student active learning methods in general chemistry

Research: Science and Education

120 Journal of Chemical Education • Vol. 76 No. 1 January 1999 • JChemEd.chem.wisc.edu

Introduction

A major focus of current reform efforts in chemicaleducation is the development of pedagogical methods tofacilitate active learning, particularly in large lower-divisionlecture courses (1). Inspired primarily by the work of ArthurB. Ellis (2) and John C. Wright (3) at the University ofWisconsin–Madison and David M. Hanson at SUNY StonyBrook (4), I initiated the use of student active learningmethods (SAL) in off-sequence sections of Chemistry 120 and130, the two semesters of the mainstream general chemistrycourse at the University of Tennessee, Knoxville. The courseused a standard textbook, General Chemistry, by DarrellEbbing (5). (The 4th edition was used for Chemistry 130during the fall semester of 1996; the 5th edition was usedfor Chemistry 120 during the spring semester of 1997.)Chemistry 120 covers the bulk of the first 12 chapters of Ebbing,while Chemistry 130 selectively covers the remaining chapters.The enrollment at the beginning of the semester for Chemistry130 was about 140 students and for Chemistry 120 was about160 students. Both courses met twice a week for lectures andwere divided into sections of 24 or fewer students that metonce a week for a 50-minute discussion and once a week fora three-hour laboratory. The discussion and laboratory sessionswere conducted by graduate teaching assistants (GTA).

Following Wright (3), I introduced the following SALfeatures to the course:

1. An absolute grading scale introduced at the beginningof the semester.

2. Use of ConcepTests, an informal cooperative learningtechnique, in the lectures.

3. Biweekly cooperative learning workshops modeled onthe successful program developed by David M. Hansonat SUNY Stony Brook (4 ).

4. Cooperative take-home examinations (three take-homeexaminations were given in Chemistry 130; one wasgiven in Chemistry 120).

5. A student advisory committee to discuss the progressof the course regularly with the instructor.

As part of a project to develop materials for the teaching ofwriting in the chemistry curriculum, I assigned four one-pageessays to the students in Chemistry 120 during the springsemester (6 ). In the spring-semester Chemistry 120 course Iencouraged the students to form out-of-class study groupsand provided a suggested study group assignment for eachchapter of the textbook. These techniques were explained tothe students at the beginning of the course both orally andin a detailed course syllabus.

Student Active-Learning Methods

The absolute grading scale was announced at the begin-ning of the course in an attempt to reduce competition. Weoften hear the complaint from students that another student“broke the curve” by earning a very high score on an exam.

With a preannounced grading scale, there should be no reasonnot to cooperate with other students in the learning process;the success of other students in the class does not diminishyour own. I also emphasized from the first day that we had amutual goal, for all students to earn an A in the course, andthat we should work together to achieve it.

ConcepTests modeled on those developed by Ellis andcoworkers (2) were used in nearly every lecture in bothcourses. The number used depended on the subject matterand the pace of the lecture. As many as four appeared in somelectures. In a few lectures, particularly those in which descrip-tive chemistry was being covered, no ConcepTests were used.The ConcepTests were prepared on overhead transparenciesand projected at the appropriate times during the lecture.Students were asked to answer the question, a poll of responseswas taken by show of hands, and, in most cases, studentswere asked to discuss the answer with a neighbor. The dis-cussion was usually initiated by a statement like, “Turn toyour neighbor and convince him or her that your answer iscorrect.” After a second poll of answers, I provided closureby discussing the reasoning behind the correct answer andthe possible reasons for an incorrect response. Occasionally Iwould ask a student to provide the explanation for the correctanswer. The ConcepTests developed for this course have beencontributed to the Chemistry ConcepTest Web site at theUniversity of Wisconsin (http://www.chem.wisc.edu/~concept).

There are several advantages to the ConcepTest meth-odology. First, the lecturer receives immediate feedback aboutstudent learning. If most of the students answer the ques-tion correctly, it is safe to assume that they understand thematerial you have just covered. If most get the answer wrong,you probably need to review. Second, the discussions, whichare a form of informal cooperative learning, allow the studentsto teach each other. Often students can help each other tounderstand better than the instructor can. Third, the in-classdiscussions break up the monotony of the lecture and engagestudents in active participation in the class. Finally, use ofConcepTests communicates the message that the universityis a community where both students and faculty should sharethe responsibility for learning.

The disadvantage of ConcepTests, of course, is that theytake precious lecture time. Using them does require that lessmaterial be covered in the lecture. Those more experiencedin the use of this technique maintain that even though lessis covered, there is better understanding. This is a questionthat needs to be further explored. Writing good ConcepTestsis not easy, but an increasing number are available on theChemistry ConcepTest Web site. A final issue is that theConcepTests require the lecturer to adopt a more interactiveand flexible teaching style which, for some, may be unfamiliar.

Approximately every other week, the discussion periodwas devoted to a cooperative learning workshop. I preparedproblem sheets drawing heavily on the work of David M.Hanson (7 ) and Richard S. Moog and John J. Farrell (8).

Student Active Learning Methods in General Chemistry

Jeffrey KovacDepartment of Chemistry, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN 37996-1600

Research: Science & Education

JChemEd.chem.wisc.edu • Vol. 76 No. 1 January 1999 • Journal of Chemical Education 121

Students were divided into groups of four and assignedspecific roles: manager, spokesperson, recorder, and strategyanalyst. The roles were rotated from week to week. To allevi-ate complaints from students that they were “stuck in a badgroup for the entire semester”, the groups were changed aftereach of the two in-class exams. Absences also caused groupsto be reconstituted on an ad hoc basis. To force cooperation,each group received only one copy of the problem sheet. (Inan earlier attempt to use the workshop method I discoveredthat providing each student with a problem sheet oftenresulted in a “parallel play” situation in which each studentwould try to work the problems independently and theneither ask for help or confirmation.) Each group was expectedto work together to provide a single answer to the problemsor questions. Near the end of the session, a simultaneousreporting technique was used to review the correct answers.Each group was asked to put the answer to one problem onthe blackboard. The GTA then quickly reviewed the publicanswers to make sure there was understanding.

In a 50-minute period, it was not always possible forthe groups to work through all the problems or questions,nor was there always sufficient time for the reporting procedure.Since the students were graded on process rather than on thenumber of problems solved correctly, the lack of time didnot result in complaints about grading, but it did diminishthe educational value of some workshops. Copies of the work-

shop problem sheets were made available to students whowished to work the unfinished problems out of class. Recently,SUNY Stony Brook has increased the class time for work-shops (at student request!) from 50 to 80 minutes, whichhelps alleviate these pressures (Hanson, D. M., private com-munication).

For each workshop, the groups were asked to reflect ontheir group process skills by answering some process-relatedquestions. They were also asked to provide a self-evaluationgrade of 3, 4, or 5. An example of the form used for theseevaluations is given in Table 1. If the grade was judged to beaccurate by the GTA, it was doubled. If not, it remained thesame. The GTA was also encouraged to award up to 5 bonuspoints to groups that worked well together. The total gradefor the session was 0–15 points and was based entirely on theprocess, not the number of correct answers to the problems.In Chemistry 130 there were eight workshops during thesemester, which were divided into two sets of four. In each set,the best three grades were taken, summed, and normalizedto 100 points. The two aggregate workshop grades wereweighted the same as the five discussion quizzes given duringthe semester. In Chemistry 120, there were seven workshops.The two lowest grades were dropped and the remaininggrades, normalized to 100 points, were weighted the same astwo discussion quizzes.

The cooperative learning workshops require the GTA toadopt a new teaching style. In the workshop the instructoracts as a facilitator, encouraging and asking leading questionsrather than providing information. The GTAs adapted wellto the change and seemed to enjoy this new mode of teach-ing (9). I did meet with them before each workshop todiscuss potential problems. The process grading of theworkshops is also more subjective and it was necessary to haveseveral discussions before the group came to agreement abouthow to assign the grades. The major concern was establishingconsistency in the awarding of bonus points so that studentsin different sections felt they were being treated fairly. Even-tually we adopted a system in which 3, 4, or 5 bonus pointswere awarded for average, above-average, and superior per-formance in the workshop. A grade of 0 was reserved for thosegroups that were off task and needed to be reminded of theirpurpose.

Writing good workshop materials is time-consuming.Fortunately, the books by Hanson (7 ) and Moog andFarrell (8) are available to provide guidance, at least in gen-eral chemistry.

To build on the workshop experience, the students inChemistry 120 were encouraged to form out-of-class studygroups. A mechanism was devised (a notebook filled withcourse schedules) to help students find others who wantedto form study groups. I prepared a suggested study groupassignment for each chapter. The end-of-semester surveyrevealed that about 60 students participated in these informalstudy groups and almost all found them valuable.

In Chemistry 130, a cooperative take-home exam wasdistributed one to two weeks before each of the three majorexams in the course: two hour exams and the final. Studentswere encouraged to work together on these exams, but eachstudent was asked to submit a personal set of answers. Theseexams were designed to help students prepare for the upcomingin-class exam, but included more challenging questions. Mygoal was to stimulate students to think deeply about the

Table 1. Self-Assessment Form (adapted from ref 4)Chemistry 120, Spring 1997, Workshop #1GROUP MEMBERS

We verify that we all agree and understand the solutions to theseproblems.MANAGER: _______________keeps the group on task, distributes work and responsibilities.SPOKESPERSON: _______________presents the results of the group to the rest of the classRECORDER: _______________records efforts and prepares written resultsSTRATEGY ANALYST: ________________assures that all group members participate and understand,identifies problem solving strategies and methods, identifies whatthe group is doing well and what needs improvement.ASSESSMENT: Provide your self-assessed grade for the session (3, 4, or5): _______ (NOTE: instructor’s grade will depend on whether self-assessed grade is reasonable.) What is the rationale for your self-assessed grade?Instructor’s grade:_______ Total grade: _______Instructor’s Comments: _______On the back of this sheet answer the following assess-ment questions.1. List two strengths in the function of your group.2. List one improvement that could be made in the function of yourgroup.REPORT OF THE STRATEGY ANALYST (Use a separate sheet toanswer the following questions in consultation with yourgroup):1. Identify how dimensional analysis was used to solve one of theproblems.2. What should you do when you encounter a problem that youcannot solve at first sight?REPORT OF THE RECORDER (Complete in consultation with yourgroup. Use a separate sheet): Please provide a report of themethod of solution for each problem and a clear, concise, writtenanswer to all discussion questions. The written report must beagreed upon by all members of the group.



course material. These exams were graded and the scoresweighted the same as an in-class quiz. Based on the experienceof the fall semester and because I was also assigning theone-page essays, I gave only one take-home exam duringChemistry 120. It was distributed about halfway throughthe semester and students were given three weeks to completethe problems. The take-home exam was given the same weightas each of the two in-class exams.

With take-home exams there is a danger of cheating.Since the take-home exams constituted a small percentageof the total grade I chose not to worry about academicdishonesty, assuming that those who did not do their ownwork would probably do poorly on the in-class exams. In caseswhere we suspected that students did not do their own workon a take-home exam, the score on the in-class exams reflectedtheir lack of independent study.

In Chemistry 120 I assigned four one-page “micro-themes” during the semester. Students were given one weekto write the papers. The assignments were designed to helpthe students think through some of the important conceptsin the course. I graded the papers myself using a holisticmethod (10). I read all the papers quickly, then read them asecond time more carefully. During the second reading Iclassified them into six groups with scores of 6 (high) to 1(low) based both on content and the clarity of the prose. Idid not make detailed comments on the papers. To helpstudents learn what was expected, the best papers were posted(with the names removed) on the course bulletin board.

Finally, I invited students to participate in a “studentadvisory committee” that would meet weekly with me todiscuss the progress of the course. The goal was to receiveregular feedback about the pedagogical experiments and howthe course was progressing. In the fall semester, the regularmeeting was scheduled for the hour after the weekly labora-tory. Unfortunately, because students finish their lab workat different times and are eager to leave, the meetings werepoorly attended and eventually abandoned. I did receiveuseful comments from the students who came to the meetings.In the spring semester I scheduled the meeting for the halfhour immediately following the weekly discussion, but thestudents did not attend meetings at this time either. JohnWright’s (3) experience is that the student advisory committeeor board of directors is very valuable, so I plan to experimentfurther with this idea.

Evaluation

At the end of the two courses I asked the students toevaluate the SAL methods using the questionnaires in Table2. The results, displayed in Tables 3a and 3b, show that the peda-gogical innovations were, on the whole, quite successful. Thestudents viewed the ConcepTests and the cooperative learningworkshops as valuable. In both classes more than 64% of therespondents agreed or strongly agreed that these two SALmethods were helpful in learning the course material, whileless than 13% disagreed. The absolute grading scale was alsoviewed as a positive innovation. From individual discussionswith students and from their written free responses, it is clearthat both the workshops and the ConcepTests helped themlearn chemistry and made the course less intimidating.

In Chemistry 130 the cooperative take-home exams wereless successful, however. Students did not view them as

helpful. In their free responses the complaint was that thecooperative exams were “too difficult” or took “too muchtime”. I thought that the challenging problems would stimu-late the students to review the material in depth and thatunderstanding would translate into success on the in-classexams. With this class, my hypothesis was incorrect, at leastfor a large fraction of the students. This caused me to rethink

Table 2. Evaluation FormsChemistry 130, Fall 1996Evaluation of Instructional MethodsIn this course I have used several new (for me) instructional methodsthat I would like you to evaluate. These include (1) use of anabsolute grading scale, (2) “ConcepTests”—questions and problemsput on the overhead during lecture with opportunities for students todiscuss the questions with their neighbors, (3) cooperative learningworkshops during discussion periods, and (4) cooperative take-homeexaminations.Please respond to the following statements on a scale of 1 to 5.1 = strongly agree 4 = disagree2 = agree 5 = strongly disagree3 = neutral___ 1. Having an absolute grading scale announced at the

beginning of the semester was helpful.___ 2. The “ConcepTests” used in the lecture helped me learn the

course material.___ 3. The cooperative learning workshops were valuable learning

experiences.___ 4. The cooperative take-home exams were valuable learning

experiences.___ 5. The overall format of the course helped me learn chemistry.___ 6. I have a more positive image of chemistry than I did when I

began the course.Please write any comments, positive or negative, that you haveabout the course in the space below. You can continue on the backif necessary. Suggestions for improvement will be appreciated.Chemistry 120, Spring 1997Evaluation of Instructional MethodsIn this course I have used several new (for me) instructional methodsthat I would like you to evaluate. Please respond to the followingstatements on a scale of 1 to 5.1 = strongly agree 4 = disagree2 = agree 5 = strongly disagree3 = neutral___ 1. Having an absolute grading scale announced at the

beginning of the semester was helpful.___ 2. The “ConcepTests” used in the lecture helped me learn the

course material.___ 3. The cooperative learning workshops were valuable learning

experiences.___ 4. The cooperative take-home exam was a valuable learning

experience.___ 5. The writing assignments were valuable learning experiences.___ 6. The overall format of the course helped me learn chemistry.___ 7. I have a more positive image of chemistry than I did when I

began the course.The following questions concern the optional study groups.

8. Did you participate in a study group? Yes ___ No ______ 9. If you participated in a study group, please rate the study

group experience from 1 (not useful) to 5 (valuable).10. Did you use the suggested study group assignments?

Yes ___ No ______11. If you used the suggested study group assignments, please

rate them on a scale of 1 (not useful) to 5 (valuable).Please write any comments, positive or negative, that you haveabout the course on the back of this sheet. Suggestions forimprovement will be appreciated. Thanks for your cooperation.

Research: Science & Education

JChemEd.chem.wisc.edu • Vol. 76 No. 1 January 1999 • Journal of Chemical Education 123

my approach to the take-home exams. Context-rich problemscan be a valuable learning tool, but not for students who arealgorithmic learners. Algorithmic learners need more straight-forward exercises that directly apply to exam problems. Thecooperative take-home exams need to include a mix ofproblems and a grading scheme that rewards the best studentswho can take advantage of the context-rich problems whilenot penalizing the otherwise good student who is still in thealgorithmic learning stage.

stluseRnoitaulavE021yrtsimehC.b3elbaT

-seuQnoit.oN

erocS naeMerocS1 2 3 4 5

sesnopserforebmuN( a/ latotfoegatnecreP )1 /75 05 /03 62 /81 61 /5 4 /5 4 8.1

2 /52 32 /54 14 /23 92 /7 6 /1 1 2.2

3 /45 74 /14 63 /61 41 /1 1 /2 2 7.1

4 /42 12 /63 13 /32 02 /42 12 /8 7 6.2

5 /6 5 /71 51 /81 61 /53 13 /83 33 7.3

6 /61 41 /95 15 /33 92 /4 3 /3 3 3.2

7 /52 22 /23 82 /63 23 /21 11 /8 7 5.2

8 85oN55seY

9 /2 4 /3 5 /31 42 /12 83 /61 92 8.3

01 63seY

11 /0 0 /2 6 /31 63 /11 13 /9 52 8.3

aSample size = 115. Row total may be less than 115.

stluseRnoitaulavE031yrtsimehC.a3elbaT

-seuQnoit.oN

erocSnaeMerocS1 2 3 4 5

sesnopserforebmuN( a/ latotfoegatnecreP )1 /91 61 /54 83 /03 52 /81 51 /6 5 6.22 /72 32 /25 44 /82 42 /8 7 /3 3 1.23 /03 52 /15 34 /12 81 /01 8 /5 4 2.24 /5 4 /52 12 /22 91 /63 13 /03 52 5.35 /41 21 /25 44 /73 13 /11 9 /4 3 5.26 /51 31 /72 32 /93 33 /02 71 /71 41 0.3

aSample size = 118. Row total may be less than 118.

The one take-home exam I gave in Chemistry 120 wasmuch more successful. The mix of problems was more diverseand the exam was given more weight in the final grade,so students seemed to take it more seriously. It was alsodecoupled from the in-class exams. The student response wasmuch more favorable. A significant fraction of the studentsfound the exam to be a valuable learning experience.

The writing assignments, however, were not viewed as asuccess, at least by most students. The numerical ratings werepoor and the students’ comments unfavorable. Several studentscommented that they felt the writing assignments were just“busy work” or “worthless”. On the other hand, a few studentsjudged the writing to be valuable and wrote positive comments.At the end of the term I examined the correlation betweenthe grades that students received on the writing assignmentsand their overall course grade. The numerical results givenin Table 4 show a strong relationship between the writinggrade and the course grade. Further study is required beforeany conclusion can be drawn concerning the causal relation-ship between the two grades, if any.

Upon reflecting, I saw several deficiencies in the way Iused the writing assignments. First, there were too manywriting assignments and the students felt that they did nothave enough time to do a good job. Second, the studentsdid not understand the holistic grading. They are accustomedto receiving detailed comments on their papers, not just anumerical score. Posting the best papers seemed a good way toshow them what I expected, but I learned that the conceptualtask of using a good paper as a model for learning is verydifficult. In the future I need to provide a better explanationof the evaluation scheme, perhaps even taking the time tomake comments on the first assignment of the term. Last, Ineed to do a better job of connecting the writing tasks withthe rest of the course.

The summary ratings of the format of the two coursesare slightly less positive than the rating of the ConcepTestsand cooperative learning workshops, but they support theexperiences of Wright, who found that the SAL methodsimproved learning in his courses (11). Individual discussionswith students have reinforced the survey results. Unfortu-nately, it is very difficult to determine whether the actualstudent performance was better because there was no controlgroup. The end-of-semester grades for Chemistry 130 werecomparable to my previous courses in general chemistry. Thepercentage of A grades (6.8%) was a bit lower than in otheryears, where it typically has been approximately 10%, but sowas the percentage of failures (12.8%), which generally is inthe range of 15–20%. The percentage of F grades includesall students on the active class roll, including some whostopped coming to class early in the semester but did notofficially withdraw. Very few students “gave up” and stoppedcoming to classes and exams. Of the 135 students registeredat the end of the semester, 127 took the final exam (94.1%).This suggests that the atmosphere of the course was suffi-ciently positive that almost all students felt they had a chanceto succeed.

In the Chemistry 120 section, it appears that the studentswere more successful than usual. The percentage of A gradeswas quite high (14.4%) compared to the usual 10%, as wasthe percentage of B+ and B grades (17.4% combined). Theusual percentage of B+ and B grades is 10–15%. The per-centage of failures was high (23.4%); but about half of those

htiwedarGesruoCllarevOfonosirapmoC.4elbaT021yrtsimehCnisedarGgnitirWnaeM

esruoCedarG

fo.oNstnedutS

stnemngissArofedarGgnitirW2dna1 4dna3

A 42 0.08 3.37+B 4 5.27 5.76

B 62 1.27 8.26+C 5 0.46 0.06

C 04 4.66 1.05D 42 1.36 3.95F 93 2.84 4.91



were students who stopped attending class and taking quizzesand exams early in the semester, so the percentage of “real”failing grades is much smaller (about 10%). Of the 162students still registered at the end of the semester, 99 receiveda C or better in the course which, for an off-sequence section,is excellent.

I am encouraged by the success of these experiments andplan to incorporate all of these innovations in future courses.This past year has been a learning experience for me also.Using ConcepTests in the lecture, writing good workshopproblems sheets, maintaining a cooperative atmosphere, andlistening to students are new skills for me. The challenge isto create a successful learning environment for the diversepopulation of students in our courses.

Acknowledgments

I am grateful to Arthur Ellis, John Wright, DavidHanson, and Donna Sherwood for useful discussions andencouragement. Discussions with Brian Coppola have helpedme clarify my thinking about the role of active learning inthe broader context of a university education.

Literature Cited

1. For a broad persepctive on this issue, see Kovac, J.; Coppola, B.P. Universities as Moral Communities; Proceedings of the 1997Conference on Values in Higher Education; available URL:http://web.utk.edu/~unistudy/values (accessed September 1998).

2. Ellis, A. B.; Cappellari, A.; Lorenz, J. K.; Moore, D. E.; Lisensky,G. C. Experiences with Chemistry ConcepTests; http://www.chem.wisc.edu/~concept (accessed August 1998).

3. Wright, J. C. J. Chem. Educ. 1996, 73, 827.4. Hanson, D. M. An Instructor’s Guide to Process Workshops; De-

partment of Chemistry, SUNY Stony Brook, 1996; Hanson, D.M. Instructor’s Guide to Discovering Chemistry; Houghton Mifflin:Boston, 1997.

5. Ebbing, D. D. General Chemistry; Houghton Mifflin: Boston,1993 (4th ed.), 1996 (5th ed.).

6. Kovac, J.; Sherwood, D. W. Writing Across the Chemistry Curricu-lum; Proceedings of the 44th Annual Conference of the Societyfor Technical Communication, May 1997; pp 11–13. Kovac, J.;Sherwood, D. W. Writing Across the Chemistry Curriculum: A FacultyHandbook; University of Tennessee: Knoxville, 1998 (availablefrom the author).

7. Hanson, D. M. Foundations of Chemistry; Pacific Crest Software:Corvallis, OR, 1996. Hanson, D. M. Discovering Chemistry: ACollaborative Learning Activity Book; Houghton Mifflin: Boston,1997.

8. Moog, R. S.; Farrell, J. J. Chemistry: A Guided Inquiry; Wiley:New York, 1996.

9. For a discussion of the role of the facilitator of group work andsuggestions about training see Gosser, D.; Roth, V.; Gafney, L.;Kampmeier, J.; Strozak, V.; Varma-Nelson, P.; Radel, S.; Weiner,M. Chem. Ed. 1996, 1(1), S1430-4171 (96) 01002-3; URL: http://journals.springer-ny.com/sam-bin/swilma/cla.827385307.html.

10. White, E. M. Teaching and Assessing Writing; Jossey-Bass: San Fran-cisco, 1988.

11. Wright, J. C.; Millar, S. B.; Kosciuk, S. A.; Pemberthy, D. L.; Will-iams, P. H.; Wampold, B. E. J. Chem. Educ. 1998, 75, 986–992.

student active learning methods in general chemistry

Documents