Recent advances in laboratory education research

1 Introduction

The past decade has seen substantial progress in laboratory education research, particularly in university chemistry. This is reflected in the volume of publications, the wide variety of foci, and the emergence of dedicated research projects. This review aims to synthesize these advancements, focusing on three key areas: teaching practices, learning outcomes and processes, and curriculum development.

2 Evidence-oriented teaching practices

Chemistry education scholars have called for improving laboratory education by attending to evidence-oriented teaching practices. In her editorial, Bretz (2019) reminds faculty responsible for laboratory courses of what evidence they can provide that students indeed learn from laboratory instruction, particularly when faced with a query on high costs and large ecological footprint. While this call resonates with the broader arguments for chemistry education at large (e.g. Cooper & Stowe, 2018), a focus on evidence essentially requires that there should be a systematic approach to amassing data about high-quality learning in the laboratory, and that teaching should be planned and implemented accordingly. For some, it may entail situating the entire approach within relevant pedagogical theories, such as Richards-Babb et al. (2014) work on graduate teaching assistants’ professional development by learning about evidence-based teaching. For others, teaching informed by evidence (or the lack thereof) motivates faculty to shift the focus from teaching about theory to teaching about practical laboratory techniques in organic and inorganic chemistry (Gorman et al., 2021).

The conundrum of theory-practice (dis)connection has been addressed in the literature (e.g. Eckerdal, 2015; Finne et al., 2023), but findings are mixed regarding how and whether conceptual understanding should be a part of intended learning outcomes in the laboratory. However, the role of theory and chemical concepts in teaching laboratories seems to have shifted toward their function as an epistemic resource to be invoked during reasoning and argumentation processes. For instance, plenty of evidence shows that students have difficulties connecting different representational levels when making sense of experimental work. Keiner and Graulich (2020) used this argument to focus on mechanistic reasoning in organic chemistry. Their robust analysis of students’ worked-up experimental procedures provides a detailed, nuanced, and theoretically grounded explanation of how observable phenomena such as pH value, gas evolution, and phase separation are related to the underlying concepts, particularly at submicroscopic and symbolic levels, such as hydronium and collision of particles. What it means for teaching is that instruction should be precise and accurate: which representational levels are being communicated? They further maintain that “instructors should pay attention to how they verbalize processes and help students become aware of their language use” (Keiner & Graulich, 2020, p. 480). A similar approach to evidence in developing laboratory pedagogy can be discerned from Zhang et al. (2023) on green chemistry in organic laboratory and Kovarik et al. (2022) on active learning in analytical chemistry. A nationwide US survey on faculty goals in undergraduate chemistry laboratory (Connor et al., 2023) also reveals that evidence-based laboratory pedagogy ensures alignment between intended goals and attained learning.

With all that in mind, what counts as evidence that can be used to inform teaching practices? Should we be aware of the use and abuse of the term? The notion of evidence-based practice is widely used in medical science and healthcare to constitute practice that is aligned with findings from scientific research in the field (Portney, 2020). Applied to education, however, the following should be considered. Consulting educational theory and philosophy of science, Kvernbekk (2011) posits that evidence-based educational practice is not and should not be a positivist notion. She intimates, “there is nothing in the concept of evidence to privilege [randomized controlled trials] and quantitative data at the expense of all other forms of data” (Kvernbekk, 2011, p. 518). This statement is important because educational research accounts for very diverse theoretical and methodological landscapes. Both quantitative and qualitative data, propositions, and narratives can constitute evidence. “What makes something evidence is that it stands in a certain relation to a hypothesis, namely confirmation or disconfirmation. [Evidence-based practice] suggests that we choose a theory … or a teaching method that is well supported” (Kvernbekk, 2011, p. 532, emphasis added). That being said, if we are to aim at high-quality laboratory learning, efforts should be made to establish methodological rigor (Agustian, 2024), such that the support function in the relation between evidence, theory, and practice, can be justified.

3 Student learning in the laboratory: outcomes and processes

Investigations on student learning lie at the core of university chemistry education research. In laboratory settings, there has been a renewed focus on substantiating and comprehensively analyzing what students actually learn in and from the laboratory. Two major systematic reviews have been published, focusing on university chemistry (Agustian, Finn, et al., 2022) and secondary school science (Gericke et al., 2023). The gist of both reviews is similar: laboratory instruction generates learning of how to do science, referred to in the former as experimental competencies, and learning of the science underlying experimental work (canonical concepts and epistemic insights). Doing science in the chemistry laboratory is highlighted as a key characteristic of laboratory work that distinguishes it from other pedagogies in higher education, such as lectures and tutorials. It largely defines a chemist and, as such, is deeply ingrained in their professional identity (Agustian et al., 2024; Seery, 2020).

Learning outcomes of laboratory instruction have also been mapped across several other domains, as shown in Table 1. Higher-order cognitive skills such as metacognitive and argumentative skills have been associated largely with problem-based (Mathabathe & Potgieter, 2017) and inquiry-based experiments (Katchevich et al., 2014; Walker et al., 2019). The affective domain of learning has finally gained attention, with investigations on issues such as identity, anxiety, and self-efficacy (Aydoğdu, 2017; Galloway et al., 2016; Nadelson et al., 2015; Teo et al., 2014; Winkelmann et al., 2017). While the number of studies is high, the theoretical basis of affective learning in the laboratory is underdeveloped (Agustian et al., 2024). Diffuse theorization on what affect entails and disparate approaches to conceptualizing affective constructs render knowledge synthesis somewhat challenging. To tackle this problem, the field may benefit from a more robust theoretical framing informed by the learning sciences. At this crux between discipline-based educational research and learning science research, a considerable effort has been made to improve our understanding of the learning processes: what is actually happening in the laboratory?

Depending on the granularity, studies on learning processes can be done at a neurobiological level (e.g. Lewis et al., 2020), cognitive psychological level (e.g. Chen et al., 2016; Van Merriënboer & Sweller, 2005), or sociocultural level (e.g. Zeidler, 2016). Although each level has different methodological implications, they all aim to substantiate how learning unfolds. Together, they contribute to a distinct field of scholarship called the learning sciences. A subset of this field that highlights the natural sciences approaches and methodologies is also called the science of learning (Kantrowitz, 2024; Meltzoff et al., 2009). Laboratory education research has drawn on knowledge about learning processes from this field, but it has been argued that there is a scope for a more comprehensive view.

Agustian (2022) proposes a comprehensive framework for assessing student learning in undergraduate chemistry laboratories, as current approaches to laboratory education and assessment are often fragmented, focusing on isolated aspects of learning rather than taking a holistic view. A “hexad” model was introduced, integrating six domains of learning in the laboratory context: cognitive, conative, affective, psychomotor, social, and epistemic, as shown in Figure 1. At the core of this model is the framing of laboratory work as “epistemic practice” – a process of knowledge construction that draws on all these domains (Agustian, 2023). Laboratory education should go beyond just teaching chemistry content and techniques. It should help students develop higher-order competencies and understand the nature of scientific inquiry. This requires rethinking curriculum design, instruction methods, and assessment approaches. Key recommendations include: formulating clear epistemic learning outcomes for laboratory courses, designing assessments that capture the integration of multiple learning domains, focusing on higher-order competencies like critical thinking and experimental design, incorporating more reflection, dialogue, and discourse in laboratory activities, and assessing social interactions and collaborative processes, not just individual performance. The integrated approach is argued to address longstanding issues in chemistry laboratory education, such as the disconnect between theory and practice. It also aligns with broader trends in science education toward more authentic scientific practices and epistemic understanding. Overall, the perspective calls for a paradigm shift in how we conceptualize, implement, and assess learning in undergraduate chemistry laboratories.

Figure 1:

Six domains pertaining to learning processes in the laboratory as discerned from science studies and the learning sciences (Agustian, 2022).

4 Progressive and congruent curriculum development

Over the past decade, we also have a better understanding of how laboratory curricula could be designed and developed to align with recent scholarship in higher science education. This last part looks into how notions of progression and congruence have been applied to laboratory curriculum development. Although laboratory work is a part of the curricular structures of university chemistry education, either leading to a BSc or MSc degree, the scaffolds to ensure progression across the study program are not always explicit. While the terms “scaffolds” and “learning progression” have been described in the context of instructional design, such as problem-solving (Varadarajan & Ladage, 2022; Vo et al., 2022; Ye et al., 2024), and specific chemistry topics, such as molecular structures and properties (Cooper et al., 2012), their implementation in laboratory curriculum development was scarce. An example from a 5-year study program leading to a Master of Chemistry is described here.

A curriculum model for developing experimental design competence that demonstrates scaffolding and progression has been proposed, as shown in Figure 2 (Seery, Agustian, & Zhang, 2019). The model was constructed on a foundation of the laboratory as a place to learn to do chemistry, in which prior knowledge and skills are paramount to ascertain. Pre-laboratory activities serve as a scaffold to help students progress, where experimental techniques are emphasized. The model is sensitive to the affective and conative aspects of laboratory learning, as described in the previous section, in which students’ emotions, motivation, and interests are considered. A progressive character of this model can also be discerned from how “each stage of the curriculum is one iteration more difficult, until the final point where students are tasked with designing and implementing protocols for an unfamiliar topic, in their final year project” (p. 551). Within this model, the physical chemistry laboratory in Year 3 has been developed accordingly, to mirror the scaffolds and progression across the entire degree (Agustian, 2020; Seery, Jones, et al., 2019). A similar work in pharmacy education also centers progression in rethinking laboratory curricula (Jørgensen et al., 2024).

Figure 2:

A curriculum model for developing experimental design in a study program leading to a Master of Chemistry (for further information, see Seery, Agustian, & Zhang, 2019).

Curriculum development in higher science education is an intricate matter that involves several interconnected elements. In curriculum theory, this has been described as a cyclical process of design, development, assessment, analysis, and evaluation within a curricular “spiderweb” (Thijs & van den Akker, 2009, p. 11) or curricular “commonplaces” (Kridel, 2010, p. 126). Recent advances in laboratory education research saw the adoption of pedagogical notions in higher education, namely constructive alignment (Biggs, 2014) and congruence (Hounsell & Hounsell, 2007), in thinking about thinking and practicing that generate high-quality learning. Chief to this conceptualization is a proposition that evidence for good laboratory education is not only concerned with substantiated learning outcomes (and processes, as previously argued), but that it is part of a systemic approach to ensure congruence between laboratory curriculum goals, teaching and learning activities, assessment of laboratory work and feedback protocols, student backgrounds and aspirations, laboratory learning support, and laboratory course organization and management, as shown in Figure 3.

Figure 3:

Congruent laboratory curriculum development, based on Hounsell and Hounsell’s (2007) notion of high-quality learning processes and outcomes (after Seery et al., 2024).

In developing a progressive and congruent laboratory curriculum, these elements should be aligned. While there may be many possible configurations of alignment between them, faculty responsible for developing laboratory courses may consider the ten guiding principles for high-quality learning in the laboratory (Seery et al., 2024), in which these configurations have been synthesized. The work has been used as a research-based resource for the pedagogical development of faculty members across various higher education institutions in at least three countries. Although it was developed in a chemistry education research context, many of the ideas have been regarded as useful and relevant by university teachers across science and health disciplines. The author of this review has also used some of the principles to inform high school chemistry teachers’ pedagogical development in Denmark.

5 Moving forward

With a productive decade in laboratory education research in mind, what is left to do? As an active researcher and educator in the field, my response to that query is a resounding: plenty. The gap between research and practice is still wide (Agustian, Pedersen, et al., 2022). While dedicated research projects like the IQ-Lab and those led by Bretz, Seery, and Towns (e.g. Galloway et al., 2016; Galloway & Bretz, 2015; Seery et al., 2017; Towns et al., 2015) have attempted to bridge the gap in their respective contexts, wider practice can still benefit from scholarly knowledge in laboratory education research. Conferences on chemistry education, such as the International Conference on Chemistry Education (ICCE), Gordon Research Conference (GRC) on Chemistry Education Research and Practice, and the European Conference on Research in Chemical Education (ECRICE), are indispensable in narrowing the gap between research and practice.

In particular, research and scholarship of teaching and learning (Culver, 2023) could be directed toward a focus on sustainability in laboratory settings. In Seery et al. (2024) work above, this focus was fashioned as the fifth guiding principle, exemplified by a recent study by Diekemper et al. (2019) on sustainable lighting by a synthesis of LED phosphor. Further search of laboratory education research in this area only returns a handful of studies of varied qualities. Considering the high priority of sustainability in chemistry education, there is a clear paucity of knowledge in this area. A recent publication “Sustainable Laboratories” (Royal Society of Chemistry, 2022) reveals that university teaching laboratories seem to lag behind research laboratories in terms of sustainability focus. The report found, “for changing teaching laboratory practicals, there is some inertia. Things stick the same because that is the least work option and everybody is too busy to change it and there is little personal incentive to do so (“greening” a teaching activity won’t be in anybody’s targets, unlike publications and grants, and there is no reward for it so it won’t get done).” (p. 55). The lack of incentives for developing teaching practices is perhaps a problem that pertains to the broader context of higher education. However, if we aim at a concerted effort to address sustainability, laboratories should lead the way, considering their environmental cost.