Journal of Science Education and Technology

, Volume 20, Issue 6, pp 790–795 | Cite as

Incorporating Service-Learning, Technology, and Research Supportive Teaching Techniques into the University Chemistry Classroom

  • E. K. H. SaittaEmail author
  • M. A. Bowdon
  • C. L. Geiger


Technology was integrated into service-learning activities to create an interactive teaching method for undergraduate students at a large research institution. Chemistry students at the University of Central Florida partnered with high school students at Crooms Academy of Information Technology in interactive service learning projects. The projects allowed UCF students to teach newly acquired content knowledge and build upon course lecture and lab exercises. Activities utilized the web-conferencing tool Adobe Connect Pro to enable interaction with high school students, many of whom have limited access to supplemental educational opportunities due to low socioeconomic status. Seventy chemistry I students created lessons to clarify high school students’ misconceptions through the use of refutational texts. In addition, 21 UCF students enrolled in the chemistry II laboratory course acted as virtual lab partners with Crooms students in an interactive guided inquiry experiment focused on chemical kinetics. An overview of project’s design, implementation, and assessments are detailed in the case study and serve as a model for future community partnerships. Emerging technologies are emphasized as well as a suggested set of best practices for future projects.


Chemistry education Service-learning Web conferencing High school University 



This research was conducted with the support of Florida Campus Compact; Crooms Academy of Information Technology; and the Office of Undergraduate Studies, Faculty Center for Teaching and Learning, Department of Chemistry, and Office of Service-Learning at the University of Central Florida.


  1. Abraham MR (2005) Inquiry and the learning cycle approach. In: Pienta NJ, Cooper MM, Greenbowe TJ (eds) A chemists guide to effective teaching volume I. Pearson Prentice Hall, New Jersey, pp 41–52Google Scholar
  2. Abraham MR, Renner JW (1986) The sequence of learning cycle activities in high school chemistry. J Res Sci Teach 23(2):121–143CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Berg CAR, Bergendahl VCB, Lundberg BKS (2003) Benefiting from an open-ended experiment: a comparison of attitudes to and outcomes of an expository versus and open-inquiry version of the same experiment. Int J Sci Educ 25(3):351–372CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bringle RG, Hatcher JA (2009) Innovative Practices in Service-Learning and Curricular Engagement. New Directions for Higher Education 147:37–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Clement J (1982) Students’ Preconceptions in Introductory Mechanics. Am J Phys 50(1):66–71CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Council NationalResearch (2000) Inquiry and the national science education standards. National Academy Press, Washington DC, p 202Google Scholar
  7. Cracolice MS (2009) Guided inquiry and the learning cycle. In: Pienta (ed) A chemists’ guide to effective teaching volume II. Pearson Prentice Hall, New Jersey, pp 20–34Google Scholar
  8. Dalgarno B, Bishop AG, Adlong W, Bedgood DR Jr (2009) Effectiveness of a Virtual Laboratory as a preparatory resource for Distance Education chemistry students. Comput Edu 53:853–865CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Dlugokienski A, Sampson V (2008) Learning to Write and Writing to Learn in Science: Refutational Texts and Analytical Rubrics. Sci Scope 32(3):15–19Google Scholar
  10. Draper AJ (2004) Integrating Project- Based Service-Learning into an Advanced Environmental Chemistry Course. J Chem Edu 81(2):221–224CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Eslinger E, White B, Frederiksen J, Brobst J (2008) Supporting Inquiry Processes with an Interactive Learning Environment: Inquiry Island. J Sci Edu Technol 17:610–617CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Furlan PY (2009) Engaging Students in Early Exploration of Nanoscience Topics Using Hands-On Activities and Scanning Tunneling Microscopy. J Chem Educ 86(6):705–711CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Gunstone RF, Champagne AB, Klopfer LE (1981) Instruction for understanding; a case study. Aust Sci Teachers J 27:27–32Google Scholar
  14. Guzzetti BJ (2000) Learning Counter-Intuitive Science Concepts: What have we learned from over a decade of research? Reading and Writing Quarterly 16:89–98CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Guzzetti B, Williams WO, Skeels SA, Wu SM (1997) Influence of Text Structure on Learning Counterintuitive Physics Concepts. J Res Sci Teach 34(7):701–719CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hake RR (1998) Interactive-engagement versus traditional methods: A six-thousand-student survey of mechanics test data for introductory physics courses. Am J Phy 66(1):64–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hatcher-Skeers M, Aragon E (2002) Combining Active Learning with Service Learning: A Student-Driven Demonstration Project. J Chem Educ 79(4):462–464CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hynd CR (2001) Refutational texts and the change process. Int J Educ Res 35:699–714CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hynd CR, McWhorter JYV, Phares VL, Suttles CW (1994) The role of instructional variables in conceptual change in high school physics topics. J Res Sci Teach 31:933–946CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Johnson MA, Lawson AE (1998) What are the relative effects of reasoning ability and prior knowledge on biology achievement in expository and inquiry classes? J Res Sci Teach 35(1):89–103CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kalivas JH (2008) A Service-Learning Project Based on a Research Supportive Curriculum Format in the General Chemistry Laboratory. J Chem Educ 85(10):1410–1415CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kesner L, Eyring EM (1999) Service-Learning General Chemistry: Lead Paint Analyses. J Chem Educ 76(7):920–923CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Lawson AE, Benford R, Bloom I et al (2002) Evaluating College Science and Mathematics Instruction: A reform effort that improves teaching skills. J Coll Sci Teach 31(6):388–393Google Scholar
  24. Morgenstern M, Meyer S, Whitten B, Reuer M (2008) The Energy Retrofit of a Building: A Journey Through Bloom’s Learning Domains. J Coll Sci Teach 37(5):16–22Google Scholar
  25. O’Hara PB, Sanborn JA, Howard M (1999) Pesticides in Drinking Water: Project-Based Learning within the Introductory Chemistry Curriculum. J Chem Educ 76(12):1673–1677CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Palmer DH (2003) Investigating the Relationship between Refutational Text and Conceptual Change. Sci Ed 87:663–684CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Pfundt H, Duit R (1991) Students’ alternative frameworks and science education, 3rd edn. IPN, Kiel, GermanyGoogle Scholar
  28. Sutheimer S (2008) Strategies to simplify service-learning efforts in chemistry. J Chem Educ 85(2):231–233CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Watts DM, Zylbersztain A (1981) A survey of some children’s ideas about force. Phy Educ 16(6):360–365CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. White BY, Fredriksen JR (1998) Inquiry, modeling, and metacognition: making science accessible to all students. Cognition and Instruction 16(1):3–118CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Wiegand D, Straig M (2000) What is service learning?. J Chem Educ 77(12):1538–1539CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • E. K. H. Saitta
    • 1
    Email author
  • M. A. Bowdon
    • 2
  • C. L. Geiger
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of ChemistryUniversity of Central FloridaOrlandoUSA
  2. 2.Faculty Center for Teaching and LearningUniversity of Central FloridaOrlandoUSA

Personalised recommendations