods used for the experiments;

2. Allows the experiment to be replicated;

3. Contains sequential in formation in an appropriate chronology;

4. Avoids unnecessary description;

5. The material and methods section MUST be presented in a flow chart format .

Results (Obtained data)

It includes quantifiable and qualitative experimental factors and/or defines quantitative units of comparison. The lab manual sheet will help you with the expected information to be documented. Displaying results in rabies and graphs with correctly labeled axes when appropriate is expected. Graphs and figures must be labeled with numbers and brie Ay explained. Information must appear in the text as well. Write down ALL the calculations you did to obtain your results.

Rubrics to evaluate results:

1. Clearly addresses quantifiable and qualitative experimental factors and/or defines quantitative units of comparison

2. Displays results i n cables and graphs with correctly labeled axes, numbers, and explanations

3. Clearly and concisely describes the results in text, including all the calculations

Discussion and Conclusions

Discussion: this is the most thoughtful and creative part of the research. Students shall explain results by comparing them with the expected ones. Sources of mistakes should be explained when discrepancies come up after chis comparison. Inferences based on logical reasoning using quantitative data are expected. Students shall offer explanations of the results and potential further directions when appropriate. Data must be presented honestly. distinguishing focus and implications avoiding overgeneralizations and feelings. Data shall support or deny the hypothesis (the initial objective).

Conclusion: a final statement supporting or denying the hypothesis based on

the above results and discussion is expected.

Rubrics co evaluate discussion and conclusions:

1. Clearly and concisely explains results by comparing them it with expected results; disc uses sources of mistake s when appropriate

2. Presents the data honestly, distinguishes facts and implications, and avoids over generalizations and Feelings

3. Makes a statement to support or deny the hypothesis based on results; includes a discussion.

APPENDIX B: GUIDELINE S TO REVISE TITRATION LAB REPORT

Titration Lab Revision

Rethinking the Laboratory Discussion (One-page summary)

l. Indicate Lab name, your name, professor name and class number

2. Include lab goal

3. Include results (in a table), use lab manual format

4. Rewrite your conclusions by discussing possible sources of discrepancy between both end point titration volumes. Can you please further discuss the KHP percent obtained result based on your titration volume?

5. Regarding the virtual lab, discuss the following items:

• What are the main differences (advantages and disadvantages or virtual lab in comparison with wet lab (regular lab session)?

• What were the advantages of having a ph determination in the vitual lab and using a different indicator?

• What are the advantages and disadvantages of doing the virtual lab after the wet lab session?

6. Enclose the original lab

One-two page summary format:

• Lab Na me

• Student’s name

• Professor's name

• Class number

• Lab goal

• Lab results (in a table format)

• Lab conclusion (a 200 - 300-word paragraph) is expected

Grading (100%)

This summary grade will be pan of your lab quiz grade (lab grade component),

This summary will evaluate your capacity to make judgments based on quantitative analysis of data (Quantitative Literacy).