• You are here:
  • American Chemical Society
  • Students & Educators
  • Standards & Guidelines
  • ACS Approval Program

Laboratory - Curriculum & Skills

  • Institutional Environment
  • Faculty & Staff
  • Infrastructure
  • Undergraduate Research
  • Creating a Safety Culture
  • Professional Skills & Competencies
  • Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Respect
  • Appendix 1: Natural Disaster and Emergency Guidelines
  • Apply for Approval
  • Maintain Approval
  • CPARS Training
  • Data & Reports
  • Teaching Labs in COVID-19
  • Supplements
  • CPT Member Highlight: Anna, Irwin, and Muchalski
  • Chemistry Communities of Practice
  • ACS Adds Green Concepts to Approval Guidelines

Laboratory Curriculum & Skills Section 5.2

Science is a process of discovery.  In the laboratory, students conduct experiments, solve problems, and use the scientific method. Collectively, a laboratory experience should be experiential with students gaining breadth and depth in their scientific skills. The laboratory program is experiential in nature and should be designed at a curricular level and structured so that skills increase with complexity as students progress through the curriculum. The figure below represents the overarching outcomes of laboratory experiences and their defining attributes.

< Previous Section: Coursework

Next Section: Pedagogy  >

Policy on Remote Laboratory Experiences Section 5.2.1

Virtual/at-home/simulated labs can supplement but not replace in person experiences for the foundational and in-depth courses. 

Chemistry is an empirical science that requires the safe and effective physical manipulation of materials, equipment, and instrumentation.  This first-person experiential expertise cannot be developed solely through simulations.

Remote Lab Experiences

  • One introductory laboratory course (prior to the foundational courses) may be conducted remotely or outside of the University laboratory environments.
  • Kitchen chemistry experiments can supplement the in person experience in non-major and introductory chemistry sequences .
  • Kitchen chemistry remote labs involve using everyday items that you can find in your kitchen or local discount store to explore basic chemistry.   Appropriate safety precautions must be considered in designing these remote lab experiences.  

Equity for students with disabilities Core value to provide access to a high-quality chemical education to all students.  Whenever possible, programs should do their best to reasonably accommodate student needs by modifying laboratory experiments or environments. In general, programs should avoid offering fully virtual laboratory experiences in place of in-person experiences as accommodations.

Laboratory Course Requirements Section 5.2.2

Critical requirements.

Lab Hours and Structure Students completing the requirements for a certified degree must complete a minimum of 350 hours of in person lab work that builds on, but does not include, introductory experiences. 

  • 220 hours of lab must be from courses taught in the chemistry program beyond the introductory courses (general chemistry).
  • Undergraduate research or chemistry adjacent laboratory courses    (on or off campus) can account for up to 130 of the required 350 laboratory hours. 
  • A student using research to meet the 350 hours must prepare a well-written, comprehensive, and well-documented research report, including safety considerations where appropriate and thorough and current references to peer-reviewed literature.
  • No more than 25% of lab work can be in computational chemistry .

Breadth of Student Laboratory Experiences  Laboratory courses must:

  • Include experiences in a minimum of 4 of the 5 areas of ABIOP  .
  • synthesis and production,
  • purification,
  • preparation of samples for analysis,
  • qualitative analysis,
  • quantitative analysis,
  • measurement of chemical properties,
  • structure determination, or

Depth of Student Laboratory Experiences 

  • Laboratory experiences must build on practical techniques developed in earlier lab courses.
  • Laboratory skills are structured so that the complexity of tasks increase as students progress through the curriculum.
  • As they progress, students must encounter some lab experiences that are open-ended or incompletely defined questions or unfamiliar situations. 
  • Students must have regular hands-on experience with modern instrumentation.

Normal Expectations

Lab Hours and Structure

  • A program should provide students with the opportunity to complete approximately 400 hours of lab work that builds on introductory, in class laboratory experiences. 
  • Undergraduate research or chemistry adjacent courses (on or off campus)    can account for up to 180 of the required 400 laboratory hours. 
  • Lab experiences reflect current standards and practices in the chemical science.
  • Programs should evaluate and update their lab curricula on a regular basis to reflect modern questions and techniques in chemistry. 

Breadth of Student Laboratory Experiences 

  • Gain experiences with at least 4 classes of chemical compounds (small organic molecules, small inorganic molecules, biological macromolecules, polymers, supramolecular systems, meso- or nanoscale materials, or extended solids)
  • Students regularly have lab experiences that are open-ended or incompletely defined questions or unfamiliar situations.
  • Students participate in multi-week laboratory experiences where they can revise ideas and build on prior findings.
  • Lab experiences relate to modern research problems.
  • Students participate in a Classroom Undergraduate Research Experiences (CURE) or research experience during their undergraduate career.
  • Students should have opportunities to have hands-on experiences instruments from 4 of 5 of the instrumental categories (atomic spectroscopy, molecular spectroscopy, separations and chromatography, electrochemistry, and mass spectrometry).

Markers of Excellence

  • Instructors develop or adapt new approaches or practices that enhance student skills and disseminate them to the larger community.
  • Students gain laboratory experience in all 5 areas of ABIOP  .
  • Instruction is provided so that students gain experience with one or more of the following: programming, data analytics, and, or, informatics.
  • Students work on problems that contribute new knowledge to the discipline. 
  • Most students participate in Classroom Undergraduate Research Experiences (CURE) or undergraduate research experiences.
  • Students should have in depth experience with instrumentation and understand how to troubleshoot instrumental problems.
  • Students have comprehensive exposure to all instrument categories.

Student Skills Learned in Laboratory Courses Section 5.2.3

Connect Experiment to Theory Students must:

  • Use accepted scientific theories to explain their data and analyses.
  • Develop or select appropriate models for their systems.
  • Understand the limitation of models and theories.

Construct Scientific Explanations & Arguments Students must:

  • Construct explanations of their results.
  • Use evidence to support the interpretation of their results.
  • Use mathematics and computational thinking.
  • Maintain an effective laboratory notebook/record.
  • Analyze data using appropriate statistical methods and software.
  • Understand uncertainties in experimental measurements.
  • Assess experimental errors and draw appropriate conclusions.

Exposed to computational chemistry and chemical dynamics simulation packages.

Representation and Visualization of Data Students must be able to:

  • Present data in graphs and tables.
  • Draw 2-D and 3-D structures using appropriate software.

Experimental Design Laboratory experiences must be developed in such a way that students regularly:

  • make predictions and develop hypotheses and
  • design experiments to answer scientific questions.

Connect Experiment to Theory Students should:

  • Develop proficiency with modeling software, ideally allowing them hands-on experience in directly comparing theory and experiment.

Construct Scientific Explanations & Arguments Students should:

  • Have multiple opportunities to develop arguments using different types of data (structural, statistical, etc.).
  • Be introduced to modern laboratory record-keeping tools including laboratory information management systems (LIMS) and electronic laboratory notebooks (ELNs).
  • Use best practices for data storage, access, sharing, and archiving.
  • Use computational chemistry and chemical dynamics simulation packages.
  • Have experience writing code in standard software packages.

Representation and Visualization of Data Students should be able to:

  • Effectively present data in graphs and tables.
  • Draw effective 2-D and 3-D structures.

Experimental Design Laboratory experiences are developed in such a way that students regularly execute experiments that they design and evaluate the effectiveness of their experimental design.

Construct Scientific Explanations & Arguments Students in these programs develop compelling arguments using multiple pieces of supporting evidence.

  • Understand data compliance and integrity issues within a regulatory context.
  • Work with partners to ensure students have appropriate documentation, data analysis, and data management skills necessary to make them marketable in their areas.
  • Develop programming skills.

Computational Skills

  • Students are proficient with computational chemistry and chemical dynamics simulation packages.

Representation and Visualization of Data

  • Students are aware of multiple methods for representing data and can select the most appropriate method. 

Experimental Design Laboratory experiences are developed in such a way that students regularly use the iterative design process to advance scientific inquiry.

Accept & Close The ACS takes your privacy seriously as it relates to cookies. We use cookies to remember users, better understand ways to serve them, improve our value proposition, and optimize their experience. Learn more about managing your cookies at Cookies Policy .

1155 Sixteenth Street, NW, Washington, DC 20036, USA |  service@acs.org  | 1-800-333-9511 (US and Canada) | 614-447-3776 (outside North America)

  • Terms of Use
  • Accessibility

Copyright © 2024 American Chemical Society

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • View all journals
  • Explore content
  • About the journal
  • Publish with us
  • Sign up for alerts
  • NATURE INDEX
  • 19 June 2019
  • Correction 12 August 2019

Top 10 institutions for chemistry in 2018

laboratory for research in chemistry

Microalgae cultured in the Raceway Basin of the CNRS to advance the study of biofuels, cosmetics, health and nutrition. Credit: Jean-Claude MOSCHETTI/AlgoSolis/CNRS Photothèque

This is the fourth consecutive year in which leading institutions of China , France and Germany have topped the field in high-quality chemistry research output.

The biggest movers in this category for 2018 include Tsinghua University in China, which jumped from 17th place in 2015 to 6th place in 2018, and Nanjing University , which climbed six spots from last year to secure the 4th spot for 2018. Kyoto University in Japan dropped out of the top 10 after ranking 4th last year. See the 2019 Annual Tables Top 100 institutions for chemistry in 2018.

1.Chinese Academy of Sciences

Fractional count*: 881.87, (6.8%) † , Article count ‡ : 2,206

The Chinese Academy of Sciences (CAS) has retained the world’s top slot in chemistry for the past four years in the Nature Index, and in 2018 had almost four times the fractional count of the number 2 seed, the French National Centre for Scientific Research .

laboratory for research in chemistry

Nature Index 2019 Annual Tables

A major point of difference for CAS is its enormous size, encompassing 105 institutes across China, which support more than 60,000 research staff. Of note among its many chemistry-focused institutes are the highly productive Institute of Chemistry (IOC), based in Beijing, and the Dalian Institute of Chemical Physics , which specializes in such areas as catalytic chemistry, chromatography and pharmaceutical chemistry.

In 2018, in a high-impact paper published in the Journal of the American Chemical Society by IOC scientists described a new type of solar cell that can achieve unprecedented power conversion efficiency rates.

CAS president, Bai Chunli, is a physical chemist and nanoscientist, known for his pioneering work in scanning tunnelling microscopy and nanotechnology.

2. French National Centre for Scientific Research

Fractional count: 240.53 (−4.8%), Article count: 1,111

Based in Paris, the French National Centre for Scientific Research (CNRS) is the only French organization for multidisciplinary research. It is also the largest governmental research organization in France, and the largest agency in Europe undertaking basic research.

With an annual budget of €25.5 million (US$28 million), its Institute of Chemistry supports 12,000 staff, including researchers, teacher-researchers, engineers, technicians and administrators, across 133 labs.

Alejandro Franco, who was only 13 when he patented his first hydrogen fuel cell and is now developing advanced simulation systems to improve battery power, is one of its rising stars. So is Raphaël Rodriguez, who was the first French scientist to win the Tetrahedron Young Investigator Award, an international prize for exceptional chemists under the age of 40.

3. Max Planck Society

Fractional count: 223.91 (2%), Article count: 560

Chemistry is fundamental to the Max Planck Society ’s history; its Institute of Chemistry was one of the first established within the German research organization. Its performance in the discipline continues to flourish, earning it third place among the top institutions in the field.

The Max Planck Society’s work ranges from investigating the chemical processes in Earth’s foundations, to understanding how cells communicate. The Max Planck Institute for Chemical Energy Conversion , re-established in 2012, focuses on the storage of energy, such as solar and wind power.

Last year, Max Planck Society researchers were part of an international team that discovered how tiny aerosol particles can fuel storms and alter weather patterns. Published in Science , the findings showed that even the smallest particles can generate large effects.

4. Nanjing University

Fractional count: 207.77 (25.6%), Article count: 379

With an incredible surge of 25.6% over the previous year, Nanjing University (NJU) jumped from tenth position in 2017 to fourth place in 2018, according to its high-quality research output in chemistry, as tracked by the Nature Index. The university owns China ’s oldest chemistry department, launched in 1920 at the National Southeastern University, which later became the National Central University before being renamed again to Nanjing University in 1950.

Today, NJU produces the country’s highest-profile chemistry research, owning two government-funded State Key Labs — the State Key Lab of Coordination Chemistry and the State Key Lab of Analytical Chemistry for Life Science — a very rare point of difference for a university in China. Its School of Chemistry and Chemical Engineering boasts 101 full professors, including 5 members of the Chinese Academy of Sciences, and runs one of the oldest doctoral chemistry programmes in China.

“In recent years, NJU has spared no effort to attract young talents,” says Shi Zhuangzhi, a leading young chemist who joined NJU in 2014 as a Young Thousand Talent — China’s top talent scheme to attract young scientists. “Young faculty members here enjoy perfect funding, decent salary and housing subsidies, and priority in recruiting excellent doctoral students.”

5. Peking University

Fractional count: 189.09 (5.6%), Article count: 574

Peking University was China’s first public comprehensive university, set up in 1898. Since then, it’s been considered one of the country’s two best universities, with Tsinghua University .

In 2018, its positions in the categories for chemistry, physical sciences, Earth and environmental sciences, and life sciences were 5th, 11th, 10th, and 39th, respectively. Its budgets are more limited than Tsinghua’s: in 2018 and 2019, its overall budgets were 12.55 billion yuan (US$1.82 billion) and 19 billion yuan respectively.

Of Peking University’s 4,573 faculty members, 78 are Chinese Academy of Sciences members and 18 are Chinese Academy of Engineering members. High-profile alumni include pharmaceutical chemist Tu Youyou, credited with discovering the malaria treatments artemisinin and dihydroartemisinin — a major breakthrough in tropical medicine.

6. Tsinghua University

Fractional count: 183.83 (5.7%), Article count: 471

As one of China's most prominent universities, Tsinghua University has made impressive progress in chemistry in recent years. Its ranking climbed to 6th in 2018, up from 17th place in 2015 .

Tsinghua’s chemistry research is conducted by the Department of Chemistry , Department of Chemical Engineering and the School of Materials Science and Engineering , and has a strong industry connection. Boosted by significant research funding of the university (15.7 billion yuan in 2019, or US$2.27 billion), which is the highest among all Chinese universities, Tsinghua chemists have excelled in nanomaterial, industrial catalysis and low-carbon technologies.

Key studies in 2018 led by Tsinghua scientists include one describing how calcium-ion batteries could be used for energy storage ( Nature Chemistry ) , and another on an electrocatalyst that could potentially reduce carbon dioxide emissions in industrial production ( Journal of the American Chemical Society ) .

7. University of Science and Technology of China

Fractional count: 182.53 (4.1%), Article count: 430

Established by the Chinese Academy of Sciences (CAS) in 1958 in Beijing, the University of Science and Technology of China was launched to drive the higher education of the country’s top talent in interdisciplinary science and technology. In 1970, it moved to its current location in Hefei, the capital of the Anhui province.

The institute’s achievements include establishing the first graduate school in China as well as the first class for gifted young people in China and the first ‘big science’ facility in China, the Hefei Synchrotron Radiation Facility. With CAS, it now also jointly operates the Experimental Advanced Superconducting Tokamak and the Steady High Magnetic Field of the High Magnetic Field Laboratory .

Key chemistry papers of recent years concern the electroreduction of carbon dioxide into ‘clean’ fuels ( Nature , 2016) and more environmentally friendly plastic crystals for refrigeration ( Nature 2019).

8. Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Fractional count: 164.31 (2.5%), Article count: 350

The Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) appears in several top 10s in the Nature Index 2019 Annual Tables, for chemistry, physical sciences, life sciences, academic institutions, and the global top 10. As one of the world’s most prestigious higher-education institutions, it’s been at the frontier of research for more than 150 years, fostering an emphasis on entrepreneurship and applied science through close ties with industry.

Its Department of Chemistry dates back to 1865, and is recognized as one of the best places in the world for chemistry research. Known for achievements in polymer synthesis and medical imaging, key focus areas include discovering new chemical syntheses, creating sustainable energy solutions, detecting and curing disease, and developing novel materials.

In late 2018, three of its researchers, Stephen Buchwald, Jeremiah Johnson and Timothy Swager, received American Chemical Society National Awards for 2019. Swager was awarded for “the design, synthesis and study of polymers with innovative molecular designs to create materials with superior sensory, electronic, optoelectronic and mechanical properties”.

9. Northwestern University

Fractional count: 158.11 (12.1%), Article count: 299

Founded as a private research university in 1851, Northwestern University , based in Evanston, Illinois, now also has campuses in Chicago and Doha, Qatar, and employs 3,300 full-time research staff. It has an annual budget of US$2 billion and attracts more than US$700 million for sponsored research each year.

Northwestern is the second-fastest rising institute among the top 10 in high-quality chemistry research output for 2018 (Nanjing University was the fastest).

One of the star researchers in its Department of Chemistry is Emily Weiss, winner of the 2018 American Chemical Society’s Early-Career Award for her pioneering work on nanocrystals and low-conductivity materials. Another is Chad Mirkin, whose 1999 invention of dip-pen nanolithography — a nanotechnology tool that allowed circuit boards to become smaller — was recognized in 2012 by National Geographic as one of the top 100 scientific discoveries that changed the world.

10. Stanford University

Fractional count: 158.02 (−7.4%), Article count: 340

Chemistry was one of the 25 founding departments at Stanford University when it opened in 1891. The department awarded its first undergraduate degree to Charlotte Wray in 1894, and its first PhD in 1907 to William Draper Harkins, who would go on to predict the existence of the neutron in 1920.

There are now 24 faculty members in the department. Among them is Nobel laureate W. E. Moerner, who was awarded the 2014 Nobel Prize in Chemistry for his role in the invention of microscopy techniques that could reveal molecular processes in real time.

Other notable Stanford chemists include Frank Abild-Pedersen, who in 2018 was one of the world’s most highly cited researchers — his 2004 paper on atomic-scale imaging of carbon nanofibres has attracted more than 1,000 citations so far — and Carolyn Bertozzi, regarded as one of the top chemists of her generation.

Index metrics

*Fractional Count is assigned to institutions based on the contributions of their affiliated authors to articles in the 82 journals tracked by the Nature Index database, with all authors on each article considered to have contributed equally, and a maximum combined FC for any article of 1.0.

† The bracketed figure shows the percentage change in the institution’s Fractional Count in the subject in 2018.

‡ An institution is given an article count of 1 for each article that has at least one author from that institution in one of the 82 journals that make up the Nature Index.

doi: https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-019-01926-9

Pre-2018 rankings may have changed owing to adjustment for a small annual variation in the total number of articles published in the journals.

This article is part of Nature Index 2019 Annual Tables , an editorially independent supplement. Advertisers have no influence over the content.

Updates & Corrections

Correction 12 August 2019 : The original version of this article used incorrect fractional counts, percentage changes and article counts to derive the rankings, which meant that some institutions were ranked incorrectly. The data and rankings have now been corrected.

Related Articles

laboratory for research in chemistry

Partner content: A university of firsts

  • Institutions
  • Research management

Larger or longer grants unlikely to push senior scientists towards high-risk, high-reward work

Larger or longer grants unlikely to push senior scientists towards high-risk, high-reward work

Nature Index 25 MAR 24

A fresh start for the African Academy of Sciences

A fresh start for the African Academy of Sciences

Editorial 19 MAR 24

Numbers highlight US dominance in clinical research

Numbers highlight US dominance in clinical research

Nature Index 13 MAR 24

A guide to the Nature Index

A guide to the Nature Index

Decoding chromatin states by proteomic profiling of nucleosome readers

Decoding chromatin states by proteomic profiling of nucleosome readers

Article 06 MAR 24

‘All of Us’ genetics chart stirs unease over controversial depiction of race

‘All of Us’ genetics chart stirs unease over controversial depiction of race

News 23 FEB 24

Is AI ready to mass-produce lay summaries of research articles?

Is AI ready to mass-produce lay summaries of research articles?

Nature Index 20 MAR 24

Is the Mars rover’s rock collection worth $11 billion?

Is the Mars rover’s rock collection worth $11 billion?

News 19 MAR 24

Recruitment of Talent Positions at Shengjing Hospital of China Medical University

Call for top experts and scholars in the field of science and technology.

Shenyang, Liaoning, China

Shengjing Hospital of China Medical University

laboratory for research in chemistry

Assistant Professor in Plant Biology

The Plant Science Program in the Biological and Environmental Science and Engineering (BESE) Division at King Abdullah University of Science and Te...

Saudi Arabia (SA)

King Abdullah University of Science and Technology

laboratory for research in chemistry

Sir Run Run Shaw Hospital, School of Medicine, Zhejiang University, Warmly Welcomes Talents Abroad

“Qiushi” Distinguished Scholar, Zhejiang University, including Professor and Physician

No. 3, Qingchun East Road, Hangzhou, Zhejiang (CN)

Sir Run Run Shaw Hospital Affiliated with Zhejiang University School of Medicine

laboratory for research in chemistry

Postdoctoral Associate

Our laboratory at the Washington University in St. Louis is seeking a postdoctoral experimental biologist to study urogenital diseases and cancer.

Saint Louis, Missouri

Washington University School of Medicine Department of Medicine

Recruitment of Global Talent at the Institute of Zoology, Chinese Academy of Sciences (IOZ, CAS)

The Institute of Zoology (IOZ), Chinese Academy of Sciences (CAS), is seeking global talents around the world.

Beijing, China

Institute of Zoology, Chinese Academy of Sciences (IOZ, CAS)

laboratory for research in chemistry

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Quick links

  • Explore articles by subject
  • Guide to authors
  • Editorial policies
  • Chemistry Directory
  • Disability Accommodations
  • Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Committee
  • Major Awards
  • Our Community Values
  • Our History
  • Quality of Life Committee
  • Areas of Research
  • Facilities and Centers
  • Instructors
  • Postdoctoral Research and Resources
  • Graduate Program
  • Undergraduate Programs
  • Chemistry Undergraduate Teaching Laboratory
  • Our Chemistry Education Office
  • Elementary Schools
  • High Schools
  • Community Relations and Outreach
  • Contact our Development Officer
  • Funds to Support
  • Meet Our Major Supporters

Lab Curriculum

Undergraduate research inspired experimental chemistry alternatives (urieca).

The Department of Chemistry offers a laboratory curriculum that introduces students to cutting-edge research topics in a modular format.

Each URIECA module is based on or linked to the research of a faculty member in the department. URIECA teaches core chemistry concepts within the modern contexts of:

  • Nanoscience
  • Materials engineering
  • Biotechnology
  • Spectroscopy

In addition, many modules emphasize inquiry into the mechanical and electrical inner workings of the spectroscopic instrumentation used in the experiments, thereby presenting elementary engineering principles to the students.

The URIECA sequence is highly flexible:

  • it is composed of 12 independent modules
  • students may register for one to four modules per semester
  • students have control over their workload and maximum flexibility in scheduling
  • students enrolled in up to three modules in a single semester can complete all of their lab work in only two afternoons a week

URIECA Module Descriptions

Module 1: fundamentals of spectroscopy (5.351).

*Based on the research of Professor Keith Nelson Offered in Fall and Spring (First Third of the Term); Prerequisites: 5.111, 5.112, or 3.091; 4 units; Partial Institute Lab 

Module 2: Synthesis of Coordination Compounds and Kinetics (5.352)

*Similar to the research of Professor Richard Schrock Offered Fall and Spring (Middle Third of the Term); Prerequisites: 5.111, 5.112, or 3.091; Corequisite: Module 1 (5.351); 5 units; Partial Institute Lab; CI-M (effective Fall 2018)

Module 3: Macromolecular Prodrugs (5.353)

*Based on the research of Professor Jeremiah A. Johnson Offered Fall and Spring (Last Third of the Term); Corequisites: 5.12 and Module 2 (5.352); 4 units; Partial Institute Lab

Module 4: Recombinant DNA Technology (5.361)

*Developed by Professor Bradley L. Pentelute Offered in Spring (First Third of the Term); Prerequisites: 5.07 or 7.05; Module 2 (5.352) or 5.310; 4 units

Module 5: Cancer Drug Efficacy (5.362)

*Developed by Professor Bradley L. Pentelute Offered in Spring (Middle Third of the Term); Must be taken simultaneously with Module 4; (5.361) Prerequisites: 5.07 or 7.05; Module 2 (5.352) or 5.310; Corequisite: Module 4 (5.361); 5 units ; CI-M

Module 6: Organic Structure Determination (5.363)

*Developed by Professor Rick Danheiser and Dr. Paula Ruiz-Castillo based on the research of Professor Steve Buchwald. Offered in Fall (Last Third of the Term); Prerequisite: 5.12; Corequisite: 5.13; 4 units; Partial Institute Lab

Module 7: Continuous Flow Chemistry: Sustainable Conversion of Reclaimed Vegetable Oil into Biodiesel (5.371)

*Based on the research of Professor Tim Jamison Offered in Spring (Last Third of the Term); Prerequisites: 5.13 and Module 6 (5.363); 4 units

Module 8: Chemistry of Renewable Energy (5.372)

*Based on the research of Professor Yogesh Surendranath Offered in Fall (First Third of the Term); Prerequisites: 5.03 and Module 2 (5.352); 4 units

Module 9: Dinitrogen Cleavage (5.373)

*Based on the research of Professor Kit Cummins Offered in Fall (Middle Third of the Term ): Prerequisites: 5.03 and Module 6 (5.363); Corequisite: 5.61; 4 units 

Module 10: Quantum Dots (5.381)

*Based on the research of Professor Moungi Bawendi Offered in Spring (Last Third of the Term ); Prerequisites: 5.61 and Module 3 (5.353); 4 units 

Module 11: Time and Frequency Resolved Spectroscopy of Photosynthesis (5.382), NOT OFFERED 2023-2024 AY

*Based on the research of Professor Gabriela Schlau-Cohen **Not offered during 2023-2024 AY**Offered in Spring ( Last Third of the Term); Prerequisites: 5.61; 5.07 or 7.05; Corequisite: Module 4 (5.361); 5 units; CI-M 

Module 12: Fast Flow Peptide and Protein Synthesis (5.383)

*Based on the research of Professor Brad Pentelute

5.39: Research and Communication in Chemistry

This is an independent research class under the direction of a member of the Chemistry Department faculty. It allows students with a strong interest in independent research to fulfill part of the laboratory requirement for the Chemistry Department Program in the context of a research laboratory at MIT. The research must be conducted on the MIT campus and be a continuation of a previous 12-unit UROP project or full-time work over the summer. Instruction and practice in written and oral communication is provided, culminating in a poster presentation of the work at the annual departmental UROP symposium and a research publication-style writeup of the results. Permission of the faculty research supervisor and the Chemistry Education Office must be obtained in advance.

5.301: Chemistry Lab Techniques

The aim of this IAP course is to provide first-year students with intensive practical training in basic chemistry lab techniques, including:

  • Transfer and manipulation of small quantities of organic and inorganic compounds
  • Purification methods for liquid and solid substances (distillation, recrystallization, chromatography)
  • Structure and determination by NMR, infrared, UV spectroscopic analysis, and Mass Spectroscopy
  • Quantitative analysis of biochemical, organic, and inorganic substances by spectroscopic and chromatographic methods

5.301 is intended to provide first-year students with the skills necessary to undertake original research projects in chemistry. Students selected for this course are guaranteed a UROP in the Department of Chemistry for the Spring or Summer 2019, however, this course is not a Prereq for a Chemistry UROP.

For more information and to apply for this IAP course, please visit the 5.301 page .

Advertisement

  • Publications

This site uses cookies to enhance your user experience. By continuing to use this site you are agreeing to our COOKIE POLICY .

Grab your lab coat. Let's get started

Create an account below to get 6 c&en articles per month, receive newsletters and more - all free., it seems this is your first time logging in online. please enter the following information to continue., as an acs member you automatically get access to this site. all we need is few more details to create your reading experience., not you sign in with a different account..

Password and Confirm password must match.

If you have an ACS member number, please enter it here so we can link this account to your membership. (optional)

ACS values your privacy. By submitting your information, you are gaining access to C&EN and subscribing to our weekly newsletter. We use the information you provide to make your reading experience better, and we will never sell your data to third party members.

Already have an ACS ID? Log in here

The key to knowledge is in your (nitrile-gloved) hands

Access more articles now. choose the acs option that’s right for you..

Already an ACS Member? Log in here  

$0 Community Associate

ACS’s Basic Package keeps you connected with C&EN and ACS.

  • Access to 6 digital C&EN articles per month on cen.acs.org
  • Weekly delivery of the C&EN Essential newsletter

$80 Regular Members & Society Affiliates

ACS’s Standard Package lets you stay up to date with C&EN, stay active in ACS, and save.

  • Access to 10 digital C&EN articles per month on cen.acs.org
  • Weekly delivery of the digital C&EN Magazine
  • Access to our Chemistry News by C&EN mobile app

$160 Regular Members & Society Affiliates $55 Graduate Students $25 Undergraduate Students

ACS’s Premium Package gives you full access to C&EN and everything the ACS Community has to offer.

  • Unlimited access to C&EN’s daily news coverage on cen.acs.org
  • Weekly delivery of the C&EN Magazine in print or digital format
  • Significant discounts on registration for most ACS-sponsored meetings

laboratory for research in chemistry

Your account has been created successfully, and a confirmation email is on the way.

Your username is now your ACS ID.

The science of designing a modern laboratory

Layout, safety, and sustainability are just some of the considerations, by benjamin plackett, special to c&en, september 29, 2023 | a version of this story appeared in volume 101, issue 32.

A low-angle view of a building. Flower beds are shown in the foreground, with a grassy courtyard surrounding a paved pathway to the building’s entrance. There are four wooden towers along the roofline, plants on the lower portion of the roof, and large windows around the doors.

Credit: University of Nottingham | The GSK Carbon Neutral Laboratories for Sustainable Chemistry at the University of Nottingham opened in 2017.

  • 2024 Priestley Medalist Carolyn Bertozzi has built a unique culture
  • Black chemists you should know about
  • 2024 ACS National Award winners announced
  • Priestley Medal address 2024: Bringing chemistry to life, literally
  • Hispanic and Latino chemists you should know about

Designing a laboratory from scratch is no small undertaking, but if done right, it’s worth the effort, says Peter Licence, a University of Nottingham chemist. He is also the inaugural director of the GSK Carbon Neutral Laboratories for Sustainable Chemistry, which opened in 2017. “I’m surrounded by natural materials that make me feel relaxed. It’s quiet; there’s no huge hum. The space is intuitive, and it’s just a lovely place to be,” he says. “People want to work here because of its environmental credentials, and that’s been good for our science. It’s a cool building.”

The wavelike, futuristic shape of the building is striking in its own right. Constructed chiefly from timber, the chemistry center has a plant-clad roof that rises gently from the ground to reach a rounded peak in the middle before descending again. The building will also achieve carbon-neutral status, making it possibly the first to do so in the UK.

Solar panels and a biofuel system power the building, which houses a mixture of research labs, teaching facilities, offices, and flexible spaces. “We’re a fully functional chemistry department, with labs for 120 people, numerous mass spectrometers, and [nuclear magnetic resonance] machines. We need climate control, and all of that draws a huge amount of energy,” Licence says.

The challenge for any lab designer, whether they’re in Nottingham, England, or anywhere else in the world, is to divine the alchemy of a series of sometimes conflicting factors, including the safety of users, the architect’s vision, the aesthetics of the interior and exterior, sustainability, the way the building’s function might change in the future, and the layout’s inclusivity for people with disabilities. Balancing these factors can feel like a quagmire, but if the decisions are broken down into stages, they become less overwhelming.

Numerous bottles containing liquids of different colors are in an enclosed cabinet. On one side of the cabinet is a glass window. On the outside are two people, both wearing protective gear, using gloves that allow them to reach into the cabinet to pick up bottles or other items inside.

Safety stipulations

Chemistry labs are, by their very nature, fraught with hazards. But a well-considered design could end up saving lives or preventing long-term injury, which is why safety should be first and foremost when building a new lab, says Jack Bracken, a research safety training manager at the University of California, Los Angeles.

“I would start with a sink near the exit that includes soap and paper towel dispensers,” Bracken says. “No one should take contamination, chemical or otherwise, out of the lab with them when they leave or go out to get lunch. Having a well-stocked, accessible sink to wash hands and wrists before exiting the lab is crucial.”

Bracken would also like to see designated areas for personal protective equipment (PPE) by the entryway and a separate area for keeping food and drinks. “The lack of these two types of areas can lead to unsafe behaviors, like forgetting to wear appropriate PPE and keeping food and drink inside the lab, where it can potentially become contaminated.”

A good room layout can go a long way to helping prevent severe accidents. “Distinct work areas based on hazard type and risk level can aid organization within a large lab while also improving safety,” Bracken says. “They provide a clear signal to laboratory workers for when to apply training and PPE specific to the hazards and risks in each area.”

For example, Bracken says, chemicals can be stored and used in different rooms that have ventilation systems adjusted to their distinct requirements. Even in the same room, the layout can help reduce accidents such as chemical spills. “Transporting chemicals across large swaths of lab space increases the likelihood of an accident,” Bracken says. “An example of a safer design could involve placing volatile chemical storage near the chemical fume hood.”

Designers should also carefully consider the surroundings of a lab. Is the building at risk of flooding? If so, there should be appropriate flood defenses in place. The same goes for other natural disasters, such as powerful storms.

Some governments already legislate for the local geography to be considered in lab design. Take California, for example, which is known for its earthquake threat. “There is a requirement for seismic restraints on chemical shelves, gas cylinders, and chemical storage cabinets to mitigate the risk of earthquakes toppling items and exacerbating an already dangerous event,” Bracken says.

Architect allies

Juggling all these safety factors can seem daunting, but working with an architect who shares your vision helps alleviate that stress, Licence says.

In Licence’s case, he found a kindred spirit in Rick Sharp, an associate director of the Fairhursts Design Group. This interior design and architecture firm is based in Manchester, England, and has expertise in creating academic and commercial research spaces. Sharp’s team took the time to consult with the scientists and University of Nottingham officials to understand what the users of the GSK Carbon Neutral Laboratories for Sustainable Chemistry were looking for. That proactive approach is crucially important because it helps avoid disagreements later, when the project has already broken ground.

A 3D drawing of the interior of a laboratory shows empty tables in gray and shelves. Above the tables are ductwork and lighting, with tall ceilings beyond them.

“The key thing for us is user engagement, and we spend a lot of time trying to understand what each user requires,” Sharp says. “The tendency is that scientists have a particular way in which they do things and often want a repeat of what they had in older facilities. But they can also be excited about what else there is to develop, and we try to encourage that.”

Licence says the academics who now do their research in the building appreciated this approach, and it helped build trust between them and the architects, catalyzing what became a fruitful collaboration. The architects had the design brief, but they still went to meet Licence and his colleagues, who felt genuinely listened to. “They came with amazing diagrams of the key functions of the building, and the internal layout evolved organically through them listening to us and reworking,” he says.

Once Sharp and his team heard everyone’s expectations, they began to challenge some of them, albeit diplomatically. The architects asked why the researchers wanted to do things the way they’d previously done them—was it for a good reason or just because things had always been done that way? “That got us thinking and drew us into an open conversation where we didn’t feel threatened or pressured to accept change,” Licence says. “My advice would be to tell your architect what you want and how you plan to use a lab and then listen to them and engage with them.”

For example, most of the researchers initially resisted the idea of open-plan offices. Instead, they wanted to stick with closed-off private rooms because that’s how they previously worked. In the end, they opted for a compromise that included open-plan hot-desking facilities, meeting rooms, and a few closed-off offices that have windows to the corridor.

The same concept of openness is true of the laboratories: people can see into the rooms as they pass by. “Everyone can see each other and wave, but people equally don’t feel like they can’t whisper something privately,” Licence says. “The architects challenged us to make a place where people aren’t territorial about space, and there’s more collaboration as a result. I think it’s a happier and more mentally stimulating place to work.”

Aesthetic assessments

Research has shown that how a workplace looks and feels matters to its employees ( EuroMed J. Bus. 2015, DOI: 10.1108/EMJB-09-2014-0029 ). A university or company that takes the time to consider the exterior and interior design subtly indicates to workers that management cares about them, says Rune Bjerke, a professor in brand marketing and a leader of the research group for work life and sustainability at Kristiania University College.

A multistory building with an irregular facade that combines bricks and metal, a variety of angular and smooth shapes, and several colors, including bright orange and cream.

The Stata Center at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology is one of the more extravagant examples of aesthetic-driven design. Renowned architect Frank Gehry designed it to be a collection of interconnected buildings made from a mixture of quirky textures and whimsical shapes. Its unique aesthetic has earned it various awards. Not every new research center needs to be so flamboyant, but centers do need to be more than plain white squares filled with fluorescent lights, Bjerke says.

In a piece of research yet to be published or peer-reviewed, Bjerke surveyed the attitudes of 800 employees in Norway. The respondents’ jobs varied in seniority and field, so there is a broad cross section of opinions. He asked questions about what contributes to being happy and content at work.

“Coming together with common goals and being able to share a sense of humor with colleagues was one of the most meaningful drivers of happiness at work,” he says. “Scientists might feel like they aren’t supposed to laugh at work because they’re doing serious work, so the interior design of a new lab should really take this into account.”

That could be something as simple as including informal break spaces with sofas and less-rigid furniture. The artwork could also be playful; instead of old-fashioned marble busts of notable alumni, jovial paintings or witty lab names could help inspire happiness.

“With interior design, there should also be elements that promote sustainability,” Bjerke says. Art offers the opportunity to influence people, and given the environmental impact of doing science, this is an opportunity to spread ecofriendly practices. “Art promoting ecological messages would be a nice thing,” Bjerke says. “Aesthetics are great, but they’re better if you combine them with a message and a meaning.”

Environmental effects

Sustainability was at the forefront of Licence’s mind when he began to think about building his new lab in Nottingham. In 2021, the chemical industry was responsible for emitting approximately 925 million metric tons of carbon dioxide , according to McKinsey. This equates to about 2% of global greenhouse gas emissions—a number that approaches the output of air travel. So the environmental impact of any new chemistry lab is something that most architects should consider.

The excess energy produced by the Nottingham building’s solar panels is used to help power other buildings on campus and should make the building carbon neutral by the time it reaches its 25th birthday, in 2042. While most labs don’t aim for net-zero emissions, there are still lessons they can draw from the site.

Energy self-sufficiency is one part of the puzzle; energy efficiency is the other. At the Nottingham building, chemicals are housed in centralized storage units rather than in each lab, which means some labs can close down for the night to reduce energy consumption. The building was also designed to allow as much natural light as possible to penetrate through the corridors and into the various rooms, lessening the building’s reliance on electric lighting. The amount of light has the added benefit of making the space a more enjoyable place to be.

The building also includes one experimental laboratory that uses a natural ventilation system, whereby natural air pressure differences draw in air from the outside and direct it through the lab before pushing it out the building. This system helps keep temperatures down without the energy consumption of more-active cooling systems, but it doesn’t afford the same control that a traditional air conditioner does.

If Licence and colleagues had deemed the prototype cooling system a success, future labs at the University of Nottingham would have been built in a similar way. But Licence says the results were mixed.

For most of the year, the natural ventilation provides enough temperature control for people to run chemistry experiments and lab work. But during heat waves, the temperature becomes problematic. “It’s too warm to do delicate science in that laboratory for about 20 days per year,” Licence says.

To mitigate the disruption, scientists can plan their research projects to make sure that temperature-dependent reactions don’t need to be done in the peak of summer. Or they can move locations. “When it’s too warm,” he says, “people just use one of the other labs.”

Feasible flexibilities

Making sure that spaces can be used for multiple purposes is another important design principle for laboratory buildings. Susu Zughaier, a microbiologist and immunologist at Qatar University, learned the value of such flexibility during the COVID-19 pandemic; it meant that she was able to adapt to the changing situation swiftly.

Before the pandemic hit, Zughaier’s group was focused on studying bacteria. Her particular focus was on finding a vaccine for gonorrhea, but COVID-19 was spreading so rapidly that she decided to rejigger her lab to help with Qatar’s national response to the new coronavirus.

In the foreground is a courtyard paved with pale-yellow tiles. Steps lead to a fountain and a similarly colored building with a blocky, angular structure. Several cubes sit atop the building, and each cube’s horizontal side includes an ornate screen.

Sourcing the reagents needed for COVID-19 tests had become problematic by this point because countries were stockpiling their supplies. Zughaier decided to develop a blood test made from ingredients that were readily available in the small peninsular state. She succeeded, and the test helped the country better keep track of the virus.

But all this required her to reimagine her space to carry out entirely different processes. What helped her do that was the ability to quickly and easily move equipment around in her lab.

“Most labs have their own space with access to core facilities that they don’t have in the individual labs. That’s a good design for flexibility because it facilitates duality,” she says. “The more shared space you have access to, the more nimble you can be in your own lab.”

In short, this meant Zughaier had more room to reorganize bench space and other equipment in her lab. “If you want to jump ship and do a new and high-risk project, then you need those core facilities to tap into,” Zughaier says.

How you decide which researchers work next to one another is also important. Qatar University organizes scientists by so-called clusters of interest rather than by their traditional disciplines.

Zughaier is part of the health cluster, which has engineers, scientists, and health experts working in proximity—they are all tackling similar problems but from different perspectives. “That means you don’t have to change your lab space to be more interdisciplinary,” she says. “That makes you agile.”

Intentional inclusion

A flexible design can also help avoid excluding researchers with disabilities. The ability to move benches and rejigger a layout within a lab makes it easier to accommodate people who use wheelchairs, for example. Height-adjustable bench space is also useful.

Then there are the accessibility considerations for the building more generally. “There should obviously be lifts, escape routes, level access into the building, and accessible toilets,” the architect Sharp says. “All of this is becoming ever more important, and we’ve found that there’s a lot more awareness from our clients,” he says.

A person sitting in a wheelchair at a laboratory bench is typing on a laptop. In the foreground are beakers and vials filled with liquids of different colors. The researcher is wearing a face mask, safety goggles, gloves, and a white protective suit.

Some of inclusive design is driven by legislation. The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, for example, stipulates that building designs should meet the needs of people with differing levels of mobility, motor control, vision, and hearing.

Once a lab is built, researchers need to be mindful of where they keep equipment. Safety gear, such as PPE, eye-washing stations, and fire extinguishers, should be next to accessible routes so that everyone can reach it. Alarms should include flashing lights to alert deaf or hard-of-hearing people.

Furniture and personal belongings shouldn’t block pathways. It can be hard for people to remember this, so appropriate training could be useful. Designers can help users find where countertops end by using raised edges or contrasting colors on benchtops.

It’s not always possible, however, to anticipate someone’s precise needs when designing a lab, Sharp warns. “The fundamental starting point should be that anyone can work anywhere, but in reality, you don’t always know what the exact provision might be until the need arises,” he says. “That’s why it’s useful to have reconfigurable spaces.”

Experimental design

Laboratory design needs to consider safety, the architect’s vision, aesthetics, energy use, flexibility, and the users themselves, both now and in the future.

In considering all these variables, Licence worked with architects, builders, interior designers, university administrators, and his fellow chemists. He not only learned what it takes to build an environmentally conscious building but discovered how constructing the perfect lab is both a science and an art.

He says, “This whole building was an experiment, and that’s what experiments are all about: you learn from them.”

Benjamin Plackett is a freelance writer based in London.

You might also like...

Serving the chemical, life science, and laboratory worlds

Sign up for C&EN's must-read weekly newsletter

Contact us to opt out anytime

  • Share on Facebook
  • Share on Twitter
  • Share on Linkedin
  • Share on Reddit

This article has been sent to the following recipient:

Join the conversation

Contact the reporter

Submit a Letter to the Editor for publication

Engage with us on Twitter

The power is now in your (nitrile gloved) hands

Sign up for a free account to get more articles. or choose the acs option that’s right for you..

Already have an ACS ID? Log in

Create a free account To read 6 articles each month from

Join acs to get even more access to.

Browse Course Material

Course info, instructors.

  • Dr. John J. Dolhun
  • Dr. Sarah Hewett

Departments

As taught in, learning resource types, laboratory chemistry, course description.

This course introduces experimental chemistry for students who are not majoring in chemistry. The course covers principles and applications of chemical laboratory techniques, including preparation and analysis of chemical materials, measurement of pH, gas and liquid chromatography, visible-ultraviolet spectrophotometry, infrared spectroscopy, nuclear magnetic resonance, mass spectrometry, polarimetry, X-ray diffraction, kinetics, data analysis, and organic synthesis.

Acknowledgements

Dr. Dolhun and Dr. Hewett would like to acknowledge the contributions of past instructors over the years to the development of this course and its materials.

WARNING NOTICE

The experiments described in these materials are potentially hazardous and require a high level of safety training, special facilities and equipment, and supervision by appropriate individuals. You bear the sole responsibility, liability, and risk for the implementation of such safety procedures and measures. MIT shall have no responsibility, liability, or risk for the content or implementation of any of the material presented.

Legal Notice

A photograph of Dr. Dolhun standing at the chalkboard, wearing safety glasses and holding a small beaker containing a pale blue solution. There are two straws in the beaker.

You are leaving MIT OpenCourseWare

National Academies Press: OpenBook

America's Lab Report: Investigations in High School Science (2006)

Chapter: 1 introduction, history, and definition of laboratories, 1 introduction, history, and definition of laboratories.

Science laboratories have been part of high school education for two centuries, yet a clear articulation of their role in student learning of science remains elusive. This report evaluates the evidence about the role of laboratories in helping students attain science learning goals and discusses factors that currently limit science learning in high school laboratories. In this chap-

ter, the committee presents its charge, reviews the history of science laboratories in U.S. high schools, defines laboratories, and outlines the organization of the report.

CHARGE TO THE COMMITTEE

In the National Science Foundation (NSF) Authorization Act of 2002 (P.L. 107-368, authorizing funding for fiscal years 2003-2007), Congress called on NSF to launch a secondary school systemic initiative. The initiative was to “promote scientific and technological literacy” and to “meet the mathematics and science needs of students at risk of not achieving State student academic achievement standards.” Congress directed NSF to provide grants for such activities as “laboratory improvement and provision of instrumentation as part of a comprehensive program to enhance the quality of mathematics, science, engineering, and technology instruction” (P.L. 107-368, Section 8-E). In response, NSF turned to the National Research Council (NRC) of the National Academies. NSF requested that the NRC

nominate a committee to review the status of and future directions for the role of high school science laboratories in promoting the teaching and learning of science for all students. This committee will guide the conduct of a study and author a consensus report that will provide guidance on the question of the role and purpose of high school science laboratories with an emphasis on future directions…. Among the questions that may guide these activities are:

What is the current state of science laboratories and what do we know about how they are used in high schools?

What examples or alternatives are there to traditional approaches to labs and what is the evidence base as to their effectiveness?

If labs in high school never existed (i.e., if they were to be planned and designed de novo), what would that experience look like now, given modern advances in the natural and learning sciences?

In what ways can the integration of technologies into the curriculum augment and extend a new vision of high school science labs? What is known about high school science labs based on principles of design?

How do the structures and policies of high schools (course scheduling, curricular design, textbook adoption, and resource deployment) influence the organization of science labs? What kinds of changes might be needed in the infrastructure of high schools to enhance the effectiveness of science labs?

What are the costs (e.g., financial, personnel, space, scheduling) associated with different models of high school science labs? How might a new vision of laboratory experiences for high school students influence those costs?

In what way does the growing interdisciplinary nature of the work of scientists help to shape discussions of laboratories as contexts in high school for science learning?

How do high school lab experiences align with both middle school and postsecondary education? How is the role of teaching labs changing in the nation’s colleges and universities? Would a redesign of high school science labs enhance or limit articulation between high school and college-level science education?

The NRC convened the Committee on High School Science Laboratories: Role and Vision to address this charge.

SCOPE OF THE STUDY

The committee carried out its charge through an iterative process of gathering information, deliberating on it, identifying gaps and questions, gathering further information to fill these gaps, and holding further discussions. In the search for relevant information, the committee held three public fact-finding meetings, reviewed published reports and unpublished research, searched the Internet, and commissioned experts to prepare and present papers. At a fourth, private meeting, the committee intensely analyzed and discussed its findings and conclusions over the course of three days. Although the committee considered information from a variety of sources, its final report gives most weight to research published in peer-reviewed journals and books.

At an early stage in its deliberations, the committee chose to focus primarily on “the role of high school laboratories in promoting the teaching and learning of science for all students.” The committee soon became frustrated by the limited research evidence on the role of laboratories in learning. To address one of many problems in the research evidence—a lack of agreement about what constitutes a laboratory and about the purposes of laboratory education—the committee commissioned a paper to analyze the alternative definitions and goals of laboratories.

The committee developed a concept map outlining the main themes of the study (see Figure 1-1 ) and organized the three fact-finding meetings to gather information on each of these themes. For example, reflecting the committee’s focus on student learning (“how students learn science” on the concept map), all three fact-finding meetings included researchers who had developed innovative approaches to high school science laboratories. We also commissioned two experts to present papers reviewing available research on the role of laboratories in students’ learning of science.

At the fact-finding meetings, some researchers presented evidence of student learning following exposure to sequences of instruction that included laboratory experiences; others provided data on how various technologies

laboratory for research in chemistry

FIGURE 1-1 High school science laboratory experiences: Role and vision. Concept map with references to guiding questions in committee charge.

contribute to student learning in the laboratory. Responding to the congressional mandate to meet the mathematics and science needs of students at risk of not achieving state student academic achievement standards, the third fact-finding meeting included researchers who have studied laboratory teaching and learning among diverse students. Taken together, all of these activities enabled the committee to address questions 2, 3, and 4 of the charge.

The committee took several steps to ensure that the study reflected the current realities of science laboratories in U.S high schools, addressing the themes of “how science teachers learn and work” and “constraints and enablers of laboratory experiences” on the concept map. At the first fact-finding meeting, representatives of associations of scientists and science teachers described their efforts to help science teachers learn to lead effective labora-

tory activities. They noted constraints on laboratory learning, including poorly designed, overcrowded laboratory classrooms and inadequate preparation of science teachers. This first meeting also included a presentation about laboratory scheduling, supplies, and equipment drawn from a national survey of science teachers conducted in 2000. At the second fact-finding meeting, an architect spoke about the design of laboratory facilities, and a sociologist described how the organization of work and authority in schools may enable or constrain innovative approaches to laboratory teaching. Two meetings included panel discussions about laboratory teaching among groups of science teachers and school administrators. Through these presentations, review of additional literature, and internal discussions, the committee was able to respond to questions 1, 5, and 6 of the charge. The agendas for each fact-finding meeting, including the guiding questions that were sent to each presenter, appear in Appendix A .

The committee recognized that the question in its charge about the increasingly interdisciplinary nature of science (question 7) is important to the future of science and to high school science laboratories. In presentations and commissioned papers, several experts offered suggestions for how laboratory activities could be designed to more accurately reflect the work of scientists and to improve students’ understanding of the way scientists work today. Based on our analysis of this information, the committee partially addresses this question from the perspective of how scientists conduct their work (in this chapter). The committee also identifies design principles for laboratory activities that may increase students’ understanding of the nature of science (in Chapter 3 ). However, in order to maintain our focus on the key question of student learning in laboratories, the committee did not fully address question 7.

Another important question in the committee’s charge (question 8) addresses the alignment of laboratory learning in middle school, high school, and undergraduate science education. Within the short time frame of this study, the committee focused on identifying, assembling, and analyzing the limited research available on high school science laboratories and did not attempt to do the same analysis for middle school and undergraduate science laboratories. However, this report does discuss several studies of student laboratory learning in middle school (see Chapter 3 ) and describes undergraduate science laboratories briefly in its analysis of the preparation of high school science teachers (see in Chapter 5 ). The committee thinks questions about the alignment of laboratory learning merit more sustained attention than was possible in this study.

During the course of our deliberations, other important questions emerged. For example, it is apparent that the scientific community is engaged in an array of efforts to strengthen teaching and learning in high school science laboratories, but little information is available on the extent

of these efforts and on their effectiveness at enhancing student learning. As a result, we address the role of the scientific community in high school laboratories only briefly in Chapters 1 and 5 . Another issue that arose over the course of this study is laboratory safety. We became convinced that laboratory safety is critical, but we did not fully analyze safety issues, which lay outside our charge. Finally, although engaging students in design or engineering laboratory activities appears to hold promising connections with science laboratory activities, the committee did not explore this possibility. Although all of these issues and questions are important, taking time and energy to address them would have deterred us from a central focus on the role of high school laboratories in promoting the teaching and learning of science for all students.

One important step in defining the scope of the study was to review the history of laboratories. Examining the history of laboratory education helped to illuminate persistent tensions, provided insight into approaches to be avoided in the future, and allowed the committee to more clearly frame key questions for the future.

HISTORY OF LABORATORY EDUCATION

The history of laboratories in U.S. high schools has been affected by changing views of the nature of science and by society’s changing goals for science education. Between 1850 and the present, educators, scientists, and the public have, at different times, placed more or less emphasis on three sometimes-competing goals for school science education: (1) a theoretical emphasis, stressing the structure of scientific disciplines, the benefits of basic scientific research, and the importance of preparing young people for higher education in science; (2) an applied or practical emphasis, stressing high school students’ ability to understand and apply the science and workings of everyday things; and (3) a liberal or contextual emphasis, stressing the historical development and cultural implications of science (Matthews, 1994). These changing goals have affected the nature and extent of laboratory education.

By the mid-19th century, British writers and philosophers had articulated a view of science as an inductive process (Mill, 1843; Whewell, 1840, 1858). They believed that scientists engaged in painstaking observation of nature to identify and accumulate facts, and only very cautiously did they draw conclusions from these facts to propose new theories. British and American scientists portrayed the newest scientific discoveries—such as the laws of thermodynamics and Darwin’s theory of evolution—to an increas-

ingly interested public as certain knowledge derived through well-established inductive methods. However, scientists and teachers made few efforts to teach students about these methods. High school and undergraduate science courses, like those in history and other subjects, were taught through lectures and textbooks, followed by rote memorization and recitation (Rudolph, 2005). Lecturers emphasized student knowledge of the facts, and science laboratories were not yet accepted as part of higher education. For example, when Benjamin Silliman set up the first chemistry laboratory at Yale in 1847, he paid rent to the college for use of the building and equipped it at his own expense (Whitman, 1898, p. 201). Few students were allowed into these laboratories, which were reserved for scientists’ research, although some apparatus from the laboratory was occasionally brought into the lecture room for demonstrations.

During the 1880s, the situation changed rapidly. Influenced by the example of chemist Justus von Liebig in Germany, leading American universities embraced the German model. In this model, laboratories played a central role as the setting for faculty research and for advanced scientific study by students. Johns Hopkins University established itself as a research institution with student laboratories. Other leading colleges and universities followed suit, and high schools—which were just being established as educational institutions—soon began to create student science laboratories as well.

The primary goal of these early high school laboratories was to prepare students for higher science education in college and university laboratories. The National Education Association produced an influential report noting the “absolute necessity of laboratory work” in the high school science curriculum (National Education Association, 1894) in order to prepare students for undergraduate science studies. As demand for secondary school teachers trained in laboratory methods grew, colleges and universities began offering summer laboratory courses for teachers. In 1895, a zoology professor at Brown University described “large and increasing attendance at our summer schools,” which focused on the dissection of cats and other animals (Bump, 1895, p. 260).

In these early years, American educators emphasized the theoretical, disciplinary goals of science education in order to prepare graduates for further science education. Because of this emphasis, high schools quickly embraced a detailed list of 40 physics experiments published by Harvard instructor Edwin Hall (Harvard University, 1889). The list outlined the experiments, procedures, and equipment necessary to successfully complete all 40 experiments as a condition of admission to study physics at Harvard. Scientific supply companies began selling complete sets of the required equipment to schools and successful completion of the exercises was soon required for admission to study physics at other colleges and universities (Rudolph, 2005).

At that time, most educators and scientists believed that participating in laboratory experiments would help students learn methods of accurate observation and inductive reasoning. However, the focus on prescribing specific experiments and procedures, illustrated by the embrace of the Harvard list, limited the effectiveness of early laboratory education. In the rush to specify laboratory experiments, procedures, and equipment, little attention had been paid to how students might learn from these experiences. Students were expected to simply absorb the methods of inductive reasoning by carrying out experiments according to prescribed procedures (Rudolph, 2005).

Between 1890 and 1910, as U.S. high schools expanded rapidly to absorb a huge influx of new students, a backlash began to develop against the prevailing approach to laboratory education. In a 1901 lecture at the New England Association of College and Secondary Schools, G. Stanley Hall, one of the first American psychologists, criticized high school physics education based on the Harvard list, saying that “boys of this age … want more dynamic physics” (Hall, 1901). Building on Hall’s critique, University of Chicago physicist Charles Mann and other members of the Central Association for Science and Mathematics Teaching launched a complete overhaul of high school physics teaching. Mann and others attacked the “dry bones” of the Harvard experiments, calling for a high school physics curriculum with more personal and social relevance to students. One described lab work as “at best a very artificial means of supplying experiences upon which to build physical concepts” (Woodhull, 1909). Other educators argued that science teaching could be improved by providing more historical perspective, and high schools began reducing the number of laboratory exercises.

By 1910, a clear tension had emerged between those emphasizing laboratory experiments and reformers favoring an emphasis on interesting, practical science content in high school science. However, the focus on content also led to problems, as students became overwhelmed with “interesting” facts. New York’s experience illustrates this tension. In 1890, the New York State Regents exam included questions asking students to design experiments (Champagne and Shiland, 2004). In 1905, the state introduced a new syllabus of physics topics. The content to be covered was so extensive that, over the course of a year, an average of half an hour could be devoted to each topic, virtually eliminating the possibility of including laboratory activities (Matthews, 1994). An outcry to return to more experimentation in science courses resulted, and in 1910 New York State instituted a requirement for 30 science laboratory sessions taking double periods in the syllabus for Regents science courses (courses preparing students for the New York State Regents examinations) (Champagne and Shiland, 2004).

In an influential speech to the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) in 1909, philosopher and educator John Dewey proposed a solution to the tension between advocates for more laboratory

experimentation and advocates for science education emphasizing practical content. While criticizing science teaching focused strictly on covering large amounts of known content, Dewey also pointed to the flaws in rigid laboratory exercises: “A student may acquire laboratory methods as so much isolated and final stuff, just as he may so acquire material from a textbook…. Many a student had acquired dexterity and skill in laboratory methods without it ever occurring to him that they have anything to do with constructing beliefs that are alone worthy of the title of knowledge” (Dewey, 1910b). Dewey believed that people should leave school with some understanding of the kinds of evidence required to substantiate scientific beliefs. However, he never explicitly described his view of the process by which scientists develop and substantiate such evidence.

In 1910, Dewey wrote a short textbook aimed at helping teachers deal with students as individuals despite rapidly growing enrollments. He analyzed what he called “a complete act of thought,” including five steps: (1) a felt difficulty, (2) its location and definition, (3) suggestion of possible solution, (4) development by reasoning of the bearing of the suggestion, and (5) further observation and experiment leading to its acceptance or rejection (Dewey, 1910a, pp. 68-78). Educators quickly misinterpreted these five steps as a description of the scientific method that could be applied to practical problems. In 1918, William Kilpatrick of Teachers College published a seminal article on the “project method,” which used Dewey’s five steps to address problems of everyday life. The article was eventually reprinted 60,000 times as reformers embraced the idea of engaging students with practical problems, while at the same time teaching them about what were seen as the methods of science (Rudolph, 2005).

During the 1920s, reform-minded teachers struggled to use the project method. Faced with ever-larger classes and state requirements for coverage of science content, they began to look for lists of specific projects that students could undertake, the procedures they could use, and the expected results. Soon, standardized lists of projects were published, and students who had previously been freed from rigid laboratory procedures were now engaged in rigid, specified projects, leading one writer to observe, “the project is little more than a new cloak for the inductive method” (Downing, 1919, p. 571).

Despite these unresolved tensions, laboratory education had become firmly established, and growing numbers of future high school teachers were instructed in teaching laboratory activities. For example, a 1925 textbook for preservice science teachers included a chapter titled “Place of Laboratory Work in the Teaching of Science” followed by three additional chapters on how to teach laboratory science (Brownell and Wade, 1925). Over the following decades, high school science education (including laboratory education) increasingly emphasized practical goals and the benefits of science in everyday life. During World War II, as scientists focused on federally funded

research programs aimed at defense and public health needs, high school science education also emphasized applications of scientific knowledge (Rudolph, 2002).

Changing Goals of Science Education

Following World War II, the flood of “baby boomers” strained the physical and financial resources of public schools. Requests for increased taxes and bond issues led to increasing questions about public schooling. Some academics and policy makers began to criticize the “life adjustment” high school curriculum, which had been designed to meet adolescents’ social, personal, and vocational needs. Instead, they called for a renewed emphasis on the academic disciplines. At the same time, the nation was shaken by the Soviet Union’s explosion of an atomic bomb and the communist takeover of China. By the early 1950s, some federal policy makers began to view a more rigorous, academic high school science curriculum as critical to respond to the Soviet threat.

In 1956, physicist Jerrold Zacharias received a small grant from NSF to establish the Physical Science Study Committee (PSSC) in order to develop a curriculum focusing on physics as a scientific discipline. When the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics launched the space satellite Sputnik the following year, those who had argued that U.S. science education was not rigorous enough appeared vindicated, and a new era of science education began.

Although most historians believe that the overriding goal of the post-Sputnik science education reforms was to create a new generation of U.S. scientists and engineers capable of defending the nation from the Soviet Union, the actual goals were more complex and varied (Rudolph, 2002). Clearly, Congress, the president, and NSF were focused on the goal of preparing more scientists and engineers, as reflected in NSF director Alan Waterman’s 1957 statement (National Science Foundation, 1957, pp. xv-xvi):

Our schools and colleges are badly in need of modern science laboratories and laboratory, demonstration, and research equipment. Most important of all, we need more trained scientists and engineers in many special fields, and especially very many more competent, fully trained teachers of science, notably in our secondary schools. Undoubtedly, by a determined campaign, we can accomplish these ends in our traditional way, but how soon? The process is usually a lengthy one, and there is no time to be lost. Therefore, the pressing question is how quickly can our people act to accomplish these things?

The scientists, however, had another agenda. Over the course of World War II, their research had become increasingly dependent on federal fund-

ing and influenced by federal needs. In physics, for example, federally funded efforts to develop nuclear weapons led research to focus increasingly at the atomic level. In order to maintain public funding while reducing unwanted public pressure on research directions, the scientists sought to use curriculum redesign as a way to build the public’s faith in the expertise of professional scientists (Rudolph, 2002). They wanted to emphasize the humanistic aspects of science, portraying science as an essential element in a broad liberal education. Some scientists sought to reach not only the select group who might become future scientists but also a slightly larger group of elite, mostly white male students who would be future leaders in government and business. They hoped to help these students appreciate the empirical grounding of scientific knowledge and to value and appreciate the role of science in society (Rudolph, 2002).

Changing Views of the Nature of Science

While this shift in the goals of science education was taking place, historians and philosophers were proposing new views of science. In 1958, British chemist Michael Polanyi questioned the ideal of scientific detachment and objectivity, arguing that scientific discovery relies on the personal participation and the creative, original thoughts of scientists (Polanyi, 1958). In the United States, geneticist and science educator Joseph Schwab suggested that scientific methods were specific to each discipline and that all scientific “inquiry” (his term for scientific research) was guided by the current theories and concepts within the discipline (Schwab, 1964). Publication of The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (Kuhn, 1962) a few years later fueled the debate about whether science was truly rational, and whether theory or observation was more important to the scientific enterprise. Over time, this debate subsided, as historians and philosophers of science came to focus on the process of scientific discovery. Increasingly, they recognized that this process involves deductive reasoning (developing inferences from known scientific principles and theories) as well as inductive reasoning (proceeding from particular observations to reach more general theories or conclusions).

Development of New Science Curricula

Although these changing views of the nature of science later led to changes in science education, they had little influence in the immediate aftermath of Sputnik. With NSF support, scientists led a flurry of curriculum development over the next three decades (Matthews, 1994). In addition to the physics text developed by the PSSC, the Biological Sciences Curriculum Study (BSCS) created biology curricula, the Chemical Education Materials group created chemistry materials, and groups of physicists created Intro-

ductory Physical Science and Project Physics. By 1975, NSF supported 28 science curriculum reform projects.

By 1977 over 60 percent of school districts had adopted at least one of the new curricula (Rudolph, 2002). The PSSC program employed high school teachers to train their peers in how to use the curriculum, reaching over half of all high school physics teachers by the late 1960s. However, due to implementation problems that we discuss further below, most schools soon shifted to other texts, and the federal goal of attracting a larger proportion of students to undergraduate science was not achieved (Linn, 1997).

Dissemination of the NSF-funded curriculum development efforts was limited by several weaknesses. Some curriculum developers tried to “teacher proof” their curricula, providing detailed texts, teacher guides, and filmstrips designed to ensure that students faithfully carried out the experiments as intended (Matthews, 1994). Physics teacher and curriculum developer Arnold Arons attributed the limited implementation of most of the NSF-funded curricula to lack of logistical support for science teachers and inadequate teacher training, since “curricular materials, however skilful and imaginative, cannot ‘teach themselves’” (Arons, 1983, p. 117). Case studies showed that schools were slow to change in response to the new curricula and highlighted the central role of the teacher in carrying them out (Stake and Easley, 1978). In his analysis of Project Physics, Welch concluded that the new curriculum accounted for only 5 percent of the variance in student achievement, while other factors, such as teacher effectiveness, student ability, and time on task, played a larger role (Welch, 1979).

Despite their limited diffusion, the new curricula pioneered important new approaches to science education, including elevating the role of laboratory activities in order to help students understand the nature of modern scientific research (Rudolph, 2002). For example, in the PSSC curriculum, Massachusetts Institute of Technology physicist Jerrold Zacharias coordinated laboratory activities with the textbook in order to deepen students’ understanding of the links between theory and experiments. As part of that curriculum, students experimented with a ripple tank, generating wave patterns in water in order to gain understanding of wave models of light. A new definition of the scientific laboratory informed these efforts. The PSSC text explained that a “laboratory” was a way of thinking about scientific investigations—an intellectual process rather than a building with specialized equipment (Rudolph, 2002, p. 131).

The new approach to using laboratory experiences was also apparent in the Science Curriculum Improvement Study. The study group drew on the developmental psychology of Jean Piaget to integrate laboratory experiences with other forms of instruction in a “learning cycle” (Atkin and Karplus, 1962). The learning cycle included (1) exploration of a concept, often through a laboratory experiment; (2) conceptual invention, in which the student or

TABLE 1-1 New Approaches Included in Post-Sputnik Science Curricula

teacher (or both) derived the concept from the experimental data, usually during a classroom discussion; and (3) concept application in which the student applied the concept (Karplus and Their, 1967). Evaluations of the instructional materials, which were targeted to elementary school students, revealed that they were more successful than traditional forms of science instruction at enhancing students’ understanding of science concepts, their understanding of the processes of science, and their positive attitudes toward science (Abraham, 1998). Subsequently, the learning cycle approach was applied to development of science curricula for high school and undergraduate students. Research into these more recent curricula confirms that “merely providing students with hands-on laboratory experiences is not by itself enough” (Abraham, 1998, p. 520) to motivate and help them understand science concepts and the nature of science.

In sum, the new approach of integrating laboratory experiences represented a marked change from earlier science education. In contrast to earlier curricula, which included laboratory experiences as secondary applications of concepts previously addressed by the teacher, the new curricula integrated laboratory activities into class routines in order to emphasize the nature and processes of science (Shymansky, Kyle, and Alport, 1983; see Table 1-1 ). Large meta-analyses of evaluations of the post-Sputnik curricula (Shymansky et al., 1983; Shymansky, Hedges, and Woodworth, 1990) found they were more effective than the traditional curriculum in boosting students’ science achievement and interest in science. As we discuss in Chapter 3 , current designs of science curricula that integrate laboratory experiences

into ongoing classroom instruction have proven effective in enhancing students’ science achievement and interest in science.

Discovery Learning and Inquiry

One offshoot of the curriculum development efforts in the 1960s and 1970s was the development of an approach to science learning termed “discovery learning.” In 1959, Harvard cognitive psychologist Jerome Bruner began to develop his ideas about discovery learning as director of an NRC committee convened to evaluate the new NSF-funded curricula. In a book drawing in part on that experience, Bruner suggested that young students are active problem solvers, ready and motivated to learn science by their natural interest in the material world (Bruner, 1960). He argued that children should not be taught isolated science facts, but rather should be helped to discover the structures, or underlying concepts and theories, of science. Bruner’s emphasis on helping students to understand the theoretical structures of the scientific disciplines became confounded with the idea of engaging students with the physical structures of natural phenomena in the laboratory (Matthews, 1994). Developers of NSF-funded curricula embraced this interpretation of Bruner’s ideas, as it leant support to their emphasis on laboratory activities.

On the basis of his observation that scientific knowledge was changing rapidly through large-scale research and development during this postwar period, Joseph Schwab advocated the closely related idea of an “inquiry approach” to science education (Rudolph, 2003). In a seminal article, Schwab argued against teaching science facts, which he termed a “rhetoric of conclusions” (Schwab, 1962, p. 25). Instead, he proposed that teachers engage students with materials that would motivate them to learn about natural phenomena through inquiry while also learning about some of the strengths and weaknesses of the processes of scientific inquiry. He developed a framework to describe the inquiry approach in a biology laboratory. At the highest level of inquiry, the student simply confronts the “raw phenomenon” (Schwab, 1962, p. 55) with no guidance. At the other end of the spectrum, biology students would experience low levels of inquiry, or none at all, if the laboratory manual provides the problem to be investigated, the methods to address the problem, and the solutions. When Herron applied Schwab’s framework to analyze the laboratory manuals included in the PSSC and the BSCS curricula, he found that most of the manuals provided extensive guidance to students and thus did not follow the inquiry approach (Herron, 1971).

The NRC defines inquiry somewhat differently in the National Science Education Standards . Rather than using “inquiry” as an indicator of the amount of guidance provided to students, the NRC described inquiry as

encompassing both “the diverse ways in which scientists study the natural world” (National Research Council, 1996, p. 23) and also students’ activities that support the learning of science concepts and the processes of science. In the NRC definition, student inquiry may include reading about known scientific theories and ideas, posing questions, planning investigations, making observations, using tools to gather and analyze data, proposing explanations, reviewing known theories and concepts in light of empirical data, and communicating the results. The Standards caution that emphasizing inquiry does not mean relying on a single approach to science teaching, suggesting that teachers use a variety of strategies, including reading, laboratory activities, and other approaches to help students learn science (National Research Council, 1996).

Diversity in Schools

During the 1950s, as some scientists developed new science curricula for teaching a small group of mostly white male students, other Americans were much more concerned about the weak quality of racially segregated schools for black children. In 1954, the Supreme Court ruled unanimously that the Topeka, Kansas Board of Education was in violation of the U.S. Constitution because it provided black students with “separate but equal” education. Schools in both the North and the South changed dramatically as formerly all-white schools were integrated. Following the example of the civil rights movement, in the 1970s and the 1980s the women’s liberation movement sought improved education and employment opportunities for girls and women, including opportunities in science. In response, some educators began to seek ways to improve science education for all students, regardless of their race or gender.

1975 to Present

By 1975, the United States had put a man on the moon, concerns about the “space race” had subsided, and substantial NSF funding for science education reform ended. These changes, together with increased concern for equity in science education, heralded a shift in society’s goals for science education. Science educators became less focused on the goal of disciplinary knowledge for science specialists and began to place greater emphasis on a liberal, humanistic view of science education.

Many of the tensions evident in the first 100 years of U.S. high school laboratories have continued over the past 30 years. Scientists, educators, and policy makers continue to disagree about the nature of science, the goals of science education, and the role of the curriculum and the teacher in student

learning. Within this larger dialogue, debate about the value of laboratory activities continues.

Changing Goals for Science Education

National reports issued during the 1980s and 1990s illustrate new views of the nature of science and increased emphasis on liberal goals for science education. In Science for All Americans , the AAAS advocated the achievement of scientific literacy by all U.S. high school students, in order to increase their awareness and understanding of science and the natural world and to develop their ability to think scientifically (American Association for the Advancement of Science, 1989). This seminal report described science as tentative (striving toward objectivity within the constraints of human fallibility) and as a social enterprise, while also discussing the durability of scientific theories, the importance of logical reasoning, and the lack of a single scientific method. In the ongoing debate about the coverage of science content, the AAAS took the position that “curricula must be changed to reduce the sheer amount of material covered” (American Association for the Advancement of Science, 1989, p. 5). Four years later, the AAAS published Benchmarks for Science Literacy , which identified expected competencies at each school grade level in each of the earlier report’s 10 areas of scientific literacy (American Association for the Advancement of Science, 1993).

The NRC’s National Science Education Standards (National Research Council, 1996) built on the AAAS reports, opening with the statement: “This nation has established as a goal that all students should achieve scientific literacy” (p. ix). The NRC proposed national science standards for high school students designed to help all students develop (1) abilities necessary to do scientific inquiry and (2) understandings about scientific inquiry (National Research Council, 1996, p. 173).

In the standards, the NRC suggested a new approach to laboratories that went beyond simply engaging students in experiments. The NRC explicitly recognized that laboratory investigations should be learning experiences, stating that high school students must “actively participate in scientific investigations, and … use the cognitive and manipulative skills associated with the formulation of scientific explanations” (National Research Council, 1996, p. 173).

According to the standards, regardless of the scientific investigation performed, students must use evidence, apply logic, and construct an argument for their proposed explanations. These standards emphasize the importance of creating scientific arguments and explanations for observations made in the laboratory.

While most educators, scientists, and policy makers now agree that scientific literacy for all students is the primary goal of high school science

education, the secondary goals of preparing the future scientific and technical workforce and including science as an essential part of a broad liberal education remain important. In 2004, the NSF National Science Board released a report describing a “troubling decline” in the number of U.S. citizens training to become scientists and engineers at a time when many current scientists and engineers are soon to retire. NSF called for improvements in science education to reverse these trends, which “threaten the economic welfare and security of our country” (National Science Foundation, 2004, p. 1). Another recent study found that secure, well-paying jobs that do not require postsecondary education nonetheless require abilities that may be developed in science laboratories. These include the ability to use inductive and deductive reasoning to arrive at valid conclusions; distinguish among facts and opinions; identify false premises in an argument; and use mathematics to solve problems (Achieve, 2004).

Achieving the goal of scientific literacy for all students, as well as motivating some students to study further in science, may require diverse approaches for the increasingly diverse body of science students, as we discuss in Chapter 2 .

Changing Role of Teachers and Curriculum

Over the past 20 years, science educators have increasingly recognized the complementary roles of curriculum and teachers in helping students learn science. Both evaluations of NSF-funded curricula from the 1960s and more recent research on science learning have highlighted the important role of the teacher in helping students learn through laboratory activities. Cognitive psychologists and science educators have found that the teacher’s expectations, interventions, and actions can help students develop understanding of scientific concepts and ideas (Driver, 1995; Penner, Lehrer, and Schauble, 1998; Roth and Roychoudhury, 1993). In response to this growing awareness, some school districts and institutions of higher education have made efforts to improve laboratory education for current teachers as well as to improve the undergraduate education of future teachers (National Research Council, 2001).

In the early 1980s, NSF began again to fund the development of laboratory-centered high school science curricula. Today, several publishers offer comprehensive packages developed with NSF support, including textbooks, teacher guides, and laboratory materials (and, in some cases, videos and web sites). In 2001, one earth science curriculum, five physical science curricula, five life science curricula, and six integrated science curricula were available for sale, while several others in various science disciplines were still under development (Biological Sciences Curriculum Study, 2001). In contrast to the curriculum development approach of the 1960s, teachers have played an important role in developing and field-testing these newer

curricula and in designing the teacher professional development courses that accompany most of them. However, as in the 1960s and 1970s, only a few of these NSF-funded curricula have been widely adopted. Private publishers have also developed a multitude of new textbooks, laboratory manuals, and laboratory equipment kits in response to the national education standards and the growing national concern about scientific literacy. Nevertheless, most schools today use science curricula that have not been developed, field-tested, or refined on the basis of specific education research (see Chapter 2 ).

CURRENT DEBATES

Clearly, the United States needs high school graduates with scientific literacy—both to meet the economy’s need for skilled workers and future scientists and to develop the scientific habits of mind that can help citizens in their everyday lives. Science is also important as part of a liberal high school education that conveys an important aspect of modern culture. However, the value of laboratory experiences in meeting these national goals has not been clearly established.

Researchers agree neither on the desired learning outcomes of laboratory experiences nor on whether those outcomes are attained. For example, on the basis of a 1978 review of over 80 studies, Bates concluded that there was no conclusive answer to the question, “What does the laboratory accomplish that could not be accomplished as well by less expensive and less time-consuming alternatives?” (Bates, 1978, p. 75). Some experts have suggested that the only contribution of laboratories lies in helping students develop skills in manipulating equipment and acquiring a feel for phenomena but that laboratories cannot help students understand science concepts (Woolnough, 1983; Klopfer, 1990). Others, however, argue that laboratory experiences have the potential to help students understand complex science concepts, but the potential has not been realized (Tobin, 1990; Gunstone and Champagne, 1990).

These debates in the research are reflected in practice. On one hand, most states and school districts continue to invest in laboratory facilities and equipment, many undergraduate institutions require completion of laboratory courses to qualify for admission, and some states require completion of science laboratory courses as a condition of high school graduation. On the other hand, in early 2004, the California Department of Education considered draft criteria for the evaluation of science instructional materials that reflected skepticism about the value of laboratory experiences or other hands-on learning activities. The proposed criteria would have required materials to demonstrate that the state science standards could be comprehensively covered with hands-on activities composing no more than 20 to 25 percent

of instructional time (Linn, 2004). However, in response to opposition, the criteria were changed to require that the instructional materials would comprehensively cover the California science standards with “hands-on activities composing at least 20 to 25 percent of the science instructional program” (California Department of Education, 2004, p. 4, italics added).

The growing variety in laboratory experiences—which may be designed to achieve a variety of different learning outcomes—poses a challenge to resolving these debates. In a recent review of the literature, Hofstein and Lunetta (2004, p. 46) call attention to this variety:

The assumption that laboratory experiences help students understand materials, phenomena, concepts, models and relationships, almost independent of the nature of the laboratory experience, continues to be widespread in spite of sparse data from carefully designed and conducted studies.

As a first step toward understanding the nature of the laboratory experience, the committee developed a definition and a typology of high school science laboratory experiences.

DEFINITION OF LABORATORY EXPERIENCES

Rapid developments in science, technology, and cognitive research have made the traditional definition of science laboratories—as rooms in which students use special equipment to carry out well-defined procedures—obsolete. The committee gathered information on a wide variety of approaches to laboratory education, arriving at the term “laboratory experiences” to describe teaching and learning that may take place in a laboratory room or in other settings:

Laboratory experiences provide opportunities for students to interact directly with the material world (or with data drawn from the material world), using the tools, data collection techniques, models, and theories of science.

This definition includes the following student activities:

Physical manipulation of the real-world substances or systems under investigation. This may include such activities as chemistry experiments, plant or animal dissections in biology, and investigation of rocks or minerals for identification in earth science.

Interaction with simulations. Physical models have been used throughout the history of science teaching (Lunetta, 1998). Today, students can work

with computerized models, or simulations, representing aspects of natural phenomena that cannot be observed directly, because they are very large, very small, very slow, very fast, or very complex. Using simulations, students may model the interaction of molecules in chemistry or manipulate models of cells, animal or plant systems, wave motion, weather patterns, or geological formations.

Interaction with data drawn from the real world. Students may interact with real-world data that are obtained and represented in a variety of forms. For example, they may study photographs to examine characteristics of the moon or other heavenly bodies or analyze emission and absorption spectra in the light from stars. Data may be incorporated in films, DVDs, computer programs, or other formats.

Access to large databases. In many fields of science, researchers have arranged for empirical data to be normalized and aggregated—for example, genome databases, astronomy image collections, databases of climatic events over long time periods, biological field observations. With the help of the Internet, some students sitting in science class can now access these authentic and timely scientific data. Students can manipulate and analyze these data drawn from the real world in new forms of laboratory experiences (Bell, 2005).

Remote access to scientific instruments and observations. A few classrooms around the nation experience laboratory activities enabled by Internet links to remote instruments. Some students and teachers study insects by accessing and controlling an environmental scanning electron microscope (Thakkar et al., 2000), while others control automated telescopes (Gould, 2004).

Although we include all of these types of direct and indirect interaction with the material world in this definition, it does not include student manipulation or analysis of data created by a teacher to replace or substitute for direct interaction with the material world. For example, if a physics teacher presented students with a constructed data set on the weight and required pulling force for boxes pulled across desks with different surfaces, asking the students to analyze these data, the students’ problem-solving activity would not constitute a laboratory experience according to the committee’s definition.

Previous Definitions of Laboratories

In developing its definition, the committee reviewed previous definitions of student laboratories. Hegarty-Hazel (1990, p. 4) defined laboratory work as:

a form of practical work taking place in a purposely assigned environment where students engage in planned learning experiences … [and] interact

with materials to observe and understand phenomena (Some forms of practical work such as field trips are thus excluded).

Lunetta defined laboratories as “experiences in school settings in which students interact with materials to observe and understand the natural world” (Lunetta, 1998, p. 249). However, these definitions include only students’ direct interactions with natural phenomena, whereas we include both such direct interactions and also student interactions with data drawn from the material world. In addition, these earlier definitions confine laboratory experiences to schools or other “purposely assigned environments,” but our definition encompasses student observation and manipulation of natural phenomena in a variety of settings, including science museums and science centers, school gardens, local streams, or nearby geological formations. The committee’s definition also includes students who work as interns in research laboratories, after school or during the summer months. All of these experiences, as well as those that take place in traditional school science laboratories, are included in our definition of laboratory experiences.

Variety in Laboratory Experiences

Both the preceding review of the history of laboratories and the committee’s review of the evidence of student learning in laboratories reveal the limitations of engaging students in replicating the work of scientists. It has become increasingly clear that it is not realistic to expect students to arrive at accepted scientific concepts and ideas by simply experiencing some aspects of scientific research (Millar, 2004). While recognizing these limitations, the committee thinks that laboratory experiences should at least partially reflect the range of activities involved in real scientific research. Providing students with opportunities to participate in a range of scientific activities represents a step toward achieving the learning goals of laboratories identified in Chapter 3 . 1

Historians and philosophers of science now recognize that the well-ordered scientific method taught in many high school classes does not exist. Scientists’ empirical research in the laboratory or the field is one part of a larger process that may include reading and attending conferences to stay abreast of current developments in the discipline and to present work in progress. As Schwab recognized (1964), the “structure” of current theories and concepts in a discipline acts as a guide to further empirical research. The work of scientists may include formulating research questions, generat-

ing alternative hypotheses, designing and conducting investigations, and building and revising models to explain the results of their investigations. The process of evaluating and revising models may generate new questions and new investigations (see Table 1-2 ). Recent studies of science indicate that scientists’ interactions with their peers, particularly their response to questions from other scientists, as well as their use of analogies in formulating hypotheses and solving problems, and their responses to unexplained results, all influence their success in making discoveries (Dunbar, 2000). Some scientists concentrate their efforts on developing theory, reading, or conducting thought experiments, while others specialize in direct interactions with the material world (Bell, 2005).

Student laboratory experiences that reflect these aspects of the work of scientists would include learning about the most current concepts and theories through reading, lectures, or discussions; formulating questions; designing and carrying out investigations; creating and revising explanatory models; and presenting their evolving ideas and scientific arguments to others for discussion and evaluation (see Table 1-3 ).

Currently, however, most high schools provide a narrow range of laboratory activities, engaging students primarily in using tools to make observations and gather data, often in order to verify established scientific knowledge. Students rarely have opportunities to formulate research questions or to build and revise explanatory models (see Chapter 4 ).

ORGANIZATION OF THE REPORT

The ability of high school science laboratories to help improve all citizens’ understanding and appreciation of science and prepare the next generation of scientists and engineers is affected by the context in which laboratory experiences take place. Laboratory experiences do not take place in isolation, but are part of the larger fabric of students’ experiences during their high school years. Following this introduction, Chapter 2 describes recent trends in U.S. science education and policies influencing science education, including laboratory experiences. In Chapter 3 we turn to a review of available evidence on student learning in laboratories and identify principles for design of effective laboratory learning environments. Chapter 4 describes current laboratory experiences in U.S. high schools, and Chapter 5 discusses teacher and school readiness for laboratory experiences. In Chapter 6 , we describe the current state of laboratory facilities, equipment, and safety. Finally, in Chapter 7 , we present our conclusions and an agenda designed to help laboratory experiences fulfill their potential role in the high school science curriculum.

TABLE 1-2 A Typology of Scientists’ Activities

TABLE 1-3 A Typology of School Laboratory Experiences

Since the late 19th century, high school students in the United States have carried out laboratory investigations as part of their science classes. Since that time, changes in science, education, and American society have influenced the role of laboratory experiences in the high school science curriculum. At the turn of the 20th century, high school science laboratory experiences were designed primarily to prepare a select group of young people for further scientific study at research universities. During the period between World War I and World War II, many high schools emphasized the more practical aspects of science, engaging students in laboratory projects related to daily life. In the 1950s and 1960s, science curricula were redesigned to integrate laboratory experiences into classroom instruction, with the goal of increasing public appreciation of science.

Policy makers, scientists, and educators agree that high school graduates today, more than ever, need a basic understanding of science and technology to function effectively in an increasingly complex, technological society. They seek to help students understand the nature of science and to develop both the inductive and deductive reasoning skills that scientists apply in their work. However, researchers and educators do not agree on how to define high school science laboratories or on their purposes, hampering the accumulation of evidence that might guide improvements in laboratory education. Gaps in the research and in capturing the knowledge of expert science teachers make it difficult to reach precise conclusions on the best approaches to laboratory teaching and learning.

In order to provide a focus for the study, the committee defines laboratory experiences as follows: laboratory experiences provide opportunities for students to interact directly with the material world (or with data drawn from the material world), using the tools, data collection techniques, models, and theories of science. This definition includes a variety of types of laboratory experiences, reflecting the range of activities that scientists engage in. The following chapters discuss the educational context; laboratory experiences and student learning; current laboratory experiences, teacher and school readiness, facilities, equipment, and safety; and laboratory experiences for the 21st century.

Abraham, M.R. (1998). The learning cycle approach as a strategy for instruction in science. In B.J. Fraser and K.G. Tobin (Eds.), International handbook of science education . London, England: Kluwer Academic.

Achieve. (2004). Ready or not: Creating a high school diploma that counts . (The American Diploma Project.) Washington, DC: Author.

American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1989). Science for all Americans . Washington, DC: Author.

American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1993). Benchmarks for science literacy . Washington, DC: Author.

Arons, A. (1983). Achieving wider scientific literacy. Daedalus , 112 (2), 91-122.

Atkin, J.M., and Karplus, R. (1962). Discovery or invention? The Science Teacher , 29 , 45-51.

Bates, G.R. (1978). The role of the laboratory in science teaching. School Science and Mathematics , 83 , 165-169.

Bell, P. (2005). The school science laboratory: Considerations of learning, technology , and scientific practice . Paper prepared for the Committee on High School Science Laboratories: Role and Vision. Available at: http://www7.nationalacademies.org/bose/July_12-13_2004_High_School_Labs_Meeting_Agenda.html .

Biological Sciences Curriculum Study. (2001). Profiles in science: A guide to NSF - funded high school instructional materials . Colorado Springs, CO: Author. Available at: http://www.bscs.org/page.asp?id=Professional_Development|Resources|Profiles_In_Science [accessed Sept. 2004].

Brownell, H., and Wade, F.B. (1925). The teaching of science and the science teacher . New York: Century Company.

Bruner, J.S. (1960). The process of education . New York: Vintage.

Bump, H.C. (1895). Laboratory teaching of large classes—Zoology. [Letter to the editor]. Science, New Series , 1 (10), 260.

California Department of Education. (2004). Criteria for evaluating instructional materials in science, kindergarten through grade eight . Available at: http://www.cde.ca.gov/ci/sc/cf/documents/scicriteria04.pdf [accessed Nov. 2004].

Champagne, A., and Shiland, T. (2004). Large-scale assessment and the high school science laboratory . Presentation to the Committee on High School Science Laboratories: Role and Vision, June 3-4, National Research Council, Washington, DC. Available at: http://www7.nationalacademies.org/bose/June_3-4_2004_High_School_Labs_Meeting_Agenda.html [accessed Jan. 2004].

Davies, K. (2001). Cracking the genome: Inside the race to unlock human DNA . New York: Free Press.

Dewey, J. (1910a). How we think . Boston, MA: D.C. Heath.

Dewey, J. (1910b). Science as subject-matter and method. Science, New Series , 31 , 122, 125.

Downing, E.R. (1919). The scientific method and the problems of school science. School and Society , 10 , 571.

Driver, R. (1995). Constructivist approaches to science teaching. In L.P. Steffe and J. Gale (Eds.), Constructivism in education (pp. 385-400). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Driver, R., Leach, J., Millar, R., and Scott, P. (1996). Young people’s images of science . Buckingham, U.K.: Open University Press.

Dunbar, K. (1993). Concept discovery in a scientific domain. Cognitive Science , 17 , 397-434.

Dunbar, K. (2000). How scientists think in the real world: Implications for science education. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology 21 (1), 49-58.

Duschl, R. (2004). The HS lab experience: Reconsidering the role of evidence, explanation, and the language of science . Paper prepared for the Committee on High School Science Laboratories: Role and Vision, July 12-13, National Research Council, Washington, DC. Available at: http://www7.nationalacademies.org/bose/July_12-13_2004_High_School_Labs_Meeting_Agenda.html [accessed Nov. 2004].

Gould, R. (2004). About micro observatory . Cambridge, MA: Harvard University. Available at: http://mo-www.harvard.edu/MicroObservatory/ [accessed Sept. 2004].

Gugliotta, G. (2004). Space sugar a clue to life’s origins. The Washington Post , September 27.

Gunstone, R.F., and Champagne, A.B. (1990). Promoting conceptual change in the laboratory. In E. Hegarty-Hazel (Ed.), The student laboratory and the science curriculum (pp. 159-182). London, England: Routledge.

Hall, G.S. (1901). How far is the present high-school and early college training adapted to the nature and needs of adolescents? School Review , 9 , 652.

Harvard University. (1889). Descriptive list of elementary physical experiments intended for use in preparing students for Harvard College . Cambridge, MA: Author.

Hegarty-Hazel, E. (1990). Overview. In E. Hegarty-Hazel (Ed.), The student laboratory and the science curriculum . London, England: Routledge.

Herron, M.D. (1971). The nature of scientific enquiry. School Review, 79, 171-212.

Hilosky, A., Sutman, F., and Schmuckler, J. (1998). Is laboratory-based instruction in beginning college-level chemistry worth the effort and expense? Journal of Chemical Education , 75 (1), 103.

Hofstein, A., and Lunetta, V.N. (2004). The laboratory in science education: Foundations for the twenty-first century. Science Education , 88 , 28-54.

Hollis, J.M., Jewell, P.R., Lovas, F.J., and Remijan, J. (2004, September 20). Green Bank telescope observations of interstellar glycolaldehyde: Low-temperature sugar. Astrophysical Journal , 613 , L45-L48.

Hull, D. (1988). Science as a process . Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Karplus, R., and Their, H.D. (1967). A new look at elementary school science . Chicago: Rand McNally.

Klopfer, L.E. (1990). Learning scientific enquiry in the student laboratory. In E. Hegarty-Hazel (Ed.), The student laboratory and the science curriculum (pp. 95-118). London, England: Routledge.

Kuhn, T.S. (1962). The structure of scientific revolutions . Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Linn, M. (2004). High school science laboratories: How can technology contribute? Presentation to the Committee on High School Science Laboratories: Role and Vision. June 3-4, National Research Council, Washington, DC. Available at: http://www7.nationalacademies.org/bose/June_3-4_2004_High_School_Labs_Meeting_Agenda.html [accessed April 2005].

Linn, M.C. (1997). The role of the laboratory in science learning. Elementary School Journal , 97 (4), 401-417.

Longino, H. (1990). Science as social knowledge . Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Longino, H. (1994). The fate of knowledge in social theories of science. In F.F. Schmitt (Ed.), Socializing epistemology: The social dimensions of knowledge (pp. 135-158). Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.

Lunetta, V. (1998). The school science laboratory: Historical perspectives and contexts for contemporary teaching . In B.J. Fraser and K.G. Tobin (Eds.), International handbook of science education (pp. 249-262). London, England: Kluwer Academic.

Matthews, M.R. (1994). Science teaching: The role of history and philosophy of science . New York: Routledge.

Merton, R.K., and Barber, E. (2004). The travels and adventures of serendipity . Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Mill, J.S. (1963). System of logic, ratiocinative and inductive. In J.M. Robson (Ed.), Collected works of John Stuart Mill . Toronto: University of Toronto Press (Original work published 1843).

Millar, R. (2004). The role of practical work in the teaching and learning of science . Paper prepared for the Committee on High School Science Laboratories: Role and Vision, June 3-4, National Research Council, Washington, DC. Available at: http://www7.nationalacademies.org/bose/June3-4_2004_High_School_Labs_Meeting_Agenda.html [accessed April 2005].

National Education Association. (1894). Report of the Committee of Ten on secondary school studies . New York: American Book Company.

National Research Council. (1996). National science education standards . National Committee on Science Education Standards and Assessment, Center for Science, Mathematics, and Engineering Education. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

National Research Council. (2001). Educating teachers of science, mathematics, and technology: New practices for the new millennium . Committee on Science and Mathematics Teacher Preparation, Center for Education. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

National Science Foundation. (1957). Annual report . Available at: http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/1957/annualreports/start.htm [accessed Nov. 2004].

National Science Foundation. (2004). An emerging and critical problem of the science and engineering workforce . Washington, DC: Author. Available at: http://www.nsf.gov/sbe/srs/nsb0407/start.htm [accessed Sept. 2003].

Penner, D.E., Lehrer, R., and Schauble, L. (1998). From physical models to biomechanics: A design based modeling approach. Journal of the Learning Sciences , 7 , 429-449.

Polanyi, M. (1958). Personal knowledge: Towards a post-critical philosophy . London, England: Routledge.

Roth, W.M., and Roychoudhury, A. (1993). The development of science process skills in authentic contexts. Journal of Research in Science Teaching , 30 , 127-152.

Rudolph, J.L. (2002). Scientists in the classroom: The cold war reconstruction of American science education . New York: Palgrave.

Rudolph, J.L. (2003). Portraying epistemology: School science in historical context. Science Education , 87 , 64-79.

Rudolph, J.L. (2005). Epistemology for the masses: The origins of the “scientific method” in American schools. History of Education Quarterly , 45(2), 341-376.

Schwab, J.J. (1962). The teaching of science as enquiry. In P.F. Brandwein (Ed.), The teaching of science (pp. 1-103). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Schwab, J.J. (1964). The structure of the natural sciences. In G.W. Ford and L. Pugno (Eds.), The structure of knowledge and the curriculum (pp. 31-49). Chicago: Rand McNally.

Shymansky, J.A., Hedges, L.B., and Woodworth, G. (1990). A re-assessment of the effects of inquiry-based science curriculum of the sixties on student achievement. Journal of Research in Science Teaching , 20 , 387-404.

Shymansky, J.A., Kyle, W.C., and Alport, J.M. (1983). The effects of new science curricula on student performance. Journal of Research in Science Teaching , 20 , 387-404.

Stake, R.E., and Easley, J.A. (1978). Case studies in science education . Center for Instructional Research and Curriculum Evaluation and Committee on Culture and Cognition. Urbana: University of Illinois at Urbana-Champagne.

Thakkar, U., Carragher, B., Carroll, L., Conway, C., Grosser, B., Kisseberth, N., Potter, C.S., Robinson, S., Sinn-Hanlon, J., Stone, D., and Weber, D. (2000). Formative evaluation of Bugscope: A sustainable world wide laboratory for K-12 . Paper prepared for the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Special Interest Group on Advanced Technologies for Learning, April 24-28, New Orleans, LA. Available at: http://bugscope.beckman.uiuc.edu/publications/index.htm#papers [accessed May 2005].

Tobin, K. 1990. Research on science laboratory activities: In pursuit of better questions and answers to improve learning. School Science and Mathematics , 90 (5), 403-418.

Welch, W.W. (1979). Twenty years of science education development: A look back. Review of Research in Education , 7 , 282-306.

Whewell, W. (1840). Philosophy of the inductive sciences, founded upon their history . London, England: John W. Parker.

Whewell, W. (1858). The history of the inductive sciences, from the earliest to the present time (3rd edition). New York: Appleton.

White, B.Y., and Frederiksen, J.R. (1998). Inquiry, modeling, and metacognition: Making science accessible to all students. Cognition and Instruction , 16 (1), 3-118.

Whitman, F.P. (1898). The beginnings of laboratory teaching in America. Science , New Series , 8 (190), 201-206.

Woodhull, J.F. (1909). How the public will solve the problems of science teaching. School Science and Mathematics , 9 , 276.

Woolnough, B.E. (1983). Exercises, investigations and experiences. Physics Education , 18 , 60-63.

Laboratory experiences as a part of most U.S. high school science curricula have been taken for granted for decades, but they have rarely been carefully examined. What do they contribute to science learning? What can they contribute to science learning? What is the current status of labs in our nation�s high schools as a context for learning science? This book looks at a range of questions about how laboratory experiences fit into U.S. high schools:

  • What is effective laboratory teaching?
  • What does research tell us about learning in high school science labs?
  • How should student learning in laboratory experiences be assessed?
  • Do all student have access to laboratory experiences?
  • What changes need to be made to improve laboratory experiences for high school students?
  • How can school organization contribute to effective laboratory teaching?

With increased attention to the U.S. education system and student outcomes, no part of the high school curriculum should escape scrutiny. This timely book investigates factors that influence a high school laboratory experience, looking closely at what currently takes place and what the goals of those experiences are and should be. Science educators, school administrators, policy makers, and parents will all benefit from a better understanding of the need for laboratory experiences to be an integral part of the science curriculum—and how that can be accomplished.

Welcome to OpenBook!

You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

Show this book's table of contents , where you can jump to any chapter by name.

...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

Switch between the Original Pages , where you can read the report as it appeared in print, and Text Pages for the web version, where you can highlight and search the text.

To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter .

Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

View our suggested citation for this chapter.

Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

Get Email Updates

Do you enjoy reading reports from the Academies online for free ? Sign up for email notifications and we'll let you know about new publications in your areas of interest when they're released.

Chemistrupubs

Subscribe to Updates

Get the latest creative news from FooBar about art, design and business.

By signing up, you agree to the our terms and our Privacy Policy agreement.

Determination of Na2CO3 in washing soda

Titration of oxalic acid with kmno4, standardization of hcl with standard naoh solution.

Chemistrupubs

Chemistry Laboratory: Introduction, Importance, Features

chemistrypubsiu

A chemistry laboratory or chemistry lab is a very crucial place to conduct a lot of research and experiment for solving real-world problems. It is able to know the failure mechanisms and superior performance of materials from this place. New or alternative materials are characterized easily in chemical laboratories. It deals with the matter and the substances to improve and facilitate the chemical analysis to achieve the experimental matter as well as solving a lot of problems in the field of chemistry.

It facilitates scientific or technological research, experiments, and measurement in different fields like schools, universities, various institutions, forensic investigation centers, physicians’ offices, hospitals, regional and national referral centers, etc.

It consists of various equipment, apparatus, and instruments for conducting research and experiments. A wide range of chemical reagents are used here to perform that work to ensure accurate and reliable analytical results. A standard procedure is always followed to get the correct and accurate result from the chemistry laboratory.

Chemistry lab work is essential to make our lives easy. It helps to understand the various types of components and their functions properly. The reactions and product information can be known after doing the various experiments in a chemistry laboratory. It should follow the chem. Lab safety issues during work. The laboratory manual must be kept and studied to get information about various materials.

Chemical laboratory helps to understand the correct method of chemical reactions in real life. It helps to invent various materials after conducting research in a chemistry laboratory. It increases the interest in the field of chemistry in a proper way. One can explain easily the experiment after doing the lab work properly.

The applications of chemistry and their importance can be understood in a proper way at the chemical lab. Students can able to understand the proper uses of apparatus, equipment, instruments, and technical information from a chemistry lab. Students are also able to understand the relations of chemistry with the different fields of science from this place.

Chemistry Laboratory Definition

It is a place where various chemistry-based experiments and research are conducted. It is usually found in schools, universities, research institutions, corporate research, forensic investigation centers, physicians’ offices, clinics, hospitals, and regional and national referral centers.

This laboratory is considered an essential part of modern science where students, teachers, scientists, and engineers can perform various experimental issues. It is the place where one can easily test theories, experiments conducted, hypotheses developed, and new knowledge discovered. It is the best place for gaining the practical experience that we have learned in books. 

There are a lot of chemical equations and scientific theories that can be understood through this place. The applications of chemicals as well as laboratory equipment can be known from chemistry laboratories. Students, researchers, and professionals learn about chemical reactions, measuring reactants, performing experiments, and analyzing data. In a safe environment of this place, students learn various techniques to handle a lot of materials and gain an appreciation for the scientific process

Lab equipment and measuring devices are necessary for the successful completion of chemistry-related projects. Different types of laboratory techniques as well as analyzing processes of data can be realized after conducting the experiments.

Chemistry Laboratory Importance

The various experiments in the chemistry laboratory are a crucial part of knowing the principles and general results of science. That makes the learners thoughtful, creative, and ultimately wiser. Students are able to learn theoretical knowledge from this place by conducting various experiments. It is considered as the best process and principles to acquire the educational goals as deeply as possible in the field of chemistry. As a result, a lot of benefits and positive effects are created in chemistry education.

It creates adequate attention and intelligent implementation of the guidelines of each experiment among the learners as well as the professionals. One can learn more and more in this place.

It provides a controlled environment where scientists and researchers can conduct experiments. A wide range of phenomena associated with the individual atoms and molecules to the interactions of entire ecosystems can be known from this place.

It helps to develop the chemical process in the field of industries, research, and institutions.

It helps to know the causes of reactions and how to conduct these.

It creates a research-based knowledge opportunity among the students.

It helps to understand the theoretical knowledge.

It helps to find out the outcomes of various chemistry-based research.

It develops the analytical knowledge among the students, researchers, and professionals.

Chemistry Laboratory Features

There are five main features of the chemistry laboratory which discussions are given below:

Good environmental factors

A better environment in the chemistry lab makes the content of the lessons more attractive. It should design the various good environmental factors for learning the best things. There are various environmental factors like the use of natural light, acoustics, storage, and color in chemistry laboratories to create the best consideration among the students, learners, scientists, and professionals.

Flexibility

The chemistry lab should be ideal for practical and theoretical learning as well as both solo and group work. It will help the students to learn scientific knowledge more efficiently. It helps the students to understand the scientific principles intelligently.

laboratory for research in chemistry

Positioning

The students, scientists, and other professionals should follow the standard seating arrangement in the chemistry lab to support a wide range of various learning activities to help encourage interaction and collaboration issues.

 Sufficient Space

Sufficient space areas must be maintained to maintain a safe working environment. The furnishing arrangement is needed to afford teachers and students the freedom to circulate easily around the chemistry lab.

Installation of Durable Materials

The making of chemistry labs creates a great impact on a generation of pupils, teachers, and technicians. So, it is very important to use the right materials in the chemistry lab which reduces the maintenance costs as well as adds positive value to the learning experience. The chemical resistance surface area and durable scratch are necessary during the selection of the right laboratory worktop.

Chemistry Laboratory Benefits

It can be possible to control the test intensity level.

It helps to conduct different testing in a laboratory environment.

It creates the opportunity to know the newer process of developing human civilization.

It helps to save the cost.

It can be possible to monitor easily which is cost cost-saving phenomenon.

It can be noted that chemistry laboratories are an essential part of scientific research and development. It creates a better place for conducting experiments, testing hypotheses, and analyzing data. It explores new ideas and technologies among researchers to develop the chemical process and new products.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

What is a chemistry laboratory?

It is the applied sectional area of chemistry where chemistry-based theoretical issues can be used to conduct different types of reactions to solve real-world problems.

What is the use of chemistry in a chemistry laboratory?

It is used to test the theories, experiments conducted, hypotheses developed, and new knowledge discovered among the students, scientists, teachers, and professionals.

What is the importance of a chemistry laboratory?

Chemistry laboratory has created vast opportunities to learn the unknown in the chemistry field as well as get information about the mechanism of different chemical reactions.

Why is chemistry laboratory important?

It is very important because it creates a great opportunity to learn and experiment properly. It plays an important role in the development of students at any academic level because it helps to provide time, space, and resources to explore experimental issues.

What is a chemistry laboratory course?

It includes the principles and applications of chemical laboratory techniques. It provides the idea about the preparation and analysis of different types of chemical materials, measurement of pH, gas and liquid chromatography, UV, HPLC, FTIR, NMR, TGA, SEM, XRD, etc. for conducting experiments in the fields of chemistry.

' src=

Related Posts

Determination of hardness of water, preparation of standard sodium carbonate solution, preparation of standard solution of oxalic acid, leave a reply cancel reply.

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

Type above and press Enter to search. Press Esc to cancel.

Teaching and Learning in the School Chemistry Laboratory

  • ‹ Prev
  • Next ›

1.1 Introduction

1.1.1 prolog, 1.1.2 the history of the laboratory in chemistry education, 1.1.3 research-based ideas related to learning in and from the science laboratory: 60 years of development of goals, practice and research, chapter 1: the role of the laboratory in chemistry teaching and learning.

  • Published: 05 Nov 2021
  • Special Collection: 2021 ebook collection Series: Advances in Chemistry Education Research
  • Open the Chapter PDF for in another window
  • Get permissions
  • Cite Icon Cite

Teaching and Learning in the School Chemistry Laboratory, The Royal Society of Chemistry, 2021, ch. 1, pp. 1-15.

Download citation file:

  • Ris (Zotero)
  • Reference Manager

This chapter deals with the historical aspects of teaching and learning in the high school chemistry laboratory. Based on an intensive review of the literature, the changes in goals and objectives of the chemistry laboratory over the years are presented. In general, three periods related to students’ practice in the chemistry laboratory, namely the early 1960s to the early 1980s, the mid-1980s to the end of the 1990s, and from 2000 until today are covered. These periods are discussed in detail in terms of educational characteristics, goals and effectiveness.

The American Chemical Society (ACS) in an undated declaration, describes the role of the laboratory in chemistry learning as follows:

Chemistry is a laboratory science and cannot be effectively taught without a robust laboratory experience for students at both the middle and high school levels. The identification, manipulation, and general use of laboratory equipment are integral parts of the subject. A school laboratory should have equipment to conduct meaningful demonstrations and experiments… The laboratory environment must be accessible to all students and maintained with safety in mind. Teachers should use safety measures to protect students and themselves during any investigation. With appropriate accommodations, students with limited strength or mobility can participate in the laboratory experience. Instruction that is student-centered and emphasizes the role of laboratory demonstrations and experiments is the best method to ensure students develop the essential skills of science.

Throughout this book we use the terms practical work, which is common in the UK and Germany, and laboratory work, common in the USA, interchangeably. A precise definition is difficult, as this in-school practice embraces an array of activities, but the terms generally refer to experiences in school settings in which students interact with equipment and materials or secondary sources of data to observe and understand the natural world ( Hegarty-Hazel, 1990 ). For the purpose of this book, laboratory activities are defined as contrived learning experiences in which students interact with materials and equipment to observe phenomena. This book focuses on teaching and learning in the high school chemistry laboratory. In chemistry learning, the laboratory provides opportunities to ‘learn by doing’ to make sense of the physical world. Since the 19th century, science educators have believed that laboratory instruction is essential because it provides training in observation, prompts the consideration and application of detailed and contextualized information, and cultivates students’ curiosity about science. This quote from Ira Ramsden (1846–1927), who wrote his memories as a child experiencing a chemical phenomenon, perfectly illustrates that belief:

While reading a textbook of chemistry, I came upon the statement, ‘nitric acid acts upon copper’…and I [was] determined to see what this meant. Having located some nitric acid, I had only to learn what the words ‘act upon’ meant… In the interest of knowledge, I was even willing to sacrifice one of the few copper cents then in my possession. I put one of them on the table; opened the bottle marked ‘nitric acid’ poured some of the liquid on the copper; and prepared to make an observation. But what was this wonderful thing which I beheld? The cent was already changed, and it was not a small change either. A greenish blue liquid foamed and fumed over the cent and the table. The air…became colored dark red… How could I stop this? I tried by picking up the cent and throwing it out of the window…I learned another fact; nitric acid…acts upon fingers. The pain led to another unpremeditated experiment. I drew my fingers across my trousers and discovered nitric acid acts upon trousers. I tell it even now with interest. It was revelation to me. Plainly the only way to learn about such remarkable kinds of action is to see the results, to experiment to work in the laboratory. H. Getman, “The Life of Ira, “Exocharmic Reactions” in Bassam Z. Shakhashiri, Chemical Demonstrations Remsen”; Journal of Chemical Education : Easton, Pennsylvania, 1940; pp 9–10; quoted in Richard W. Ramette: A Handbook for Teachers of action is to see the results, to experiment, to work in the laboratory.

Laboratory activities have long had a distinct and central role in the science curriculum as a means of making sense of the natural world. Since the 19th century, when schools began to teach science systematically, the laboratory has become a distinctive feature of chemistry learning. After the First World War, and with rapidly increasing scientific knowledge, the laboratory was used mainly as a means of confirming and illustrating information previously learnt in a lecture or from textbooks. With the reform in science education in the 1960s in many countries ( e.g. , CHEMStudy in the USA and Nuffield Chemistry Program in the UK), the idea of practical work was to engage students in investigations, discoveries, inquiry and problem-solving activities. In other words, the laboratory became the core of the science learning process ( Shulman and Tamir, 1973 ). Based on a thorough review of the literature, these latter authors suggested the following classification of goals for laboratory instruction in the sciences:

To arouse and maintain interest, attitude, satisfaction, open-mindedness and curiosity.

To develop creative thinking and problem-solving ability.

To promote aspects of scientific thinking and the scientific method.

To develop conceptual understanding.

To develop practical abilities (for example, designing an experiment, recording data and analyzing and interpreting results obtained from conducting an experiment).

Hofstein and Lunetta (1982) , suggested a method of organizing these goals to justify the importance of laboratory teaching and learning, under the headings: cognitive, practical and affective.

The laboratory has long played a central and distinctive role in chemistry education. It has been used to involve students with concrete experiences of concepts and objects. The role of the science laboratory, according to Romey (1968) in the years 1918–1960 is illustrated in Figure 1.1 .

The role of the science laboratory 1918–1980.

The role of the science laboratory 1918–1980.

Almost 40 years ago, Hofstein and Lunetta (1982) reported that for over a century, the laboratory had been given a central and distinctive role in science education, with science educators suggesting that rich benefits in learning are accrued from using laboratory activities. However, in the late 1970s and early 1980s, some educators began to seriously question both the effectiveness and the role of laboratory work, and the case for the laboratory was not as self-evident as it had once seemed ( e.g. , Bates, 1978 ). The 1982 survey conducted by Hofstein and Lunetta provided a perspective on the issue of the science laboratory through a review of the history, goals and research findings regarding the laboratory as a medium for instruction in high school science teaching and learning.

Science educators ( Lunetta and Tamir, 1979 ) have expressed the view that the laboratory's uniqueness lies principally in providing students with opportunities to engage in processes of investigation and inquiry. The review conducted by Hofstein and Lunetta (1982) raised another issue regarding the definition of the goals and objectives of the laboratory in science education. The review of the literature revealed that these objectives were synonymous with those defined for science learning in general. Thus, they suggested that it is vital to isolate and define goals for which laboratory work could make a unique and significant contribution to the teaching and learning of science. They also wrote that while the laboratory provides a unique medium for teaching and learning in science, researchers had not comprehensively examined the effects of laboratory instruction on student learning and growth, in contrast to other modes of instruction and there was insufficient data to convincingly confirm or reject many of the statements that had been made about the importance and effects of laboratory teaching. In other words, the research had failed to show simple relationships between experiences in the laboratory and student learning. The 1982 review identified several methodological shortcomings in science education research that were inhibiting our ability to present a clear picture of the effectiveness of the science laboratory in promoting understanding for students. Twenty years later, Hofstein and Lunetta (2004) delineated the following series of problems and shortcomings in the research regarding the educational effectiveness of the science laboratory:

Insufficient control over procedures (including expectations delivered by the laboratory guide, the teacher, and the assessment system).

Insufficient reporting of the instructional and assessment procedures that were used.

Assessment measures of students’ learning outcomes being inconsistent with the stated goals of the teaching and the research.

Insufficient sample size in many studies, particularly in quantitative ones.

Support for these assertions had been presented by Tobin (1990) , who prepared a follow-up synthesis of the research on the effectiveness of teaching and learning in the science laboratory. He proposed a research agenda for science teachers and researchers and suggested that meaningful learning is possible in the laboratory if the students are given opportunities to manipulate equipment and materials in an environment suitable for them to construct their knowledge of phenomena and related scientific concepts. In addition, he claimed that, in general, research had failed to provide evidence that such opportunities were offered in school science.

The National Science Education Standards (NSES) (National Research Council [ NRC], 1996 ) defined such learning activities ( e.g. , inquiry) as:

The diverse ways in which scientists study the natural world and propose explanations based on the evidence derived from their work. Scientific inquiry also refers to the activities through which students develop knowledge and understanding of scientific ideas, as well as an understanding of how scientists study the natural world (p. 73).

As already noted, science educators have long suggested that many benefits accrue from engaging students in science laboratory activities ( Tobin, 1990 ; Hofstein and Lunetta, 2004 ). Tobin (1990) , for example, wrote that:

Laboratory activities appeal as a way of allowing students to learn with understanding and at the same time engage in the process of constructing knowledge by doing science (p. 405).

Similarly, Nakhleh et al. (2002) wrote that:

The laboratory is often a neglected area of teaching, but the laboratory has also been a frustrating area for research. Research on learning in the laboratory has been complicated by the complex nature of the environment, the plethora of goals, and the seeming non-impact of laboratory work on the types of understanding that we test in exams (p. 71).

In the curricular-type projects developed during the 1960s, the laboratory was intended to be a place for inquiry, and the development and testing of theories, and to provide students with the opportunity to ‘practice being a scientist’. Many research studies (summarized, for example, by Bates, 1978 ; Hofstein and Lunetta, 1982 ) were conducted with the aim of exploring the effectiveness of the laboratory for attaining the many objectives (both cognitive and affective) that had been suggested over the years in the science education literature. This traditional list of objectives included:

Understanding of scientific concepts.

Interest and motivation.

Attitude toward science.

Practical scientific skills and problem-solving abilities.

Scientific habits of mind.

Understanding the nature of science (NOS).

The opportunity to do science.

Over the years, hundreds of papers and essays have been published with the goal of exploring and investigating the uniqueness of the science laboratory in general, and particularly its educational effectiveness. In addition, it was widely believed that the laboratory provides the only place in school where certain kinds of skills, abilities and understanding can be developed ( Lazarowitz and Tamir, 1994 ; Hofstein and Lunetta, 2004 ). In other words, the laboratory has been suggested to provide a unique mode of instruction, learning and assessment.

Precisely what kind of objectives and aims are to be attained in the laboratory include the teacher's goals, expectations, and subject and pedagogical content knowledge, as well as the degree of relevance to the topic, the students’ abilities and interests and many other logistical and economic considerations related to the school setting and facilities (see Figure 1.1 ).

It should be noted that some of these goals, such as ‘enhancing learning of scientific concepts’ coincide with the broad goals for science education that are not necessarily laboratory based. The teacher should be able to judge whether the laboratory is the most effective learning environment for attaining a certain objective while teaching a certain topic. Teachers should be aware that there has been a great deal of discussion and numerous research studies on which goals are, in fact, better achieved through laboratory instruction than through other instructional (pedagogical) approaches ( Hofstein and Lunetta, 1982, 2004 ; Lunetta et al. , 2007 ). Many research studies and essays that were cited in Hofstein and Lunetta's (1982) review criticized the tradition of conducting experiments without clear purposes or goals. In addition, they revealed a significant mismatch between teachers’ goals for learning in the science laboratory and those that were originally defined by curriculum developers and the science education milieu.

In summary, based on the important publication related to science laboratories entitled America's Lab Report, published by the NRC (1996) , it is suggested that:

The science learning goals of laboratory experiences include enhancing mastery of science subject matter, developing scientific reasoning abilities, increasing understanding of the complexity and ambiguity of empirical work, developing practical skills, increasing understanding of the nature of science, cultivating interest in science and science learning, and improving teamwork abilities. The research suggests that laboratory experiences will be more likely to achieve these goals if they (1) are designed with clear learning outcomes in mind, (2) are thoughtfully sequenced into the flow of classroom science instruction, (3) integrate learning of science content and process, and (4) incorporate ongoing student reflection and discussion (p. 13).

In their review of the literature regarding practical work in science teaching and learning, Hofstein and Kind (2012) identified three periods in the 60 years of developing goals, practice, and research: the 1960s to the 1980s, the 1980s to the mid-1990s and the end of the 20th century to the beginning of the 21st century.

1.1.3.1 The 1960s to the 1980s: Unfulfilled Ideals

This period is associated with many curriculum projects that were developed to renew and improve science education. The projects began in the late 1950s with a focus on updating and reorganizing content knowledge in the science curricula, but reformists soon turned their attention to science process as a main aim and organizing principle for science education, as expressed by Klainin (1988) in Thailand:

Many science educators and philosophers of science education ( e.g. , in the USA: Schwab, 1962 ) regarded science education as a process of thought and action, as a means of acquiring new knowledge, and a means of understanding the natural world (p. 171).

The emphasis on the processes rather than the products of science was fueled by many initiatives and satisfied different interests. Some educators wanted a return to a more student-oriented pedagogy after the early reform projects which they thought paid too much attention to subject knowledge. Others regarded science process as the solution to the rapid development of knowledge in science and technology: mastering science processes was seen as more sustainable and therefore a way of preparing students for the unknown challenges of the future. Most importantly, developments in cognitive psychology drew attention to reasoning processes and scientific thinking. Psychologists such as Bruner, Piaget and Gagne helped explain the thinking involved in the science process and inspired the idea that science teaching could help develop this type of thinking in young people.

Although this development was found in its explicit form in the USA, it was soon echoed in many other countries ( Bates, 1978 ; Hofstein and Lunetta, 1982 ). Everywhere, laboratory and practical work became the focus. Kerr (1963) , in the UK, suggested that practical work (in chemistry education) should be integrated with theoretical work in the sciences and should be used for its contribution to provide facts through investigations and, consequently, to arriving at the principles related to these facts. This became a guiding principle in the many Nuffield curriculum projects that were developed in the late 1960s and early 1970s.

Science education research interest in practical work during this period is clearly demonstrated by Lazarowitz and Tamir (1994) in their review on laboratory work. They identified 37 reviews on issues of the laboratory in the context of science education ( Shulman and Tamir, 1973 ; Hofstein and Lunetta, 1982, 2004 ; Bryce and Robertson, 1985 ). These reviews expressed a similarly strong belief regarding the potential of practical work in the curriculum, but also recognized important difficulties in obtaining convincing data (based on research) on the educational effectiveness of such teaching and learning. Not surprisingly, the only area in which laboratory work showed a real advantage (when compared to the non-practical learning modes) was the development of manipulative laboratory skills to attain practical goals ( Hofstein and Lunetta, 1982 ). However, for conceptual understanding, critical thinking and understanding the NOS, there was little or no difference. Lazarowitz and Tamir (1994) suggested that one the reason for this relates to the use of inadequate assessment and research procedures. Quantitative research methods were not adequate for the research purpose but, at the time, qualitative research methods were generally disregarded in the science education community. Hofstein and Lunetta (1982) identified several methodological shortcomings in research designs: insufficient control over laboratory procedures (including laboratory manuals, teacher behavior and assessment of students’ achievement and progress in the laboratory), inappropriate samples and the use of measures that were not sensitive or relevant to laboratory processes and procedures. Another issue was that teaching practice in the laboratory did not change as easily to an open-ended style of teaching as the curriculum projects suggested. Rather, teachers preferred a safer ‘cookbook’ approach ( Tamir and Lunetta, 1981 ). Johnstone and Wham (1982) , relating to the chemistry laboratory, claimed that educators underestimated the high cognitive demand of practical work on the learner. During practical work, the student must handle a vast amount of information pertaining to the names of equipment and materials, instructions regarding the process and the collection of data and observations, thus overloading the student's working memory. This complicates laboratory learning, rather than providing a simple and safe way to learn.

Adding to this rather ominous picture, however, are some research studies and findings during this period that came to influence later developments. One area that was researched quite extensively concerns intellectual development . Renner and Lawson (1973) and Karplus (1977) (based on Piaget, 1970 ) developed the learning cycle , which consisted of the following stages: exploration , in which the student manipulates concrete materials; concept introduction , in which the teacher introduces scientific concepts; and concept application , in which the student investigates further questions and applies the new concept to novel situations. Many interpreters of Piaget's work ( e.g. , Karplus, 1977 ) inferred that work with concrete objects (provided in practical experiences) is an essential part of the development of logical thinking, particularly at the stage prior to the development of formal operations. Another important contribution was made by Kempa and Ward (1975) , who suggested a four-phase taxonomy to describe the overall process of practical work in the context of the chemistry laboratory: (1) planning an investigation (experiment), (2) carrying out the experiment, (3) observations and (4) analysis, application and explanation. In Israel, Tamir (1974) designed an inquiry-oriented laboratory examination in which the student was assessed on the bases of manipulation, self-reliance, observation, experimental design, communication and reasoning. These could serve as an organizer of laboratory objectives that could help in the design of meaningful instruments to assess outcomes of laboratory work. In addition, these had the potential to serve as a basis for continuous assessment of students’ achievements and progress and for the implementation of practical examinations ( Tamir, 1974 ; Ben-Zvi et al. , 1976 ).

1.1.3.2 Mid-1980s to 1990s: The Constructivist Influence

From the mid-1980s to mid-1990s, practical work was challenged in two different ways. One was related to an increasing awareness among science education researchers of a failure to establish the intended pedagogy in the reform projects from the previous period. This was expressed by Hurd (1983) and Yager (1984) , who reported that laboratory work in schools tended to focus on following instructions, getting the right answer, or manipulating equipment. Students failed to achieve the intended conceptual and procedural understanding. Very often, students failed to understand the relationship between the purpose of the investigation and the design of the experiments ( Lunetta et al. , 2007 ). In addition, there was little evidence that students were provided with opportunities and time to wrestle with the NOS and its alignment with laboratory work. Students seldom noted the discrepancies between their own concepts, their peers’ concepts and the concepts of the science community ( Eylon and Linn, 1988 ; Tobin, 1990 ). In summary, practical work meant manipulating equipment and materials, but not ideas.

The other challenge involved the theoretical underpinning of laboratory work. The process approach was challenged by a new perspective on science education known as constructivism . The constructivist era started in the late 1970s with increasing criticism of Piaget's influence on science education. New voices argued that too much attention was being paid to general cognitive skills in science learning and that science educators had missed the importance of students’ conceptual development ( e.g. , Driver and Easley, 1978 ).

The effects of this criticism can be followed in the UK in the aftermath of the Nuffield curriculum reform projects, which contributed to a strong foothold for the science laboratory. Beatty and Woolnough (1982) reported that 11- to 13-year-olds typically spent over half of their science lesson time doing practical activities. This was also the period of the Assessment of Performance Unit (APU), a national assessment project within a process-led theoretical framework ( Murphy and Gott, 1984 ) that later influenced the national curriculum and its aligned assessment system. In the 1980s, researchers began to question this practice and its theoretical underpinning considering the philosophical and sociological accounts associated with constructivism ( Millar and Driver, 1987 ). The argument was that the entire science education community had been misled by a naïve empiricist view of science, referred to by Millar (1989) as the Standard Science Education (SSE) ( NRC, 1996 ) view. The SSE view presented science as a simple application of a stepwise method and further related those steps to both intellectual and practical skills. In other words, by having the right skills and by applying ‘the scientific method’, anyone could develop scientific knowledge. With the rejection of this view of science inquiry, science educators needed an alternative, but finding this took some time and required a series of developments.

Two different attempts to develop alternative theoretical platforms appeared on the UK scene in the late 1980s to early 1990s. The first attempt took its inspiration from Polanyi's (1958) concept of ‘tacit knowledge’. This approach had similarities to the process approach but rejected the possibility of identifying individual processes ( Woolnough and Allsop, 1985 ). Rather, it was claimed that science is like ‘craftsmanship’ and that investigations should be treated like a ‘holistic process’ based on understandings that cannot be explicitly expressed. The belief was that inquiry at school with a trained scientist ( i.e. , the teacher) developed this craftsmanship and made students generally better problem solvers ( Watts, 1991 ). Retrospectively, we can see this approach as avoiding the challenge of identifying what it really means to do science by rendering the process hidden and mysterious.

The other theoretical approach also continued to regard science as a problem-solving process, but avoided the mistake made in previous theories of focusing too strongly on skills. Gott and Duggan (1995) claimed that the ability to do scientific inquiry was fundamentally based on procedural knowledge ( i.e. , the required understanding in knowing how to do science). When scientists carry out their research, they have a toolkit of knowledge about community standards and what procedures to follow to satisfy them. The aim of science inquiry is partly to find new theories, but also to establish evidence of a theory being ‘trustworthy’. They therefore claimed that students should be taught procedural understanding along with conceptual understanding, and then get practice in problem solving based on these two components.

At the end of this second period, constructivism was well established in science education. The teaching of skills and procedures of scientific inquiry had lost much of its status as science educators paid more attention to conceptual learning. One influential idea was the use of Predict–Observe–Explain (POE) tasks ( Gunstone and Baird, 1988 ). In these tasks, observations in the laboratory were used to challenge students’ ideas and help them develop explanations in line with the correct scientific theories. Gunstone (1991) and White (1991) also made other statements about the constructivist message for science laboratory teaching the claim that all observations are theory laden. This means that doing practical work does not guarantee adopting the right theoretical perspective. Students need to reflect on observations and experiences considering their conceptual knowledge. Tobin (1990) wrote that: “Laboratory activities appeal as a way of allowing students to learn with understanding and, at the same time, engage in the process of constructing knowledge by doing science” (p. 405). To attain this goal, he suggested that students be provided with opportunities in the laboratory to reflect on findings, clarify understandings and misunderstandings with peers, and consult a range of resources that would include teachers, books, and other learning materials. He claimed that such opportunities rarely exist because teachers are so often preoccupied with technical and managerial activities in the laboratory. Gunstone and Baird (1988) pointed to the importance of metacognition to bring about such and similar opportunities. White (1991) also argued that the laboratory helps students build ‘episodic’ memories that can support later development of conceptual knowledge.

1.1.3.3 The 1990s to Today: A New Era of Change—New Goals for the Science Laboratory

In the last 20 years, we have seen major changes in science education. These have been due, in part, to globalization and rapid technological development, which call for educational systems with high-quality science education to be competitive at an international level and develop the knowledge and competencies needed in modern society. In the USA, we have seen developments regarding ‘standards’ for science education ( NRC, 1996, 2005 ), which provide clear support for inquiry learning as both content and higher-order learning skills that include, in the laboratory context, planning an experiment, observing, asking relevant questions, hypothesizing, and analyzing experimental results ( Bybee, 2000 ). In addition, we have observed a high frequency of curriculum reforms internationally. A central point has been to make science education better adapted to the needs of all citizens ( American Association for the Advancement of Science [AAAS], 1995 ) (for details on higher-order learning and thinking skills, see Chapter 6 in this book).

It is recognized that citizens’ needs include more than just scientific knowledge. In everyday life, science is often involved in public debate and used as evidence to support political views. Science also frequently presents findings and information that challenge existing norms and ethical standards in society. For the most part, it is cutting-edge science and not established theories that are at play. For this reason, it does not help to know textbook science; rather, it is necessary to have knowledge about science. Citizens need to understand principles of scientific inquiry and how science operates at a social level ( Millar and Osborne, 1998 ). The natural question, of course, is to what degree, and in what ways, can the science laboratory help provide students with this type of understanding?

Another area of change in the recent period has been the further development of constructivist perspectives into sociocultural views of learning and of science. The sociocultural view of science emphasizes the social construction of science knowledge. Accordingly, scientific inquiry is seen to include a process in which explanations are developed to make sense of data, and then presented to a community of peers for critique, debate, and revision ( Duschl and Osborne, 2002 ). This reconceptualization of science from the individual to social perspective has fundamentally changed the view of experiments as a way of portraying the science method. Rather than seeing the procedural steps of the experiment as the scientific method, according to Driver et al. (1996) , practical work is now valued for its role in providing evidence for knowledge claims. The term scientific method, as such, has lost much of its value ( Jenkins, 2007 ).

All these changes have obvious relevance for practical work. Rather than training science specialists, the laboratory should now help the average citizen understand about science and develop skills that will be useful in evaluating scientific claims in everyday life. Rather than promoting the scientific method, the laboratory should focus on how we know what we know and why we believe certain statements rather than competing alternatives ( Grandy and Duschl, 2007 ). The sociocultural learning perspective also provides reasons to revisit group work in the school laboratory. Most importantly, the current changes have finally produced an alternative to the science process approach and the SSE view, Millar (1989) established 50 years ago. We now find a new rationale for understanding science inquiry and how this can be linked to laboratory work in schools.

The main goal of this chapter was to argue and demonstrate that the laboratory in science education is a unique learning environment ( Hofstein, 2004 ; Lunetta et al. , 2007 ). If designed in an articulated and purposeful manner with clear goals in mind, it has the potential to enhance some of the more important learning skills, such as learning by inquiry, metacognition and argumentation ( Hofstein et al. , 2004 ; Hofstein and Kind, 2012 ).

  • Campaigning and outreach
  • News and events
  • Awards and funding
  • Privacy policy
  • Journals and databases
  • Locations and contacts
  • Membership and professional community
  • Teaching and learning
  • Help and legal
  • Cookie policy
  • Terms and conditions
  • Get Adobe Acrobat Reader
  • Registered charity number: 207890
  • © Royal Society of Chemistry 2023

This Feature Is Available To Subscribers Only

Sign In or Create an Account

Library homepage

  • school Campus Bookshelves
  • menu_book Bookshelves
  • perm_media Learning Objects
  • login Login
  • how_to_reg Request Instructor Account
  • hub Instructor Commons
  • Download Page (PDF)
  • Download Full Book (PDF)
  • Periodic Table
  • Physics Constants
  • Scientific Calculator
  • Reference & Cite
  • Tools expand_more
  • Readability

selected template will load here

This action is not available.

Chemistry LibreTexts

General Lab Techniques

  • Last updated
  • Save as PDF
  • Page ID 2019

Welcome to the online depository for basic chemistry techniques.

  • Acid-Base Extraction An acid-base extraction is a type of liquid-liquid extraction. It typically involves different solubility levels in water and an organic solvent. The organic solvent may be any carbon-based liqiuid that does not dissolve very well in water; common ones are ether, ethyl acetate, or dichloromethane. Acid-base extraction is typically used to separate organic compounds from each other based on their acid-base properties.
  • Calibration of a Buret To carry out this procedure you will require, in addition to a volumetric buret, two clean, dry 125 mL Erlenmeyer flasks and one #5 rubber stopper.
  • Condensing Volatile Gases Ever had to run a reaction with a volatile gas? It's not a very common thing to have to do, but every once in a while, it needs to be done.
  • Cooling baths Cooling baths are used extensively in organic chemistry for a variety of reasons. The low temperature of these baths is determined both by the appropriate use of solvent as well as a cryogenic agent such as liquid nitrogen, dry ice  or ice. Temperatures between -20 and -80° can be obtained using varied mixtures of ethylene glycol and ethanol over dry ice.
  • Distillation Distillation of compounds is a method of separation which exploits the differences in boiling point of a crude mixture.  Several methods exist.
  • Distillation II Distillation is a method of purifying organic compounds. It takes advantage of the fact that two different compounds probably have two different boiling points. Suppose two different liquids are present in a homogeneous mixture (they are completely miscible, or they mix completely together, like water and alcohol). If they have two different boiling points, one of the compounds will evaporate before the other one does.
  • Drying Solvents hese days many laboratories will use a commercially available solvent purification system, others will distil solvents using more traditional techniques. Tetrahydrofuran, dichloromethane, dimethylformamide, chloroform, acetonitrile, methanol, diethyl ether and toluene are all commonly used solvents, and in many cases they are required in anhydrous form. In some cases there are multiple ways to dry a given solvent.
  • Fractional crystallization Fractional crystallization is a method of refining substances based on differences in solubility. It fractionates via differences in crystallization (forming of crystals). If a mixture of two or more substances in solution are allowed to crystallize, for example by allowing the temperature of the solution to decrease, the precipitate will contain more of the least soluble substance. The proportion of components in the precipitate will depend on their solubility products.
  • Heating a Crucible to Constant Weight Your first exercise teaches you some skills on the proper use of the laboratory burner (in this case called a Tirill Burner), the adjustment of the flame and the proper placement of a crucible which is to be heated to constant weight.
  • Solvent Partitioning (Liquid - Liquid Extraction)
  • Packing Normal Phase Columns
  • Precipitation from a Homogeneous Solution If a precipitating agent is produced over a long period of time in a homogeneous solution the level of supersaturation remains low and compact crystal precipitates usually result instead of coagulated colloids. The resulting suspension of precipitate is compact, crystalline and easily filtered, whereas a precipitate formed by the addition of a precipitating agent is not easily filtered owing to a high level of relative supersaturation at the point where the reagent is added.
  • Preparing your Filter Paper Folding a piece of filter paper for insertion into a conical filter consists of a simple set of steps shown here in the six photographs below.
  • Proper Use of a Buret The volumetric analysis exercises will make use of a 50 mL buret.
  • Proper Use of a Desiccator A desiccator is an airtight container which maintains an atmosphere of low humidity through the use of a suitable drying agent which occupies the bottom part of the desiccator. It is used both for the cooling of heated objects and for the storage of dry objects that must not be exposed to the moisture normally present in the atmosphere.
  • Proper Use of Balances For a chemical reaction to be successful, reactants must be added with accurate, specific masses, and products must be accurately weighed at the end of the reaction. Therefore, balances are of immense importance in a chemistry lab.
  • Quenching Reactions: Grignards
  • Quenching Reactions: Lithium Aluminium Hydride
  • Recrystallization
  • Reflux Reflux is a technique involving the condensation of vapors and the return of this condensate to the system from which it originated. It is used in industrial and laboratory distillations. It is also used in chemistry to supply heat to reactions over a long period of time.
  • Rotary Evaporation Rotary evaporation is the process of reducing the volume of a solvent by distributing it as a thin film across the interior of a vessel at elevated temperature and reduced pressure. This promotes the rapid removal of excess solvent from less volatile samples. Most rotary evaporators have four major components: heat bath, rotor, condenser, and solvent trap. An aspirator or vacuum pump needs to be attached, as well as a bump trap and round bottom flask containing the concentrated sample.
  • Chromatography Columns
  • Chromatography I: TLC
  • Acid-Base Titrations
  • Complexation Titration
  • Precipitation Titration
  • Redox Titration
  • Titration of a Strong Acid With A Strong Base
  • Titration of a Weak Acid with a Strong Base
  • Titration of a Weak Base with a Strong Acid
  • Titration of a Weak Polyprotic Acid
  • Use of a Volumetric Pipet Volumetric glassware is capable of measurements of volume that are good to four significant digits and is consequently expensive. You should be careful in handling this type of equipment so that breakage losses are minimized. Be particularly careful with the tips of pipets and burets.
  • Vacuum Equipment Vacuum equipment is used to generate, maintain, and manipulate pressures below that of the ambient atmosphere. Many common lab procedures require vacuum conditions, such as inert gas purging, cannulation, and solvent evaporation. Vacuum equipment often requires special care to maintain.
  • Vacuum Filtration Suction filtration is a chemistry laboratory technique which allows for a greater rate of filtration. Whereas in normal filtration gravity provides the force which draws the liquid through the filter paper, in suction filtration a pressure gradient performs this function. This has the advantage of offering a variable rate depending on the strength of the pump being used to extract air from the Büchner flask.

Resources to Teach and Learn Chemistry

The ChemCollective contains a collection of virtual labs , scenario-based learning activities , tutorials , and concept tests . Teachers can use our content for pre-labs, for alternatives to textbook homework, and for in-class activities for individuals or teams. Students can review and learn chemistry concepts using our virtual labs, simulations, and tutorials. ChemCollective is organized by Dr. David Yaron (Carnegie Mellon University) and Dr. Ryan Dwyer (University of Mount Union).

Virtual Labs

ChemCollective contains virtual labs that cover nearly the entire range of experiments used in high school and college general chemistry.

Here's an example of a titration performed in the virtual lab:

Students can perform calculations as they would in lab, or use the pH meter / concentration tables to check their understanding of the system.

Kinetics functionality has recently been added to the virtual lab - see Kinetics of the Persulfate-Iodide Clock Reaction for a virtual version of the popular general chemistry experiment (see Iodide Clock Reaction for an example).

OLI Chemistry

The Open Learning Initiative has courses covering General Chemistry I and General Chemistry II . Each module includes text, worked examples (including interactive worked examples), a multitude of thoughtfully scaffolded practice problems (with adaptive and targeted feedback), and assessments.

The integration of these components provides a seamless and interactive learning experience for your students. The courseware also provides instructors with data on student performance, which they can use to adapt their instruction to student needs.

OLI Chemistry is free for high schools ; for higher education, please contact OLI for more information.

The ChemCollective site and its contents are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 NonCommercial-NoDerivs License.

Home

  • Design Objectives
  • Building Types
  • Space Types
  • Design Disciplines
  • Guides & Specifications
  • Resource Pages
  • Project Management
  • Building Commissioning
  • Operations & Maintenance
  • Building Information Modeling (BIM)
  • Unified Facilities Guide Specifications (UFGS)
  • Unified Facilities Criteria (UFC)
  • VA Master Specifications (PG-18-1)
  • Design Manuals (PG-18-10)
  • Department of Energy
  • General Services Administration
  • Department of Homeland Security
  • Department of State
  • Course Catalog
  • Workforce Development
  • Case Studies
  • Codes & Standards
  • Industry Organizations

Research Laboratory  

by Daniel Watch and Deepa Tolat Perkins + Will

Within This Page

Building attributes, emerging issues, relevant codes and standards, additional resources.

Research Laboratories are workplaces for the conduct of scientific research. This WBDG Building Type page will summarize the key architectural, engineering, operational, safety, and sustainability considerations for the design of Research Laboratories.

The authors recognize that in the 21st century clients are pushing project design teams to create research laboratories that are responsive to current and future needs, that encourage interaction among scientists from various disciplines, that help recruit and retain qualified scientists, and that facilitates partnerships and development. As such, a separate WBDG Resource Page on Trends in Lab Design has been developed to elaborate on this emerging model of laboratory design.

A. Architectural Considerations

Over the past 30 years, architects, engineers, facility managers, and researchers have refined the design of typical wet and dry labs to a very high level. The following identifies the best solutions in designing a typical lab.

Lab Planning Module

The laboratory module is the key unit in any lab facility. When designed correctly, a lab module will fully coordinate all the architectural and engineering systems. A well-designed modular plan will provide the following benefits:

Flexibility —The lab module, as Jonas Salk explained, should "encourage change" within the building. Research is changing all the time, and buildings must allow for reasonable change. Many private research companies make physical changes to an average of 25% of their labs each year. Most academic institutions annually change the layout of 5 to 10% of their labs. See also WBDG Productive—Design for the Changing Workplace .

  • Expansion —The use of lab planning modules allows the building to adapt easily to needed expansions or contractions without sacrificing facility functionality.

A common laboratory module has a width of approximately 10 ft. 6 in. but will vary in depth from 20–30 ft. The depth is based on the size necessary for the lab and the cost-effectiveness of the structural system. The 10 ft. 6 in. dimension is based on two rows of casework and equipment (each row 2 ft. 6 in. deep) on each wall, a 5 ft. aisle, and 6 in. for the wall thickness that separates one lab from another. The 5 ft. aisle width should be considered a minimum because of the requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) .

Two-Directional Lab Module —Another level of flexibility can be achieved by designing a lab module that works in both directions. This allows the casework to be organized in either direction. This concept is more flexible than the basic lab module concept but may require more space. The use of a two-directional grid is beneficial to accommodate different lengths of run for casework. The casework may have to be moved to create a different type or size of workstation.

Three-Dimensional Lab Module —The three-dimensional lab module planning concept combines the basic lab module or a two-directional lab module with any lab corridor arrangement for each floor of a building. This means that a three-dimensional lab module can have a single-corridor arrangement on one floor, a two-corridor layout on another, and so on. To create a three-dimensional lab module:

  • A basic or two-directional lab module must be defined.
  • All vertical risers must be fully coordinated. (Vertical risers include fire stairs, elevators, restrooms, and shafts for utilities.)
  • The mechanical, electrical, and plumbing systems must be coordinated in the ceiling to work with the multiple corridor arrangements.

Lab Planning Concepts

The relationship of the labs, offices, and corridor will have a significant impact on the image and operations of the building. See also WBDG Functional—Account for Functional Needs .

Do the end users want a view from their labs to the exterior, or will the labs be located on the interior, with wall space used for casework and equipment?

Some researchers do not want or cannot have natural light in their research spaces. Special instruments and equipment, such as nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) apparatus, electron microscopes, and lasers cannot function properly in natural light. Natural daylight is not desired in vivarium facilities or in some support spaces, so these are located in the interior of the building.

Zoning the building between lab and non-lab spaces will reduce costs. Labs require 100% outside air while non-lab spaces can be designed with re-circulated air, like an office building .

Adjacencies with corridors can be organized with a single, two corridor (racetrack), or a three corridor scheme. There are number of variations to organize each type. Illustrated below are three ways to organize a single corridor scheme:

Diagram of a single corridor lab with labs and office adjacent to each other

Single corridor lab design with labs and office adjacent to each other.

Diagram of a single corridor lab design with offices clustered together at the end and in the middle

Single corridor lab design with offices clustered together at the end and in the middle.

Diagram of a single corridor lab design with office clusters accessing main labs directly

Single corridor lab design with office clusters accessing main labs directly.

  • Open labs vs. closed labs. An increasing number of research institutions are creating "open" labs to support team-based work. The open lab concept is significantly different from that of the "closed" lab of the past, which was based on accommodating the individual principle investigator. In open labs, researchers share not only the space itself but also equipment, bench space, and support staff. The open lab format facilitates communication between scientists and makes the lab more easily adaptable for future needs. A wide variety of labs—from wet biology and chemistry labs, to engineering labs, to dry computer science facilities—are now being designed as open labs.

Flexibility

In today's lab, the ability to expand, reconfigure, and permit multiple uses has become a key concern. The following should be considered to achieve this:

Flexible Lab Interiors

Equipment zones—These should be created in the initial design to accommodate equipment, fixed, or movable casework at a later date.

Generic labs

Mobile casework—This can be comprised of mobile tables and mobile base cabinets. It allows researchers to configure and fit out the lab based on their needs as opposed to adjusting to pre-determined fixed casework.

Drawing of mobile casework showing adjustable height shelves, shelves with vertical support which are easily removable, grommet to drop down power/data cords, table frame ht. adjustable from 26

Mobile casework

Mobile base cabinet Photo Credit: Kewaunee Scientific Corp.

Flexible partitions—These can be taken down and put back up in another location, allowing lab spaces to be configured in a variety of sizes.

Overhead service carriers—These are hung from the ceiling. They can have utilities like piping, electric, data, light fixtures, and snorkel exhausts. They afford maximum flexibility as services are lifted off the floor, allowing free floor space to be configured as needed.

Flexible Engineering Systems

Photo of labs designed with overhead connects and disconnects

Lab designed with overhead connects and disconnects allow for flexibility and fast hook up of equipment.

Labs should have easy connects/disconnects at walls and ceilings to allow for fast and affordable hook up of equipment. See also WBDG Productive—Integrate Technological Tools .

The Engineering systems should be designed such that fume hoods can be added or removed.

Space should be allowed in the utility corridors, ceilings, and vertical chases for future HVAC, plumbing, and electric needs.

Building Systems Distribution Concepts

Interstitial space.

An interstitial space is a separate floor located above each lab floor. All services and utilities are located here where they drop down to service the lab below. This system has a high initial cost but it allows the building to accommodate change very easily without interrupting the labs.

Schematic drawing of conventional design vs. intersitial design

Conventional design vs. interstitial design Image Credit: Zimmer, Gunsul, Frasca Partnership

Service Corridor

Lab spaces adjoin a centrally located corridor where all utility services are located. Maintenance personnel are afforded constant access to main ducts, shutoff valves, and electric panel boxes without having to enter the lab. This service corridor can be doubled up as an equipment/utility corridor where common lab equipment like autoclaves, freezer rooms, etc. can be located.

B. Engineering Considerations

Typically, more than 50% of the construction cost of a laboratory building is attributed to engineering systems. Hence, the close coordination of these ensures a flexible and successfully operating lab facility. The following engineering issues are discussed here: structural systems, mechanical systems, electrical systems, and piping systems. See also WBDG Functional—Ensure Appropriate Product/Systems Integration .

Structural Systems

Once the basic lab module is determined, the structural grid should be evaluated. In most cases, the structural grid equals 2 basic lab modules. If the typical module is 10 ft. 6 in. x 30 ft., the structural grid would be 21 ft. x 30 ft. A good rule of thumb is to add the two dimensions of the structural grid; if the sum equals a number in the low 50's, then the structural grid would be efficient and cost-effective.

Drawing of a typical lab structural grid

Typical lab structural grid.

Key design issues to consider in evaluating a structural system include:

  • Framing depth and effect on floor-to-floor height;
  • Ability to coordinate framing with lab modules;
  • Ability to create penetrations for lab services in the initial design as well as over the life of the building;
  • Potential for vertical or horizontal expansion;
  • Vibration criteria; and

Mechanical Systems

The location of main vertical supply/exhaust shafts as well as horizontal ductwork is very crucial in designing a flexible lab. Key issues to consider include: efficiency and flexibility, modular design, initial costs , long-term operational costs , building height and massing , and design image .

The various design options for the mechanical systems are illustrated below:

Diagram of shafts in the middle of the building

Shafts in the middle of the building

Diagram of shafts at the end of the building

Shafts at the end of the building

Diagram of exhaust at end and supply in the middle

Exhaust at end and supply in the middle

Diagram of multiple internal shafts

Multiple internal shafts

Diagram of shafts on the exterior

Shafts on the exterior

See also WBDG High Performance HVAC .

Electrical Systems

Three types of power are generally used for most laboratory projects:

Normal power circuits are connected to the utility supply only, without any backup system. Loads that are typically on normal power include some HVAC equipment, general lighting, and most lab equipment.

Emergency power is created with generators that will back up equipment such as refrigerators, freezers, fume hoods, biological safety cabinets, emergency lighting, exhaust fans, animal facilities, and environmental rooms. Examples of safe and efficient emergency power equipment include distributed energy resources (DER) , microturbines , and fuel cells .

An uninterruptible power supply (UPS) is used for data recording, certain computers, microprocessor-controlled equipment, and possibly the vivarium area. The UPS can be either a central unit or a portable system, such as distributed energy resources (DER) , microturbines , fuel cells , and building integrated photovoltaics (BIPV) .

See also WBDG Productive—Assure Reliable Systems and Spaces .

The following should be considered:

  • Load estimation
  • Site distribution
  • Power quality
  • Management of electrical cable trays/panel boxes
  • User expectations
  • Illumination levels
  • Lighting distribution-indirect, direct, combination
  • Luminaire location and orientation-lighting parallel to casework and lighting perpendicular to casework
  • Telephone and data systems

Piping Systems

There are several key design goals to strive for in designing laboratory piping systems:

  • Provide a flexible design that allows for easy renovation and modifications.
  • Provide appropriate plumbing systems for each laboratory based on the lab programming.
  • Provide systems that minimize energy usage .
  • Provide equipment arrangements that minimize downtime in the event of a failure.
  • Locate shutoff valves where they are accessible and easily understood.
  • Accomplish all of the preceding goals within the construction budget.

C. Operations and Maintenance

Cost savings.

The following cost saving items can be considered without compromising quality and flexibility:

  • Separate lab and non-lab zones.
  • Try to design with standard building components instead of customized components. See also WBDG Functional—Ensure Appropriate Product/Systems Integration .
  • Identify at least three manufacturers of each material or piece of equipment specified to ensure competitive bidding for the work.
  • Locate fume hoods on upper floors to minimize ductwork and the cost of moving air through the building.
  • Evaluate whether process piping should be handled centrally or locally. In many cases it is more cost-effective to locate gases, in cylinders, at the source in the lab instead of centrally.
  • Create equipment zones to minimize the amount of casework necessary in the initial construction.
  • Provide space for equipment (e.g., ice machine) that also can be shared with other labs in the entry alcove to the lab. Shared amenities can be more efficient and cost-effective.
  • Consider designating instrument rooms as cross-corridors, saving space as well as encouraging researchers to share equipment.
  • Design easy-to-maintain, energy-efficient building systems. Expose mechanical, plumbing, and electrical systems for easy maintenance access from the lab.
  • Locate all mechanical equipment centrally, either on a lower level of the building or on the penthouse level.
  • Stack vertical elements above each other without requiring transfers from floor to floor. Such elements include columns, stairs, mechanical closets, and restrooms.

D. Lab and Personnel Safety and Security

Protecting human health and life is paramount, and safety must always be the first concern in laboratory building design. Security-protecting a facility from unauthorized access-is also of critical importance. Today, research facility designers must work within the dense regulatory environment in order to create safe and productive lab spaces. The WBDG Resource Page on Security and Safety in Laboratories addresses all these related concerns, including:

  • Laboratory classifications: dependent on the amount and type of chemicals in the lab;
  • Containment devices: fume hoods and bio-safety cabinets;
  • Levels of bio-safety containment as a design principle;
  • Radiation safety;
  • Employee safety: showers, eyewashes, other protective measures; and
  • Emergency power.

See also WBDG Secure / Safe Branch , Threat/Vulnerability Assessments and Risk Analysis , Balancing Security/Safety and Sustainability Objectives , Air Decontamination , and Electrical Safety .

E. Sustainability Considerations

The typical laboratory uses far more energy and water per square foot than the typical office building due to intensive ventilation requirements and other health and safety concerns. Therefore, designers should strive to create sustainable , high performance, and low-energy laboratories that will:

  • Minimize overall environmental impacts;
  • Protect occupant safety ; and
  • Optimize whole building efficiency on a life-cycle basis.

For more specific guidance, see WBDG Sustainable Laboratory Design ; EPA and DOE's Laboratories for the 21st Century (Labs21) , a voluntary program dedicated to improving the environmental performance of U.S. laboratories; WBDG Sustainable Branch and Balancing Security/Safety and Sustainability Objectives .

F. Three Laboratory Sectors

There are three research laboratory sectors. They are academic laboratories, government laboratories, and private sector laboratories.

  • Academic labs are primarily teaching facilities but also include some research labs that engage in public interest or profit generating research.
  • Government labs include those run by federal agencies and those operated by state government do research in the public interest.
  • Design of labs for the private sector , run by corporations, is usually driven by the need to enhance the research operation's profit making potential.

G. Example Design and Construction Criteria

For GSA, the unit costs for this building type are based on the construction quality and design features in the following table   . This information is based on GSA's benchmark interpretation and could be different for other owners.

LEED® Application Guide for Laboratory Facilities (LEED-AGL)—Because research facilities present a unique challenge for energy efficiency and sustainable design, the U.S. Green Building Council (USGBC) has formed the LEED-AGL Committee to develop a guide that helps project teams apply LEED credits in the design and construction of laboratory facilities. See also the WBDG Resource Page Using LEED on Laboratory Projects .

The following agencies and organizations have developed codes and standards affecting the design of research laboratories. Note that the codes and standards are minimum requirements. Architects, engineers, and consultants should consider exceeding the applicable requirements whenever possible.

  • 29 CFR 1910.1450: OSHA "Occupational Exposures to Hazardous Chemicals in Laboratories"
  • ANSI/ASSE/AIHA Z9.5 Laboratory Ventilation
  • ANSI/ISEA Z358.1 Emergency Eyewash and Shower Equipment
  • Association for Assessment and Accreditation of Laboratory Animal Care (AAALAC) Standards
  • Biosafety in Microbiological and Biomedical Laboratories (BMBL) 5th Edition , Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and National Institutes of Health.
  • GSA PBS-P100 Facilities Standards for the Public Buildings Service
  • Guidelines for the Laboratory Use of Chemical Carcinogens , Pub. No. 81-2385. National Institutes of Health
  • NIH Design Requirements Manual , National Institutes of Health
  • NFPA 30 Flammable and Combustible Liquids Code
  • NFPA 45 Fire Protection for Laboratories using Chemical
  • Unified Facilities Guide Specifications (UFGS) —organized by MasterFormat™ divisions, are for use in specifying construction for the military services. Several UFGS exist for safety-related topics.

Publications

  • Building Type Basics for Research Laboratories , 2nd Edition by Daniel Watch. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 2008. ISBN# 978-0-470-16333-7.
  • CRC Handbook of Laboratory Safety , 5th ed. by A. Keith Furr. CRC Press, 2000.
  • Design and Planning of Research and Clinical Laboratory Facilities by Leonard Mayer. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1995.
  • Design for Research: Principals of Laboratory Architecture by Susan Braybrooke. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1993.
  • Guidelines for Laboratory Design: Health and Safety Considerations , 4th Edition by Louis J. DiBerardinis, et al. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 2013.
  • Guidelines for Planning and Design of Biomedical Research Laboratory Facilities by The American Institute of Architects, Center for Advanced Technology Facilities Design. Washington, DC: The American Institute of Architects, 1999.
  • Handbook of Facilities Planning, Vol. 1: Laboratory Facilities by T. Ruys. New York, NY: Van Nostrand Reinhold, 1990.
  • Laboratories, A Briefing and Design Guide by Walter Hain. London, UK: E & FN Spon, 1995.
  • Laboratory by Earl Walls Associates, May 2000.
  • Laboratory Design from the Editors of R&D Magazine.
  • Laboratory Design, Construction, and Renovation: Participants, Process, and Product by National Research Council, Committee on Design, Construction, and Renovation of Laboratory Facilities. Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 2000.
  • Planning Academic Research Facilities: A Guidebook by National Science Foundation. Washington, DC: National Science Foundation, 1992.
  • Research and Development in Industry: 1995-96 by National Science Foundation, Division of Science Resources Studies. Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation, 1998.
  • Science and Engineering Research Facilities at Colleges and Universities by National Science Foundation, Division of Science Resources Studies. Arlington, VA, 1998.
  • Laboratories for the 21st Century (Labs21) —Sponsored by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S. Department of Energy, Labs21 is a voluntary program dedicated to improving the environmental performance of U.S. laboratories.

WBDG Participating Agencies

laboratory for research in chemistry

National Institute of Building Sciences Innovative Solutions for the Built Environment 1090 Vermont Avenue, NW, Suite 700 | Washington, DC 20005-4950 | (202) 289-7800 © 2024 National Institute of Building Sciences. All rights reserved. Disclaimer

laboratory for research in chemistry

Indiana University Bloomington Indiana University Bloomington IU Bloomington

Alumni Journal →

ALUMNI JOURNAL

Laboratory for Biological Mass Spectrometry

The Laboratory for Biological Mass Spectrometry is located in Simon Hall 115 as well as Chemistry 235. It houses equipment for mass spectrometric characterization of proteins, lipids, carbohydrates and metabolites. Major instrumentation include a Synapt G2 HDMS, an LTQ Orbitrap, an LTQ Velos Pro and a QTRAP 4000. The Laboratory performs a variety of analyses. It specializes in the identification and characterization of protein-interactions, protein post-translational modifications, and quantitative comparisons of complex samples.

chem.indiana.edu/bms

U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it's official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you're on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

  • Publications
  • Account settings
  • Browse Titles

NCBI Bookshelf. A service of the National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health.

StatPearls [Internet]. Treasure Island (FL): StatPearls Publishing; 2024 Jan-.

Cover of StatPearls

StatPearls [Internet].

Clinical laboratory.

Marlon L. Bayot ; John E. Lopes ; Muhammad Zubair ; Prisha Naidoo .

Affiliations

Last Update: January 26, 2024 .

  • Definition/Introduction

Clinical laboratories are healthcare facilities providing a wide range of laboratory procedures that aid clinicians in diagnosing, treating, and managing patients. [1] These laboratories are manned by scientists trained to perform and analyze tests on samples of biological specimens collected from patients. 

In addition, clinical laboratories may employ pathologists, clinical biochemists, laboratory assistants, laboratory managers, biomedical scientists, medical laboratory technicians, medical laboratory assistants, phlebotomists, and histology technicians. [2]  Most clinical laboratories are situated within or near hospital facilities to provide access to clinicians and their patients. [1]

Classifications of clinical laboratories indicated below reveal that these facilities provide quality laboratory tests that are significant for addressing medical and public health needs.

The list below is non-exhaustive as new laboratory models are emerging:

  • Government (usually part of hospitals and medical centers under the Department of Pathology or Laboratory Medicine)
  • Private (part of a medical or healthcare institution)
  • General clinical laboratories provide standard diagnostic laboratory tests
  • Specialty laboratories provide less commonly used diagnostic and confirmatory tests
  • Clinical chemistry
  • Clinical Microbiology
  • Blood banking and serology (ie, Immunohematology, Transfusion medicine)
  • Histopathology and cytopathology
  • Molecular biology
  • Public health: providing tests such as water analysis and testing for environmental toxins
  • Peripheral laboratories provide routine screening, diagnostic (eg, conventional and rapid diagnostic tests), and follow-up tests for patients, usually within the local community [3]
  • May conduct additional tests than those provided in peripheral laboratories and can serve as referral laboratories for special cases. 
  • Aside from performing tests, they perform management and supervisory tasks under specific areas of jurisdiction. [4]
  • Policy and program implementation
  • Training and development
  • Monitoring, evaluation, and research [1]

In the past, the value of clinical laboratories as an integral part of the healthcare system was unrecognized. [5]  Over time, more clinicians have recognized the need for laboratory tests to confirm their diagnoses and support monitoring patient response to therapy. [6]  Aside from value to individual patients, clinical laboratories were also used for screening and surveillance of diseases. On a larger scale, program managers used some relevant tests as surrogate indicators to assess the progress of public, international, and global health programs. [7]

Laboratory networks were developed across countries and states to foster coordination and collaboration within the specified geographic areas. [8]  Quality management systems within these laboratories have recently become significant issues, including standardization of laboratory services, strengthening laboratory systems, and developing new and rapid diagnostic tools. These issues are continually addressed by local and international health authorities and technical experts employing a patient-centered approach.

Clinical laboratories perform testing logically and strictly. Generally, there are 3 phases of the laboratory testing process that each facility should follow. Standard operating procedure manuals and job aids are written for guidance for each phase step: pre-analytical, analytical, and post-analytical. [9]  The pre-analytical phase is critical, with over 60% to 70% of laboratory errors occurring in this phase. [10]  

Clinical laboratory professionals have embraced technology over the years to derive answers to clinical questions. Modern clinical laboratories use technologies, including spectrophotometry, atomic absorption spectroscopy, cytometry, flame emission photometry, nephelometry, electrochemical, optical sensors, electrophoresis, and chromatography.

  • Spectrophotometry is a technique used to measure the absorbance of colored compounds in solution, helping to identify and quantify various substances in blood and body fluids. [11]
  • Atomic absorption spectroscopy (AAS): a vital tool in clinical analysis, enabling the measurement of metallic element concentrations within biological fluids and tissues like whole blood, plasma, urine, saliva, brain tissue, liver, hair, and muscle tissue. [12]
  • Cytometry is a technique to measure the properties of individual cells, such as size, shape, and DNA content, which can help diagnose and monitor conditions like cancer or genetic disorders. [13]
  • Flame emission photometry: a technique to measure the emission of light from a sample excited by a flame, helping to identify and quantify compounds in blood and body fluids. [14]
  • Nephelometry is a technique to measure the turbidity of a solution, which helps diagnose and monitor conditions like liver disease or kidney failure. [15]
  • Electrochemical technologies are used to measure the electrical properties of a solution, such as pH, conductivity, and redox potential, which help diagnose and monitor conditions like acid-base disorders or electrolyte imbalances. [16]
  • Optical sensor technologies: use   sensors that detect and measure various properties of a sample using light, such as refractive index or fluorescence, which helps identify and quantify various substances in biological fluids. [17]
  • Electrophoresis is a technique to separate and analyze proteins in a sample, which helps diagnose and monitor conditions like multiple myeloma or amyotrophic lateral sclerosis. [18]
  • Chromatography is a technique that helps identify and quantify different components in blood and bodily fluids by separating and analyzing compounds in a sample according to their molecular properties, such as size, charge, or shape. [19]

The landscape of clinical laboratory operations has transformed due to the integration of automation, impacting both the analytical and non-analytical aspects. This transition towards automation commenced over 5 decades ago, focusing on automating laboratory test procedures. [20] However, the true leap occurred in the 1990s when non-analytical automation gained momentum, featuring conveyor systems, interfaced analyzers, and automated specimen processing and storage. Automation in the clinical laboratory is classified into 3 categories: manual, stand-alone automation (modular), and total lab automation (TLA). [21]

Automation has a wide-ranging impact, improving laboratory ordering, testing, and reporting processes while eliminating tedious and time-consuming chores. [22] It has ushered in a new era of heightened productivity by streamlining the use of reagents and materials, standardizing operations, and reducing the occurrence of outliers. The efficiency increases production rates and improves accuracy and precision in test results. Automation is a cornerstone in modern clinical laboratories, revolutionizing operations and elevating the overall quality of laboratory testing. [23]

Clinical laboratory specialists perform an array of tasks, including developing and validating new laboratory tests, assessing and defining the analytical and clinical performance, conveying laboratory results to clinicians, offering valuable education and guidance to the clinical team, evaluating the cost-effectiveness and intrinsic value, ensuring strict compliance with regulatory standards, engaging in quality assurance measures, and participating in both basic and clinical research endeavors. [24]  

The laboratory professional must maintain the confidentiality of medical information, use resources appropriately, abide by codes of conduct, follow ethical publishing rules, and manage and disclose conflicts of interest. [25]

  • Issues of Concern

Providing high-quality diagnostic testing is the goal of all clinical laboratories. Improving laboratory capacity is crucial to address various issues and problems. Managing resources, training, supervision, planning, budgeting, quality assurance, logistics and supply, and biosafety and equipment management are necessary to optimize laboratory services provided to patients. [25]

In 2018, the World Health Organization developed and released the Essential Diagnostics List (EDL). This list was expected to align the health community to the accessibility and availability of high-quality testing of clinical laboratories, especially in resource-limited settings. [26]  Using the EDL with essential medicines list (EML), authorities can now focus their efforts so that people receive the necessary laboratory services. [27]

Accreditation for clinical laboratories was recently relevant due to the emergence of international laboratory standards. Several guidelines for laboratories have been developed to regulate laboratory test procedures and maintain their quality. [28]  An example of laboratory accreditation is the ISO 15189 provided by the International Organization for Standardization (ISO), which focuses on meeting the requirements for the quality and competence of medical laboratories. [29]  Another example is biosafety guidelines around microbiological agents such as bacteria, viruses, parasites, and microbiological products. [30]

The need for risk management in clinical laboratories was highlighted to maintain the accuracy and reliability of laboratory tests. The Clinical Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI) developed a guideline to introduce risk management principles specifically in the clinical laboratory. [31]  From risk assessment to risk analysis, evaluation, and control to continuous quality improvement, the clinical laboratory should be able to minimize errors along its path of the workflow (ie, preanalytic, analytic, and postanalytic phases). Significant risks such as specimen collection, processing, and disposal of laboratory wastes should be considered. [32]

A laboratory information system (LIS) is valuable in managing results and other pertinent information regarding patients and their samples. [33] The development of a laboratory information system started in the 1960s, concentrating on data reduction, analog-digital conversion, and radioimmunoassay analysis. Recently, the focus has evolved into digital histopathology and genomics, issues about patient access to data, and more. [34]  In a rapidly changing environment for the modalities of patient record systems, there is a need for collaboration between clinical systems developers and laboratory-based informaticians to modify and improve the existing technology to meet patient needs.

  • Clinical Significance

As the challenges faced by clinical laboratories rise, clinicians should be aware of the impact on their patients. While patients and people in the community are not well aware, the function and mandate of clinical laboratories remain the same: the provision of high-quality laboratory diagnostic tests.

Improving existing laboratory services should not be overlooked when developing newer diagnostic tests. [35]  Health authorities at the global level and stakeholders, including clinicians, experts, and other healthcare professionals at the local level, must recognize that clinical laboratories affect the most important clients of healthcare: patients. [36]  

  • Nursing, Allied Health, and Interprofessional Team Interventions

In the clinical laboratory setting, the collaborative efforts of various healthcare professionals, including physicians, advanced practitioners, nurses, pharmacists, and allied health experts, are instrumental in patient-centered care and outcomes. Nurses play a pivotal role by utilizing their skills in patient advocacy, attention to detail, and specimen collection. They contribute significantly to ethical considerations, ensuring patient confidentiality and dignity in all laboratory procedures. Alongside nurses, allied health professionals and pharmacists exhibit expertise in managing and interpreting laboratory results, informing diagnosis and treatment.

Interprofessional communication is a cornerstone, facilitating seamless critical information exchanges among team members, leading to enhanced care coordination and patient safety. This collaborative approach ensures the timely delivery of laboratory results to clinicians, empowering informed clinical decisions. As a result, the clinical laboratory becomes an integral part of the healthcare ecosystem, promoting patient-centered care, fostering improved team performance, and ultimately elevating patient outcomes.

  • Review Questions
  • Access free multiple choice questions on this topic.
  • Comment on this article.

Disclosure: Marlon Bayot declares no relevant financial relationships with ineligible companies.

Disclosure: John Lopes declares no relevant financial relationships with ineligible companies.

Disclosure: Muhammad Zubair declares no relevant financial relationships with ineligible companies.

Disclosure: Prisha Naidoo declares no relevant financial relationships with ineligible companies.

This book is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0) ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ ), which permits others to distribute the work, provided that the article is not altered or used commercially. You are not required to obtain permission to distribute this article, provided that you credit the author and journal.

  • Cite this Page Bayot ML, Lopes JE, Zubair M, et al. Clinical Laboratory. [Updated 2024 Jan 26]. In: StatPearls [Internet]. Treasure Island (FL): StatPearls Publishing; 2024 Jan-.

In this Page

Bulk download.

  • Bulk download StatPearls data from FTP

Related information

  • PMC PubMed Central citations
  • PubMed Links to PubMed

Similar articles in PubMed

  • Preference of saliva over other body fluids as samples for clinical and laboratory investigations among healthcare workers in Ibadan, Nigeria. [Pan Afr Med J. 2019] Preference of saliva over other body fluids as samples for clinical and laboratory investigations among healthcare workers in Ibadan, Nigeria. Lasisi TJ, Lawal FB. Pan Afr Med J. 2019; 34:191. Epub 2019 Dec 11.
  • [Mycobacterial tests]. [Kekkaku. 2008] [Mycobacterial tests]. Takashima T, Higuchi T. Kekkaku. 2008 Jan; 83(1):43-59.
  • Assessment of laboratory logistics management information system practice for HIV/AIDS and tuberculosis laboratory commodities in selected public health facilities in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. [Pan Afr Med J. 2013] Assessment of laboratory logistics management information system practice for HIV/AIDS and tuberculosis laboratory commodities in selected public health facilities in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. Desale A, Taye B, Belay G, Nigatu A. Pan Afr Med J. 2013; 15:46. Epub 2013 Jun 8.
  • Review Value-added laboratory medicine in an era of managed care. [Clin Chem. 1995] Review Value-added laboratory medicine in an era of managed care. McDonald JM, Smith JA. Clin Chem. 1995 Aug; 41(8 Pt 2):1256-62.
  • Review [View of a Laboratory Physician on the Present and Future of Clinical Laboratories]. [Rinsho Byori. 2014] Review [View of a Laboratory Physician on the Present and Future of Clinical Laboratories]. Matsuo S. Rinsho Byori. 2014 Oct; 62(10):988-92.

Recent Activity

  • Clinical Laboratory - StatPearls Clinical Laboratory - StatPearls

Your browsing activity is empty.

Activity recording is turned off.

Turn recording back on

Connect with NLM

National Library of Medicine 8600 Rockville Pike Bethesda, MD 20894

Web Policies FOIA HHS Vulnerability Disclosure

Help Accessibility Careers

statistics

Ohio State nav bar

Ohio state navigation bar.

  • BuckeyeLink
  • Search Ohio State

Chemistry Education

Chemistry education broadly focuses on three interconnected research threads: (1) investigating processes of chemistry learning, teaching and ways of being; (2) determining the efficacy and fidelity of interventions with robustly designed assessments and instruments; and (3) leveraging evidence, theory, and philosophy to advance experiences in chemistry. The Chemistry Education faculty at The Ohio State University draw upon multiple fields of study and uses qualitative, quantitative, and mixed method approaches to better understand and support learning and teaching from cognitive, affective, and sociocultural perspectives. Within the division, you will find various projects involving engagement with students, teaching assistants, faculty, curricular design principles, professional development, policy, and systems undergirding higher education.

Research Areas

  • Equity- and justice-based research
  • Identity research
  • Participatory action research

Josie Nardo

Josie Nardo

We investigate learning environments in terms of understanding students' belonging and rightful presence in chemistry and STEM fields broadly by using lenses that engage with structures and power. Our research leverages decolonizing approaches in qualitative and quantitative methods to understand how the lived experiences of students who are historically underserved can inform our understanding of oppressive norms and practices of chemistry. We intend to use our research to work with stakeholders and community-academic partners to support systemic change. 

  • Chemistry Education Research
  • Place-Based Pedagogies
  • Belonging and Rightful Presence

Matthew Wu

We investigate enacted laboratory pedagogy in the micro-moments between teaching assistants and students. Our research leverages video-based research principles, post-qualitative analysis, as well as education theory and philosophy to transform laboratory curriculum, develop novel instructional resources, and advance equity/excellence in chemistry. Our goal is to empower both students and teaching assistants for world readiness and realize a chemistry that is meaningfully for all.

  • Research-based Instructional Strategies
  • Professional Development

share this!

March 25, 2024

This article has been reviewed according to Science X's editorial process and policies . Editors have highlighted the following attributes while ensuring the content's credibility:

fact-checked

peer-reviewed publication

trusted source

Scientists deliver quantum algorithm to develop new materials and chemistry

by Nicholas E. M. Pasquini, Naval Research Laboratory

Scientists deliver quantum algorithm to develop new materials and chemistry

U.S. Naval Research Laboratory (NRL) scientists have published the Cascaded Variational Quantum Eigensolver (CVQE) algorithm in a recent Physical Review Research article. The algorithm is expected to become a powerful tool to investigate the physical properties in electronic systems.

The CVQE algorithm is a variant of the Variational Quantum Eigensolver (VQE) algorithm that only requires the execution of a set of quantum circuits once rather than at every iteration during the parameter optimization process, thereby increasing the computational throughput.

"Both algorithms produce a quantum state close to the ground state of a system, which is used to determine many of the system's physical properties," said John Stenger, Ph.D., a Theoretical Chemistry Section research physicist. "Calculations that previously took months can now be performed in hours."

The CVQE algorithm uses a quantum computer to probe the needed probability mass functions and a classical computer to perform the remaining calculations, including the energy minimization.

"Finding the minimum energy is computationally hard as the size of the state space grows exponentially with the system size," said Steve Hellberg, Ph.D., a Theory of Advanced Functional Materials Section research physicist. "Except for very small systems, even the world's most powerful supercomputers are unable to find the exact ground state."

To address this challenge, scientists use a quantum computer with a qubit register, whose state space also increases exponentially, in this case with qubits. By representing the states of a physical system on the state space of the register, a quantum computer can be used to simulate the states in the exponentially large representation space of the system.

Scientists deliver quantum algorithm to develop new materials and chemistry

Data can subsequently be extracted by quantum measurements. As quantum measurements are not deterministic, the quantum circuit executions must be repeated multiple times to estimate probability distributions describing the states, a process known as sampling. Variational quantum algorithms, including the CVQE algorithm, identify trial states by a set of parameters that are optimized to minimize the energy.

"The key difference between the original VQE method and the new CVQE method is that the sampling and optimization processes have been decoupled in the latter such that the sampling can be performed exclusively on the quantum computer and the parameters processed exclusively on a classical computer," said Dan Gunlycke, D.Phil., Theoretical Chemistry Section Head, who also leads the NRL quantum computing effort.

"The new approach also has other benefits. The form of the solution space does not have to comport with the symmetry requirements of the qubit register, and therefore, it is much easier to shape the solution space and implement symmetries of the system and other physically motivated constraints, which will ultimately lead to more accurate predictions of electronic system properties," Gunlycke continued.

Quantum computing is a component of quantum science, which has been designated as a Critical Technology Area within the USD(R&E) Technology Vision for an Era of Competition by the Under Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering Heidi Shyu.

"Understanding the properties of quantum-mechanical systems is essential in the development of new materials and chemistry for the Navy and Marine Corps," Gunlycke said. "Corrosion, for instance, is an omnipresent challenge costing the Department of Defense billions every year. The CVQE algorithm can be used to study the chemical reactions causing corrosion and provide critical information to our existing anticorrosion teams in their quest to develop better coatings and additives."

For decades, NRL has been conducting fundamental research in quantum science, which has the potential to yield disruptive Defense technologies for precision, navigation, and timing; quantum sensing; quantum computing; and quantum networking.

Journal information: Physical Review Research

Provided by Naval Research Laboratory

Explore further

Feedback to editors

laboratory for research in chemistry

GPT-4 for identifying cell types in single cells matches and sometimes outperforms expert methods

58 minutes ago

laboratory for research in chemistry

Stunning James Webb images show birth and death of massive stars

laboratory for research in chemistry

Species diversity found to be directly correlated with productivity in eastern US forests

2 hours ago

laboratory for research in chemistry

Pushing back the limits of optical imaging by processing trillions of frames per second

3 hours ago

laboratory for research in chemistry

How many zebrafish constitute a school? 'Three,' say physicists

laboratory for research in chemistry

How wild is the Bengal cat genome?

laboratory for research in chemistry

Astronauts have surprising ability to know how far they 'fly' in space

laboratory for research in chemistry

Scientific drilling unravels historical mystery surrounding Santorini volcanic archipelago

laboratory for research in chemistry

Quantum interference could lead to smaller, faster, and more energy-efficient transistors

laboratory for research in chemistry

Caller ID of the sea: Novel method of simultaneous acoustic tagging provides insight into whale communication

4 hours ago

Relevant PhysicsForums posts

How do quantum fluctuations affect the formation and evolution of structures in the universe.

8 hours ago

How many spots will a rotating Stern-Gerlach apparatus produce?

22 hours ago

About nature of superposition of states

Mar 24, 2024

Infinite momentum is impossible, boundary term in integration by parts

Mar 23, 2024

is information lost or not?

Mar 22, 2024

Are Superposition, the Uncertainty Principle, and Duality the same?

More from Quantum Physics

Related Stories

laboratory for research in chemistry

Better and faster design of organic light-emitting materials with machine learning and quantum computing

Jul 13, 2023

laboratory for research in chemistry

New theory hints at more efficient way to develop quantum algorithms

Aug 31, 2020

laboratory for research in chemistry

Toward a quantum computer that calculates molecular energy

Mar 16, 2022

laboratory for research in chemistry

Quantum computer programming for dummies

Jun 14, 2022

laboratory for research in chemistry

Progress in algorithms makes small, noisy quantum computers viable

Aug 13, 2021

laboratory for research in chemistry

Combining classical and quantum computing opens door to new discoveries

Jun 15, 2021

Recommended for you

laboratory for research in chemistry

The world is one step closer to secure quantum communication on a global scale

10 hours ago

laboratory for research in chemistry

Entanglement entropies of nuclear systems found to grow as the volume of those systems

7 hours ago

laboratory for research in chemistry

Beyond cloning: Harnessing the power of virtual quantum broadcasting

laboratory for research in chemistry

Study outlines spectroscopic signatures of fractionalization in octupolar quantum spin ice

laboratory for research in chemistry

Putting a new spin on 1T phase tantalum disulfide: Scientists uncover a hidden electronic state

laboratory for research in chemistry

Discovery of a hidden quantum critical point in two-dimensional superconductors

Let us know if there is a problem with our content.

Use this form if you have come across a typo, inaccuracy or would like to send an edit request for the content on this page. For general inquiries, please use our contact form . For general feedback, use the public comments section below (please adhere to guidelines ).

Please select the most appropriate category to facilitate processing of your request

Thank you for taking time to provide your feedback to the editors.

Your feedback is important to us. However, we do not guarantee individual replies due to the high volume of messages.

E-mail the story

Your email address is used only to let the recipient know who sent the email. Neither your address nor the recipient's address will be used for any other purpose. The information you enter will appear in your e-mail message and is not retained by Phys.org in any form.

Newsletter sign up

Get weekly and/or daily updates delivered to your inbox. You can unsubscribe at any time and we'll never share your details to third parties.

More information Privacy policy

Donate and enjoy an ad-free experience

We keep our content available to everyone. Consider supporting Science X's mission by getting a premium account.

E-mail newsletter

Artificial intelligence helps explore chemistry frontiers

Machine learning helps simulate reactive molecular dynamics for research and discovery.

March 20, 2024

2024-03-20

The ability to simulate the behavior of systems at the atomic level represents a powerful tool for everything from drug design to materials discovery. A team led by Los Alamos National Laboratory researchers has developed machine learning interatomic potentials that predict molecular energies and forces acting on atoms, enabling simulations that save time and expense compared with existing computational methods.

“Machine learning potentials increasingly offer an effective alternative to computationally expensive simulations that try to represent complex physical systems on the atomic scale,” said Benjamin Nebgen, Los Alamos chemical physicist and co-author of a recent Nature Chemistry paper describing the work. “A general reactive machine learning interatomic potential, applicable to a broad range of reactive chemistry without the need for refitting, will greatly benefit chemistry and materials science.”

Bridging the gap in effective simulations

Building effective simulations for molecular dynamics in chemistry is traditionally done with physics-based computational models, including classical force fields or quantum mechanics. While quantum mechanical models are accurate and generally applicable, they are extremely computationally expensive. By contrast, classical force fields are computationally efficient, but of relatively low accuracy and only applicable to a limited range of systems. ANI-1xnr, the team’s transformational machine learning model, bridges the gap in speed, accuracy and generality that has existed in chemistry for many decades. (Machine learning is an application of artificial intelligence where computer programs “learn” through training.)

ANI-1xnr represents the first reactive machine learning interatomic potential general enough — it can be applied to many different chemical systems — to compete with physics-based computational models for performing large-scale reactive atomistic simulations. ANI-1xnr was developed using an automated workflow that performed reactive molecular dynamics simulations over a wide range of chemical systems containing carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen and oxygen elements.

ANI-1xnr proved capable of studying a diverse range of systems, from carbon phase transitions to combustion to prebiotic chemistry. The team validated the simulations by comparing them with results from experiments and from conventional computational techniques.

2024-03-20

A transformational interatomic potential

“ANI-1xnr does not require domain expertise or refitting for every new use case, enabling scientists from a diverse range of domains to study unknown chemistry,” said Richard Messerly, computational scientist at Los Alamos and co-corresponding author of the paper. “The general applicability of ANI-1xnr is transformational, representing a significant step toward replacing the long-standing modeling techniques for studying reactive chemistry at scale.” 

The data set used by the team and the ANI-1xnr code has been made publicly available to the research community.  

Paper : “Exploring the frontiers of condensed-phase chemistry with a general reactive machine learning potential.” Nature Chemistry. DOI: 10.1038/s41557-023-01427-3

Funding : The work was supported by the DOE Office of Science, Basic Energy Sciences’ Chemical Sciences, Geosciences, and Biosciences Division and by the Laboratory Directed Research and Development program at Los Alamos. Work at Los Alamos was performed in part at the Center for Nonlinear Studies and at the Center for Integrated Nanotechnologies, a DOE Office of Science user facility. This research used resources provided by Los Alamos’ Institutional Computing Program.

LA-UR-24-22501

Brian Keenan (505) 412-8561 [email protected]

Related Stories

Browse by topic.

  • Awards and Recognitions
  • Climate Science
  • Environmental Stewardship

More Stories

Subscribe to our newsletter.

Sign up to receive the latest news and feature stories from Los Alamos National Laboratory

IMAGES

  1. Hamilton Hall Chemistry Laboratory Design

    laboratory for research in chemistry

  2. How to Plan & Design a Laboratory Layout for Any Science Lab

    laboratory for research in chemistry

  3. Free photo: Science lab

    laboratory for research in chemistry

  4. Professional practice points in chemistry laboratories

    laboratory for research in chemistry

  5. Scientist in lab doing medical research. Laboratory worker pour liquid

    laboratory for research in chemistry

  6. Top 10 Tips for Successful Lab Design

    laboratory for research in chemistry

VIDEO

  1. Functional Groups and Basic Chemical Tests

  2. A Laboratory manual " basic science " ( chemistry ) ( 311305 ). k scheme. MSBTE board.fy polytechnic

  3. Chemistry Safety

  4. LAB LIFE

  5. Research Laboratory| Chemistry Student #researchscholar #medicalstudent #neetexam #neet2024

  6. Chemistry Laboratory Work #chemistry #science #practical

COMMENTS

  1. Undergraduate Research in Chemistry Guide

    There are many benefits to undergraduate research, but the most important are: Learning, learning, learning. Most chemists learn by working in a laboratory setting. Information learned in the classroom is more clearly understood and it is more easily remembered once it has been put into practice. This knowledge expands through experience and ...

  2. Undergraduate Research in Chemistry

    Undergraduate Research in Chemistry. Undergraduate research in chemistry is self-directed experimentation work under the guidance and supervision of a mentor or advisor. Students participate in an ongoing research project and investigate phenomena of interest to them and their advisor. There is a broad range of research areas in the chemical ...

  3. Laboratory

    A program should provide students with the opportunity to complete approximately 400 hours of lab work that builds on introductory, in class laboratory experiences. Undergraduate research or chemistry adjacent courses (on or off campus) can account for up to 180 of the required 400 laboratory hours. Lab experiences reflect current standards and ...

  4. Top 10 institutions for chemistry in 2018

    Tsinghua's chemistry research is conducted by the Department of Chemistry, Department of Chemical Engineering and the School of Materials Science and Engineering, and has a strong industry ...

  5. Lab Curriculum

    5.39: Research and Communication in Chemistry. This is an independent research class under the direction of a member of the Chemistry Department faculty. It allows students with a strong interest in independent research to fulfill part of the laboratory requirement for the Chemistry Department Program in the context of a research laboratory at MIT.

  6. ACS Publications

    Introductory course that establishes a consistent lab safety mindset and provides students with a foundation to understand lab safety protocols and potential hazards. ACS In Focus Dynamic digital publications that help readers of all levels accelerate their fundamental understanding of emerging chemistry topics and techniques.

  7. The Future of Laboratory Chemistry Learning and Teaching Must be

    This commentary is a call to make the future of chemistry laboratories accessible and inclusive. We draw from research and lived experience to put forward a list of recommendations for laboratory-based teaching. Our authorial team includes undergraduate and postgraduate chemistry students, graduate teaching assistants, teaching-focused and traditional research and teaching academics, and a ...

  8. Chemistry Laboratory Techniques

    Learning Resource Types. "Chemistry Laboratory Techniques" consists of intensive practical training in basic chemistry lab techniques, and is intended to provide first year MIT students with the skills necessary to undertake original research projects in chemistry. (Photo by Elizabeth R. McGrath, Communications and Development Coordinator ...

  9. The science of designing a modern laboratory

    Designing a laboratory from scratch is no small undertaking, but if done right, it's worth the effort, says Peter Licence, a University of Nottingham chemist. He is also the inaugural director ...

  10. Laboratory Chemistry

    This course introduces experimental chemistry for students who are not majoring in chemistry. The course covers principles and applications of chemical laboratory techniques, including preparation and analysis of chemical materials, measurement of pH, gas and liquid chromatography, visible-ultraviolet spectrophotometry, infrared spectroscopy, nuclear magnetic resonance, mass spectrometry ...

  11. Laboratory Research Projects in Undergraduate Environmental and

    Inquiry- and context-based learning (IBL and CBL, respectively) can lead to improved student outcomes, including increased motivation and interest, the development of critical thinking skills, and improved assessment results. This study outlines the application of IBL research projects in third-year university Environmental Chemistry and Analytical Chemistry subjects that also incorporate ...

  12. Introduction, History, and Definition of Laboratories

    Lecturers emphasized student knowledge of the facts, and science laboratories were not yet accepted as part of higher education. For example, when Benjamin Silliman set up the first chemistry laboratory at Yale in 1847, he paid rent to the college for use of the building and equipped it at his own expense (Whitman, 1898, p. 201).

  13. Chemistry Laboratory: Introduction, Importance, Features

    A chemistry laboratory or chemistry lab is a very crucial place to conduct a lot of research and experiment for solving real-world problems. It is able to know the failure mechanisms and superior performance of materials from this place. New or alternative materials are characterized easily in chemical laboratories.

  14. The history of chemical laboratories: a thematic approach

    The research laboratories of BASF in Ludwigshafen were closely modelled on their academic counterparts, while the laboratory that the dye firm Bayer established in 1891 was rather utilitarian with more of a feeling of an industrial building. ... So the hallmark of any school chemistry laboratory up to the 1970s was the (usually very dirty) Kipp ...

  15. The Role of the Laboratory in Chemistry Teaching and Learning

    The research suggests that laboratory experiences will be more likely to achieve these goals if they (1) are designed with clear learning outcomes in mind, (2) are thoughtfully sequenced into the flow of classroom science instruction, (3) integrate learning of science content and process, and (4) incorporate ongoing student reflection and ...

  16. The Future of Laboratory Chemistry Learning and Teaching Must be

    Abstract. This commentary is a call to make the future of chemistry laboratories accessible and inclusive. We draw from research and lived experience to put forward a list of recommendations for laboratory-based teaching. Our authorial team includes undergraduate and postgraduate chemistry students, graduate teaching assistants, teaching ...

  17. General Lab Techniques

    Vacuum Filtration. Suction filtration is a chemistry laboratory technique which allows for a greater rate of filtration. Whereas in normal filtration gravity provides the force which draws the liquid through the filter paper, in suction filtration a pressure gradient performs this function.

  18. GUIDELINES FOR LABORATORY DESIGN

    Laboratory Types, 160 8.3 Wind Tunnel Laboratory, 161 8.4 Jet and Rocket Propulsion Laboratory, 162 8.5 Hydraulics Laboratory, 164 8.6 Material Analysis and Testing Laboratory, 165 8.7 Electrical Circuits, Motors, and Generators Laboratory, 165 8.8 Foundry Laboratory, 167 8.9 Internal Combustion and Gas Turbine Engine Laboratory, 169

  19. ChemCollective

    Resources to Teach and Learn Chemistry. The ChemCollective contains a collection of virtual labs, scenario-based learning activities, tutorials, and concept tests. Teachers can use our content for pre-labs, for alternatives to textbook homework, and for in-class activities for individuals or teams. Students can review and learn chemistry ...

  20. Research Laboratory

    A wide variety of labs—from wet biology and chemistry labs, to engineering labs, to dry computer science facilities—are now being designed as open labs. ... Guidelines for Planning and Design of Biomedical Research Laboratory Facilities by The American Institute of Architects, Center for Advanced Technology Facilities Design. Washington, DC ...

  21. Laboratory for Biological Mass Spectrometry :Department of Chemistry

    The Laboratory for Biological Mass Spectrometry is located in Simon Hall 115 as well as Chemistry 235. It houses equipment for mass spectrometric characterization of proteins, lipids, carbohydrates and metabolites. Major instrumentation include a Synapt G2 HDMS, an LTQ Orbitrap, an LTQ Velos Pro and a QTRAP 4000. The Laboratory performs a ...

  22. Clinical Laboratory

    Definition/Introduction. Clinical laboratories are healthcare facilities providing a wide range of laboratory procedures that aid clinicians in diagnosing, treating, and managing patients. [1] These laboratories are manned by scientists trained to perform and analyze tests on samples of biological specimens collected from patients.

  23. REU Program

    The Chemistry Department's REU summer research program focuses on broad and interdisciplinary projects related to the topic of Reimagining the Chemical Heartland: Chemistry for a Changing Gulf Coast. In our program, students become full members of a research group, carrying out fundamental and applied research on topics that span the chemical ...

  24. Chemistry Education

    Matthew Wu. We investigate enacted laboratory pedagogy in the micro-moments between teaching assistants and students. Our research leverages video-based research principles, post-qualitative analysis, as well as education theory and philosophy to transform laboratory curriculum, develop novel instructional resources, and advance equity/excellence in chemistry.

  25. Scientists deliver quantum algorithm to develop new materials and chemistry

    U.S. Naval Research Laboratory (NRL) scientists have published the Cascaded Variational Quantum Eigensolver (CVQE) algorithm in a recent Physical Review Research article. The algorithm is expected ...

  26. Application of a Cognitive Task Framework to Characterize Opportunities

    Undergraduate chemistry laboratory instruction can be considered from many perspectives and addresses multiple educational aims. We critically assess an inventory of "Cognitive Tasks of Experimental Research" for its applicability to chemistry laboratory teaching, and then apply it to an integrated upper-level laboratory course as an example subject. We note patterns in the prevalence of ...

  27. Facilitating Laboratory Research Experience Using Reticular Chemistry

    Rapid development in the field of reticular chemistry has allowed scientists ever-increasing control over the design and synthesis of crystalline porous materials. The promise that this field has in the development of next-generation materials for numerous applications (gas storage and separation, catalysis, chemical sensing, electronics) relies on the effective training of new scientists in ...

  28. NRL Scientists Deliver Quantum Algorithm To Develop New Materials and

    Washington - U.S. Naval Research Laboratory (NRL) scientists published the Cascaded Variational Quantum Eigensolver (CVQE) algorithm in a recent Physical Review Research article, expected to become a powerful tool to investigate the physical properties in electronic systems. The CVQE algorithm is a variant of the Variational Quantum Eigensolver (VQE) algorithm that only requires the ...

  29. Artificial intelligence helps explore chemistry frontiers

    Nature Chemistry. DOI: 10.1038/s41557-023-01427-3. Funding: The work was supported by the DOE Office of Science, Basic Energy Sciences' Chemical Sciences, Geosciences, and Biosciences Division and by the Laboratory Directed Research and Development program at Los Alamos. Work at Los Alamos was performed in part at the Center for Nonlinear ...

  30. NRL Scientists Deliver Quantum Algorithm to ...

    U.S. Naval Research Laboratory (NRL) scientists published the Cascaded Variational Quantum Eigensolver (CVQE) algorithm in a recent Physical Review Research article, expected to become a powerful tool