A Nontraditional Approach to Teaching
Walter 5. Trahanovsky Iowa State University
Organic Chemistry
of Science and Technology, Ames, 50010
The "note-test" system Recently Robert B. Smith1 described a lecture-less mcthod of teaching organic chemistry. The method involves use of a good text and frequent tests with class periods being used for discussions and demonstrations. At Iowa State University, I have also been using a lecture-less method of teaching. This method is similar to Dr. Smith's method, but differs in several respects. The main differences are that a set of mimeoeranhed notes which essentiallv outlines the text, is passed out and a more rigid sequence of events is followed. The advantage of this system compared to Smith's system is that it can be readily adopted by instructors and students who are used to the traditional lecture system. This system, which I have called the 'Lnote-test" system, involves a clearly defined sequence of events which makes it easy to implement. Moreover,' students can readily see what is expected of them. The "note-test" method consists of the following:
-
Period 1: Before this period the student receives a set of mimeographed lectnre notes (called a "part") which covers material t,hat would take approximately three normal lectures to deliver. The material in the part corresponds quite closely to the text and contains only little new materra1 br references to outside readings. Problems irom the text that t,he student should work are also listed in the part. The part is designed to highlight the important points of t,he text and make the reading of the text easier for the student. Ilming Period 1, the inst~xctorcovers the highlights of t,he part oft,en ming demonstrstions to convey or illustmte important 'points. The instructor assumes that the student ha? read the part and studied the text in order to understand the material that the part outlines. Questions from the students are also answered during this period, and the instrnctor feels no obligation to cover all the important points in the part since the material is adequately covered by t,he part and text. Period d : This oeriod is a aucstion session. Students ask
nary. I n order to ensure a lively question session, the instruct,or can a.k qnestions of various clnss members picked a t random if the students have no questions (this has never occwred in my exoerience). I . 1'11 ring t l e fir4 311 n.iuult ~f thii I~CTI(KI 1 :,Il-lllil,l WI ittc.18 cxamtnstio~~ i - ~ i v ~eo ~ w r~i r w111en.atcri~il~ . ~ u t I ~I,?n t dtt.e p r r . '1'11~ I.,.! purtw8. d rhi: ptw.d ic t,+d I U cl>wt%* t h v examination and s. new part is handed out.
-
This sequence of periods is repeated about 3 or 4 times. and then a 100-point, full-period, examination is given that covers all the material outlined by the
' SMITH, 1%.B., J. CHEM. EDUC., 44, 148 (1967).
Professor Ray W. King has used this system with four periods instead of three by having two lecture sessions instead of one. This four-period sequence has the adventages of fewer examinat,inna n n d ~ mnre ~x. i h. i l. itx ~f l~
L.,J. C ~ MEDUC., . 40, 173 (1963). BATTINO, R.., J. CHEM. EDUC., 43,281 (1966).
%AMMLIERT, F.
536
/
Journal of Chemical Edumfion
previous 3 or 4 parts. As with any lecture-less system an excellent text is necessary. Morrison and Boyd was used and found to be very adequate. I have used this system with a class of more than 100 students which included preveterinarians, zoologists, agronomists, and other non-chemistry majors. Based on a questionnaire, greater than 70% of the class thought that they learned more and liked the system better than the traditional system. The most common favorable comments were that they had a good set of notes, the class periods were free of frantic writing and could be used for learning, and the large number of tests forced them to keep up with the course and freed them of worry about one bad examination lowering their grade. In general, the system was well liked even by the very good and very poor students. As pointed out by Lambert,s Battino,&and Smith, these nontraditional methods of teaching lead to much better use of class time; class periods hecome true learning sessions. Moreover, students seem to like these systems better since they are more involved during class periods and are freed from the task of extensive note taking. If these systems are so much better than traditional systems, why aren't they used more universally? Part of the answer to this question must be, that instructors feel that too much time would be involved in preparing notes and giving additional examinations. Since the average university professor is too busy already and is judged mainly by his research instead of his teaching abilities, he is not anxious to spend time on new teaching methods. However, the note-test system involves less time than the traditional system for several reasons. First, the additional time needed to prepare the mimeographed notes is small since the lecture notes can simply be written on stencils instead of paper. Although hand-written notes are not as neat looking as typed ones, they are perfectly acA ceptable. If the course is taught a second year, essentially no time is involved in note preparation since the stencils can be reused. Second, the additional time spent with the unusually large number of tests is made up by not having t,o look over any notes immediately before the class period for preparation of a lecture. Thus the major portion of the instructors work can be done at times that suit the instructor (e.g., during weekends) and only slightly more than one hour of the day of the class period has to be taken up by the course. The third, and most subtle time saver is the small number of interruptions before or after class by students with questions since these are handled during the regular class periods. With a large class, this third point can be an extremely important time saver.
