a
ADAPTING A COLLEGE CHEMISTRY COURSE TO STUDENT NEEDS Results of an Experiment
E. 2. FRIEDENBERG University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois OTTO M. SMITH Oklahoma A. & M. College, Stillwater, Oklahoma
Tmm KAS previously been reported an experimental For the convenience of the reader, certain essential course in inorganic chemistry, developed to meet the points of contrast between the experimental procedure needs of firsbvear students in the School of Agriculture and traditional procedures are enumerated: of Oklahoma k. and M. College.' This course differed 1. The experimental procedure used a selected reffrom the traditional college chemistry course in several erence shelf; traditional chemistry courses important respects, the most fundamental of which usually use a textbook. was the statement of the course objectives in terms of 2. The experimental procedure provided specific particular kinds of things which students need to do, references to books dealing with relevant topand which a course in inorganic chemistry can help them ics, but left the choice of reading to be done to do, rather than in terms of a body of content to be the student; traditional course usually make covered. To clarify these things which students need daily assignments of reading for which the to do, they were classified into seven areas of need as student will be held responsible. follows: 3. The content of the exuerimental course was aiven organization by its;elatiouship to a previ&sly To be an effective consumer of goods. established pattern of student need; tradiTo support intelligently necessary public servtional courses usually organyze their content acices. cording td logical internal relationships rather To earn his living by a worth-while contribution than application. to the community. 4. The experimental procedure provided a formal To make effectiveuse of leisure time. opportunity for periodic consideration of the To be able to defend himself against hostile eneffectiveness of the course by an elected stuvironmental forces. dent committee which thus i~fluencedpolicy; To participate effectivelyin the processes of demoin traditional programs policy is usually detercratic society. * mined solely by the instructor and the adminisTo develop into an adult, mature, and self-reliant tration. personality. It was expected that needs in the first five of the seven areas, and to a lesser degree the sixth, could be met in part by the application of chemical content, while the chemistry course could contribute to most needs in the sixth and all those in the seventh only in so far as it was conducted in such a way as to grant students unusual opportunities to participate in democratic processes and accept responsibility for the fruition and consequences of their own plans. Since the methodology of the experimental course was rather fully described and is exhaustively discussed elsewhere,=it will not be recapitulated here. FRIEDENBEER, E. Z., J. CXEM.EDUC.,21.41 (1944). FEIEDENBERO, "A Technique for Developing Course in Physical Science, Adapted to the need of Students at the Junior College level." Lithoprinted Doctoral Dissertation, Department of Education, University of Chicago, 1946. 1
There are many questions which are pertinent in deciding what a newly devised procedure for teaching chemistry is worth. Of these, the following seemed to the author both su5ciently important and accessible to investigation to be worth experimental study: (a) To what extent does the experimental course
achieve its stated objectives? Does it actually contribute more to meeting student needs than conventional chemistry courses? (b) To what extent does the experimental course achieve the objectives of conventional chemistrv courses? Does one sacrifice some of the objectives of the conventional course in order to adapt a course to student need? (c) students react the procedures of the experimental course? Does the term "student
JOURNAL OF CHEMICAL EDUCATION
need," which is used here to denote a skill or TABLE 1 behavior which may be expected to make stuCritical Ratios* Obtained by Comparing Mean and Experidents healthier, happier, or more effective coin- mental Group Scores on Items of Examinations Measuring cide with "felt need," as perceived by the stu- the Ability t o Apply Chemistry to the Solution of Problems in Each of Five A r e s of Student Needt dent? Area Ezaminatia Ezamznation ( d ) Are all the procedures of the experimental course of A, B, Ezomination C , appropriate, or do some of them fail to contrib~ need 46 pairs 14 pairs 8 pairs Ute to learning? Is the procedure as used a I 8 . 3 6 a nz . . . -general one for adapting chemistry courses to 2 i.ii 0.52 (two items only) student need, or is its range of applicability to 3 .. 5:04 2.59 4 .. .. 0 . 0 0 (two items only) various student groups inherent,lylimited? ~
5
Statistical evidence is available in answer to the first tno questions. A control group in the conventional chemistry course for agriculture students was used to provide a basis for comparison; each student in the experimental group was matched to a student in the control group on the basis of the Iowa Placement Examination, New Series (Chemistry Aptitude) Form X , and American Council on Education Cooperative Psychological Examination, 1939 edition. Where several control students were available whose scores on these two measures were similar to those of students in the experimental group, scores on the American Council on Education Cooperative English Examination were used to choose between them. No student in either group had taken chemistry in high school. The mean score of the experimental group students on the Iowa test was 28.74; of the control group students, 28.91. A score of 28 on this examination corresponds to a percentile score of 20 in the published norms. Comparison between the two groups is made somewhat complicated, however, by the fact that large numbers of students in both experimental and control groups were drafted during the course of the study, so that the number of pairs steadily decreased. Therefore, as one approaches those areas of student need dealt with in later sections of the course, larger and larger critical ratios for the differepce between control and experimental group means are needed for statistical significance. Furthermore, thenumber6f items on any examination measuring the ability of students to apply chemistry to the solution of problems within one area differs from the number of items on the same examination measuring the ability of the student to apply chemistry to problems in other areas. This does not affect the statistical analysis of the results, but does mean that the opportunities to obtain statistically significant differences between the groups are better for those areas which are represented on the examination by a relatively large number of items. Three examinations designed to measure the experimental objective were administered to experimental and control group. These were the first semester final examination of the experimental group, called Exam& nation A in Table 1; the second semester mid-semester examination, labeled B in the table; and the second semester final examination, labeled C. The number of pairs of students measured by each of the three instmments is given.
..
~
..
1.11 (six items)
* By critical ratio is meant the ratio of the actual diffwenee be-
tween experimental and control group means to the standard error of the difference between the means. A high critical ratio indicetes, not that the difference between means is especially great, hut that the possibility that the differencemay be due to chance factors is especially small. Most experimenters deem critical ratios based on a sample of as many as 20 cases to be "significant" if greater than 2, and "very significant" if greater than 3. All the ratios cited are certainly very significant, except those derived from Examination C. With only eight pairs, there are five chances out of a hundred that a ratio as large as 2.36 may be due to pure chance, and one chance out of a hundred t,hat a ratio as large as 3.45 may be due to pure chance. t As listed st the end of the first paragraph of this paper.
It can thus be seen that, so far as the ability to use chemistry to be an effectiveconsumer of goods, support intelligently necessary public services, or earn his living by a worth-while contribution to the community (in this case, the practice of agriculture), there is no doubt of the superiority of the experimental group, assuming only that the examinations are valid measurements of achievement in these areas. This could not, of course. be proved except by examining the living habits of persons who have taken the examinations over a long period of time. There is, however, no evidence that these students learned to use chemistry in order to make more effectiveuse of leisure time, or defend themselves more effectively against hostile environmental forces (here conceived as military aggression). , Appraisal of the success of the experimental course in meeting students' needs "to participate effectively in the processes of democratic society" and "to develop into an adult, mature, and self-reliant personality" is a complex, qualitative, in part subjective process, based on observation of student behavior in class, their anonymous comments about the class, and analysis of their written documents. This requires citation of numerous excerpts, in order to be meaningful, and cannot be undertaken in the space available. Readers interested in the question are referred to Chapter XI1 of the dissertation.= We may state a t this point that the chemistry course proved to be a situation in which interpersonal relationships of apparent therapeutic value for several rather seriously disturbed students were established. With reference to the second question-whether one sacrifices some of the objectives of the traditional chemistry course in adapting the course to student need by the experimental method-an equally conclusive answer is possible. The first semester final examination of the control group was administered to forty-six pairs of
DECEMBER, 1948
students, the second semester final to sixteen pairs. The eight pairs remaining at the end of the course were given the following sections of the American Council on Education Cooperative General Chmistry Test for College Students, Form 1942: Section A, "General Knowledge and Information"; Section E, "Application of Principles"; and Section F and G, "The Scientific Method," the examination period being too short to permit the administration of the entire instrument. Results are presented in Table 2. It should be borne in mind that these results are based, in each case, upon the entire instrument administered, and not upon a few items combined to form a part score, as was the case in dealing with the data gathered from the experimental group examinations and cit,ed in Table 1. TABLE 2 Comparison of Results Obtained by Experimental and Control Groups on Examinations Measuring Objectives of Conventional Chemistry Courses Ezamination
1st Semester Final 2nd Semester Final A.C.E. Exminabion:' Part A Part E Parts F and G Total A.C.E.
C+-itieal ratios* -10.17 -10.73
--1.78
* The negative numbers indicate superiority of the control group.
daily living, without disturbing their administrative structure. I t is not applicable to those institutions which, while concerned with the kind of objectives best met by the experimental course, remained committed to maximum learning of classical science. It is especially unsuited to institutions which wish to use a relationship to student interest merely to motivate students toward a greater effort to learn academic science. Those components of the conventional chemistry offering which were not visibly related to the problems around which the course was organized were really eliminated as intended. This does not mean that the objectives of the traditional and experimental program are irreconcilable. It is perfectly conceivable that a course may be developed which will lead to the objectives of both better than either the experimental or control course led to its own. Even within the limits of the "needs" approach, as described above--for example, in adapting a chemistry course to the needs of students who planned to earn their living as chemiststhis might be achieved. In the ordinary adaptation of a science course to the needs of students who did not wish to become scientists, however, this would neither be attempted nor accomplished. The third question, dealing with student emotional attitudes toward the coune, may be answered in part by anonymous student comments on the course, which were made by 33 commentators. The statements have been classified on a five-point scale of feeling tone. The classification is subjective and may be unreliable. No attemnt has been made in the classification to urovide for variations in intensity of feeling: only t i e total ll~ complexion of the statement is mnsi&red. " ~ o t a favorable, for means cbinpletely, not passionately favorable. It must also be noted that the statements "am considerablv in leueth. and that some are nrohabl; totally favorable or unfavorable. rather 'than par"tially so; merely because fewer issues r e considered by the student. The number of comments classified at each point on the five-point scale is given below: All the comments are re~roducedin the dissertat,ion.
The superiority of the control group on its own examinations is overwhelming. Evidently, there is little overlapping between the objectives achieved by the control and experimental groups. On the American Council Examination, the superiority of the control group is uniform but small. None of the ratios cited is significant a t the 5 per cent level with 8 pairs of students, and that for parts F and G is so small as to bevirtually meaningless. However, in vie* of the greater similarity in content between the control course and the usual co"llege chemistry course than between the ex1. Totally favorable (5). perimental course and the conventional offering, it is 2. Predominantly favorable (11). likely that the superiority of the control group on this 3. Ambivalent (2). examination is real. Its small magnitude is undoubt4. Predominantly unfavorable (10). edly due in part to the very small number of students 5: Totally unfavorable (5). involved in the measurement, and the relative ineptitude of both groups as measured by the Iowa test. Clearly, since the comments are so evenly divided beApparently, instructors who attach greater importance tween favorable and unfavorable, a distinction exists to the learnings of the traditional chemistry program between the adaptation of a course to student need, as than to the ability to use chemistry in the solution of here defined, and catering to the immediate desires of problems based on human needs would do well to con- all the students. Evidently the experimental course has tmue to teach according to their accustomed organiza- not been a revision in response to popular demand. Evidence in answer to the fourth question-that of tion. One does not achieve both better by the experithe appropriateness of the experimental course promental method. The experimental method, then, is applicable to those cedures and the range of applicability of the methodinstitutions which wish to alter their objectives from may also be obtained by careful analysis of the anonythose of factual learning of a conventional course of mous student comments, with reference to statements study to the ability to apply science to the exigencies of occurring in the comments of more than one student.
-
684
JOURNAL OF CHEMICAL EDUCATION
Of course, such statements are not expressed in identical words by several students, but the writer believes that they are clearly embodied in the comments and that interpretation has been avoided. These data will be found in Table 3. TABLE 3 Statements Included i n Commantsof AnonymousStudent Commentators
Total No. comments making same statemat Course is highly practical Course lacks "fundamentals:'; previous knowledge of chemistry requrred to understand it Course does not teach you to understand equations and formulas Student feels need of textbook to "fa11 back
"..
nn"
The language of the instructor is too camplicrtted to be understood Student feels unureuared to take further . . chemistry More visual aids or materials needed Poor discipline in class Course devotes insufficient time to each topic Course allows students to reason things out for themselves
13
11
7 6 4
3 3 2 2
2
solve them, makes more plausible the inference that the behaviors exhibited on the examination will also be practiced in real situations; the experimental methodology must therefore have been a t least sufficiently appropriate to contribute to the attainment of the course objectives. The comments, however, further reveal that many students felt themselves to be forced into a Procrustean bed in which their verbal skills, ability to abstract, and ability to synthesize learnings from several sources and several fields into logical formulations were stretched far beyond their capacity to accommodate themselves. Four of the 33 commentaries stated that the language used by the instructor was not comprehensible. These students were evenly divided between the "predominantly favorable" and "predominantly unfavorable" groups. This is rather surprising, since it seems that so legitimate a complaint should have aroused more antagonism. A person who habitually addresses groups in language which they do not understand has no lace in teachine: if his voice is excellent he mav 6ni success in grand'opera. Other faults may be jugtified, or explained, by considerations of philosophy, but this one cannot be. One-third of the commentators, according to Table 3, felt that the course, despite its complexity, failed to present certain fundamentals of chemistry which they needed in order to apply the science effectively in their chosen problems. This condition was the result of conscious, though apparently illadvised decision. It had been the policy in the course to discuss only those facts and principles which could be related to the problems studied, and to discuss them only in connection with, not advance of, the problems. This is a t variance with the example of a chemistry course cited in "Science in General Education,"s in which fundamental theory is considered a t the outset of the science course. Clearly there were many students who had severe difficulty in understanding discussions in which the meaning of the terms employed was derived en route. Furthermore, the-content seems to have included far more theoretical explanations a t many points than could be defended a t the level of general education. Four of the 11students who felt insufficient preparation had been given them to understand the course expressed "predominantly favorable" attitudes, and 2 expressed ambivalencG, indication that this alone was not highly disturbing to most of the students who felt it. Six of the 11 also felt the course to be highly practical. Presumably, the students raising this objection tended to accept the objectives of the course, and felt that the coune organization made it more difficult than necessary for them to reach these objectives. Thus, although the experimental method is not limited to any level of education by the terms in which it is defined, or by its fundamental philosophy; as practiced in this chemistry course, it was adapted to the learning techniques of only the best students, in the
What are the implications of these data? Thirty-nine per cent of the comments include a statement that the course is practical; that it is closely related in most or all of its parts to the life which the student expects to live. This statement is made more frequently than any other. It was made by 3 of the 10 students whose attitude toward the course is predominantly unfavorable, and 1 of the 2 classed as ambivalent. This seems to indicate that a large proportion of the class regarded the objectives of the class as valid, although some of the students who so regarded them felt that defects in methodology are sufficiently serious to prevent their giving a favorable report on the course as a whole. Six of the 11 students whose attitude toward the course was predominantly favorable regarded it as practical and 2 of the 5 whose attitude was totally favorable made the same statement. Since both these are considerably larger proportions of the total number reporting the attitude than is the case for the "predominantly unfavorable" students, it seems likely that the needs chosen as a basis for the selection of content were regarded as valid by many of the students, and that this validity was a major factor in supporting the favorable attitude which certain of the students feel. If this is true, one may place greater confidence in any examination results which indicate that students in the experimental group are able to use chemistry to solve problems of importance to them. Such examination results can indicate only that students are able to do so, not that they are disposed to do so. Any evidence which tends to establish further that students a Progressive Education Association, Commission on Secondregarded the problems as important, and believed that ary School Curriculum. "Science in General Edueation." D. the coune has been of practical value in helping to Appleton-Century Co., New York, 1939, Pp. xiii + 591.
P
DECEMBER, 1948
common academic sense of the term. In order to take broader advantage of the possibility of the method, needs must be defined at various levels in terms of some behaviors which are possible to all students, and instmction must use learning techniques which present less formidable barriers to the verbally ungifted. The concept of student need must be supported by a realis-
68s
tic understanding of the capacities of the students whom one is teaching so that it may guide instruction as well as the selection of content, and it must assist one in selecting, not that content which is relevant to the most perfect solution of a problem which the instructor can imagine, but that which can be used by students with reasonable efficiency at their own developmental level.
