What denotes progression in laboratory learning? Analysing a pharmaceutical bachelor programme
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.46542/pe.2024.241.200212Keywords:
Laboratory teaching and learning, Learning outcome, Progression, SOLO, Student perspective, Teacher perspectiveAbstract
Background: This article explores learning progression within laboratory education. It aims to delineate the characteristics of learning progression across cognitive, social, and affective learning domains and on a structural programme level.
Methods: The study employs a longitudinal approach involving interviews conducted over one academic year to assess progression. It also analyses programme and course descriptions for the third year in the pharmaceutical bachelor’s programme. The empirical material underwent further analysis, focusing on perceptions of learning and utilising the Structure of the Observed Learning Outcome (SOLO) taxonomy.
Results: The study shows that both instructors and students perceive learning progression as evolving from structured coursework to more autonomous thesis projects. The synthesis of the analysis indicates that intended learning outcomes represent a progression in five distinct clusters of learning outcomes. The study thereby contributes to understanding the connection between course activities, the intention of a bachelor’s project, and learning progression and prompts questions on how to design for progression in higher education.
Conclusion: This study presents empirically derived learning outcomes that demonstrate the progression of laboratory-based learning outcomes, highlighting independence as a crucial element.
References
Agustian, H. Y., Finne, L. T., Jørgensen, J. T., Pedersen, M. I., Christiansen, F. V., Gammelgaard, B., & Nielsen, J. A. (2022). Learning outcomes of university chemistry teaching in laboratories: A systematic review of empirical literature. Review of Education, 10(2), e3360. https://doi.org/10.1002/rev3.3360
Albetkova, A., Chaignat, E., Gasquet, P., Heilmann, M., Isadore, J., Jasir, A., Martin, B., & Wilcke, B. (2019). A competency framework for developing global laboratory leaders. Frontiers in Public Health, 7, 199. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2019.00199
Anakin, M., & McDowell, A. (2021). Enhancing students’ experimental knowledge with active learning in a pharmaceutical science laboratory. Pharmacy Education, 21(1), 29–38. https://doi.org/10.46542/pe.2021.211.2938
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. W. H. Freeman.
Baumann-Birkbeck, L., Karaksha, A., Anoopkumar-Dukie, S., Grant, G., Davey, A., Nirthanan, S., & Owen, S. (2015). Benefits of e-learning in chemotherapy pharmacology education. Currents in Pharmacy Teaching and Learning, 7(1), 106–111. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cptl.2014.09.014
Biggs, J., & Collis, K. F. (1982). Origin and description of the SOLO taxonomy. In Evaluating the quality of learning (Vol. 1, pp. 17–31). Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-097552-5.50007-7
Biggs, J., & Tang, C. (2011). Teaching for quality learning at university (4th ed.). Open University Press.
Birbeck, D., McKellar, L., & Kenyon, K. (2021). Moving beyond first year: An exploration of staff and student experience. Student Success, 12(1), 82–92. https://doi.org/10.5204/ssj.1802
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
Bretz, S. L. (2019). Evidence for the importance of laboratory courses. Journal of Chemical Education, 96(2), 193–195. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jchemed.8b00874
Bybee, R. W. (2006). Scientific inquiry and science teaching. In L. B. Flick & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Scientific inquiry and nature of science (pp. 1–14). Springer Netherlands. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-5814-1_1
Cristiansen, F. V, Horst, S., & Rump, C. Ø. (2015). Course description. In L. Rienecker, P. S. Jørgensen, J. Dolin, & G. H. Ingerslev (Eds.), University teaching and learning (1st ed., pp. 135‒148). Samfundslitteratur.
Danmarks Statistik. (2017, September 4). Nyt: Overgang fra bachelor til kandidat 2016 [News: Transition from Bachelor to Master 2016] (Vol. 344). http://www.dst.dk/nyt/24238
European Commission. (n.d.). The Bologna process and the European higher education area. Retrieved May 3, 2022, from https://education.ec.europa.eu/education-levels/higher-education/inclusive-and-connected-higher-education/bologna-process?gclid=Cj0KCQiAhomtBhDgARIsABcaYylVYdQ8VJH1pPWSQi156ULnOkIXTDU9Y36eg6abbW8OQ8lMuiddCTsaAgzsEALw_wcB
Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences. (2018). Studieordning for bacheloruddannelsen i farmaci (pp. 1–10) [Curriculum for Bachelor's degree in Pharmacy]. Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, University of Copenhagen. https://sund.ku.dk/uddannelse/studieinformation/studieordninger/farmaci/farmaci-ba-2016_-_med_typografier_og_links.pdf
Google, A. N., Gardner, G., & Grinath, A. S. (2023). Undergraduate students’ approaches to learning biology: A systematic review of the literature. Studies in Science Education, 59(1), 25–66. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057267.2021.2004005
Hovdhaugen, E., & Ulriksen, L. (2023). The historic importance of degree structure: A comparison of bachelor to master transitions in Norway and Denmark. European Educational Research Journal, 22(2), 198–215. https://doi.org/10.1177/14749041211041230
Jessop, T., & Tomas, C. (2017). The implications of programme assessment patterns for student learning. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 42(6), 990–999. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2016.1217501
Jin, H., Mikeska, J. N., Hokayem, H., & Mavronikolas, E. (2019). Toward coherence in curriculum, instruction, and assessment: A review of learning progression literature. Science Education, 103(5), 1206–1234. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21525
Jørgensen, J. T. (2023). Longitudinal development of pharmaceutical students’ laboratory learning outcomes. [Doctoral Thesis, Department of Science Education, University of Copenhagen].
Karaksha, A., Grant, G., Nirthanan, S. N., Davey, A. K., & Anoopkumar-Dukie, S. (2014). A Comparative study to evaluate the educational impact of e-learning tools on Griffith University pharmacy students’ level of understanding using Bloom’s and SOLO taxonomies. Education Research International, 934854. https://doi.org/10.1155/2014/934854
Kvale, S., & Brinkmann, S. (2015). Interview: Det kvalitative forskningsinterview som håndværk [Interview: The Qualitative Research Interview]. Hans Reitzels Forlag.
Lipari, M., Wilhelm, S. M., Giuliano, C. A., Martirosov, A. L., & Salinitri, F. D. (2022). A scaffolded problem-based learning course for first-year pharmacy students. Currents in Pharmacy Teaching and Learning, 14(3), 352–358. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cptl.2022.01.016
Meijerman, I., Nab, J., & Koster, A. S. (2016). Designing and implementing an inquiry-based undergraduate curriculum in pharmaceutical sciences. Currents in Pharmacy Teaching and Learning, 8(6), 905–919. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cptl.2016.08.001
Micari, M., & Light, G. (2009). Reliance to Independence: Approaches to learning in peer‐led undergraduate science, technology, engineering, and mathematics workshops. International Journal of Science Education, 31(13), 1713–1741. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690802162911
Ministry of Higher Education and Science. (2021, December 5). Danish qualifications framework for higher education. Retrieved May 2, 2022, from https://ufm.dk/en/education/recognition-and-transparency/transparency-tools/qualifications-frameworks/other-qualifications-frameworks/danish-qf-for-higher-education
Prades, A., & Espinar, S. R. (2010). Laboratory assessment in chemistry: An analysis of the adequacy of the assessment process. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 35(4), 449–461. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602930902862867
QSR International Pty Ltd. (2018). NVivo 12 (No. 12). https://www.qsrinternational.com/nvivo-qualitative-data-analysis-software/home
Ramberg, U., Edgren, G., & Wahlgren, M. (2021). Capturing progression of formal knowledge and employability skills by monitoring case discussions in class. Teaching in Higher Education, 26(2), 246–264. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2019.1657396
Reid, N., & Shah, I. (2007). The role of laboratory work in university chemistry. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 8(2), 172–185. https://doi.org/10.1039/B5RP90026C
Rosenthal, M. (2016). Qualitative research methods: Why, when, and how to conduct interviews and focus groups in pharmacy research. Currents in Pharmacy Teaching and Learning, 8(4), 509–516. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cptl.2016.03.021
Seery, M. K., Agustian, H. Y., & Zhang, X. (2019). A framework for learning in the chemistry laboratory. Israel Journal of Chemistry, 59(6–7), 546–553. https://doi.org/10.1002/ijch.201800093
Seery, M. K., Agustian, H. Y., Christiansen, F. V., Gammelgaard, B., & Malm, R. H. (2023). 10 Guiding principles for learning in the laboratory. Chemistry Education Research and Practice. https://doi.org/10.1039/D3RP00245D
University of Copenhagen. (2020a). SFAB20008U Lægemidler fra naturen [Drugs from Nature]. Kurser.Ku.Dk. https://kurser.ku.dk/course/sfab20008u/2020-2021
University of Copenhagen. (2020b). SFAB20010U Farmaci II – faste lægemiddelformer [Pharmaceutics II – Solid Dosage Forms]. Kurser.Ku.Dk. https://kurser.ku.dk/course/sfab20010u/2020-2021
University of Copenhagen. (2020c). SFABF243AU Bachelorprojekt i farmaci [Bachelor's Project in Pharmacy]. Kurser.Ku.Dk. https://kurser.ku.dk/course/sfabf243au/2020-2021
Vo, K., Sarkar, M., White, P. J., & Yuriev, E. (2022). Problem solving in chemistry supported by metacognitive scaffolding: Teaching associates’ perspectives and practices. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 23, 436-451. https://doi.org/10.1039/d1rp00242b
