Communication Cite This: J. Chem. Educ. XXXX, XXX, XXX-XXX
pubs.acs.org/jchemeduc
ConfChem Conference on Select 2016 BCCE Presentations: Specifications Grading in the Flipped Organic Classroom Joshua Ring* School of Natural Sciences, Lenoir-Rhyne University, Hickory, North Carolina 28601, United States S Supporting Information *
ABSTRACT: Specifications Grading is a system of course-long student assessment based on the division of learning objectives into clearly defined skill tests or assignments. Each skill is evaluated at a mastery level, with opportunities for students to learn from their mistakes and then be re-evaluated for skill tests, or resubmit assignments. Specifications Grading was adapted into a previously flipped, first-semester organic chemistry course, with generally positive feedback from both the professor and the students. This Communication summarizes one of the invited papers to the Select 2016 BCCE Presentations ACS CHED Committee on Computers in Chemical Education online ConfChem held from October 30 to November 22, 2016.
KEYWORDS: Organic Chemistry, Testing/Assessment, Inquiry-Based/Discovery Learning
■
■
INTRODUCTION
METHODS AND RESULTS Specs Grading was adapted for use in the first semester of a year-long organic chemistry course sequence in Fall 2015; this course had been converted to a flipped classroom in Fall 2013. The material was organized into 22 outcomes, each containing clearly articulated skills or chunks of knowledge, for which the students were asked to demonstrate mastery. Most outcomes were assessed with 10 min, single-page, five-question quizzes/ tests (“quests”) given at the beginning of class, followed immediately with a brief discussion of the correct answers; mastery could be demonstrated by the student with four of five complete, correct answers (with no partial credit). Of the 22 outcomes, 6 were labeled as essential outcomes (EOs); these encompassed the skills and knowledge that were deemed by the professor to be most crucial for a student’s understanding of organic chemistry, and those most necessary for a student to succeed in the second semester of the course. The other 16, representing the bulk of the course content, were general outcomes (GOs). In order to pass the course, students needed to demonstrate mastery of every EO, and the final course grade for each student was based on the number of GOs for which the student demonstrated mastery. The first 3 EOs required students to effectively draw and name organic structures, while the first 7 GOs required students to describe their shapes, conformations, and relationships in three-dimensional space. The second set of 3 EOs covered the specifics of resonance, stability, and reactivity of
Innovations in technology and communication have brought about many new active teaching styles,1 including the flipped classroom.2,3 The flipped classroom, as well as inquiry-guided learning approaches such as POGIL,4 aims to engage students more fully in their own learning than a traditional lecture format. Meanwhile, nontraditional grading methods such as standards-based grading5 and mastery grading6 aim to hold students accountable for that learning. Specifications (Specs) Grading, developed by Linda Nilson,7 uses mastery-level pass−fail grading for particular assignments or learning outcomes, as well as the option for students to learn from their mistakes and retake failed assignments; it combines elements of both standards-based and mastery grading systems. Students’ course grades are then assigned on the basis of the number of successful completions of assignments or evaluations of learning outcomes. Specs Grading caught my eye as a means to provide clarity of learning outcomes, to communicate the relative importance of those outcomes, and to hold students accountable to a higher standard by no longer granting partial credit. Students would no longer be able pass the course while missing the most important skills (e.g., the ability to draw proper mechanistic arrows for reactions, or to identify all resonance structures), or by accumulating partial credit without truly mastering concepts. This paper8 (see the Supporting Information) was discussed from November 3 to November 5 during the Fall 2016 ConfChem on Select 2016 BCCE Presentations.9 This conference was hosted by the ACS DivCHED Committee on Computers in Chemical Education (CCCE).10 © XXXX American Chemical Society and Division of Chemical Education, Inc.
Received: December 21, 2016 Revised: June 6, 2017
A
DOI: 10.1021/acs.jchemed.6b01000 J. Chem. Educ. XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX
Journal of Chemical Education
Communication
commenters appeared to identify with the rationale and were intrigued by the implementation!
compounds, and mechanisms for reactions, while the remaining 9 GOs covered substitution, elimination, and addition reactions. Students were given a finite number of “quest” retakes. Three class periods during the semester were used as quest makeup periods, during which students would be able to take new versions of EO and GO quests. In this way, students were essentially being tested on the material that they did not initially master, and students who demonstrated mastery of every outcome during their first in-class attempt did not need to attend. A cumulative final exam was given, which could affect each student’s final grade by modification of their effective number of mastered GOs. The final exam score necessary to achieve each of those modifiers was based on their grade entering the final exam. Student feedback and reviews were largely positive about Specs Grading, citing how much they needed to continuously study for the course. The average final exam score of 61.3% for Fall 2015 (with Specs Grading, graded without partial credit) was comparable to 65.6% for Fall 2014 (without Specs Grading, graded with partial credit); however, the average on the Fall 2014 final exam was 41.4% when regraded without partial credit. It appeared that student performance improved due to being held to a higher standard during the semester, and students were provided with both the impetus and opportunity to learn from their mistakes.
■
ASSOCIATED CONTENT
S Supporting Information *
The Supporting Information is available on the ACS Publications website at DOI: 10.1021/acs.jchemed.6b01000. Full text of the original paper and associated discussions from the ConfChem Conference (PDF)
■
AUTHOR INFORMATION
Corresponding Author
*E-mail:
[email protected]. ORCID
Joshua Ring: 0000-0003-2078-0828 Notes
The author declares no competing financial interest.
■
REFERENCES
(1) Freeman, S.; Eddy, S. L.; McDonough, M.; Smith, M. K.; Okoroafor, N.; Jordt, H.; Wenderoth, M. P. Active Learning Increases Student Performance in Science, Engineering, and Mathematics. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 2014, 111 (23), 8410−8415. (2) Bergmann, J.; Sams, A. Flip Your Classroom: Reach Every Student in Every Class Every Day; International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE): Washington, DC, 2012. (3) For examples, see: (a) Luker, C.; Muzyka, J.; Belford, R. Introduction to the Spring 2014 ConfChem on the Flipped Classroom. J. Chem. Educ. 2015, 92 (9), 1564−1565. (b) Rossi, R. D. ConfChem Conference on Flipped Classroom: Improving Student Engagement in Organic Chemistry Using the Inverted Classroom Model. J. Chem. Educ. 2015, 92 (9), 1577−1579. (c) Ryan, M. D.; Reid, S. A. Impact of the Flipped Classroom on Student Performance and Retention: A Parallel Controlled Study in General Chemistry. J. Chem. Educ. 2016, 93 (1), 13−23. (d) Mooring, S. R.; Mitchell, C. E.; Burrows, N. L. Evaluation of a Flipped, Large-Enrollment Organic Chemistry Course on Student Attitude and Achievement. J. Chem. Educ. 2016, 93 (12), 1972−1983. (e) Shattuck, J. C. A Parallel Controlled Study of the Effectiveness of a Partially Flipped Organic Chemistry Course on Student Performance, Perceptions, and Course Completion. J. Chem. Educ. 2016, 93 (12), 1984−1992. (4) Straumanis, A. Organic Chemistry: A Guided Inquiry for Recitation; Brooks/Cole, Cengage Learning; Boston, MA, 2011; Vols. 1 and 2. (5) Scriffiny, P. L. Seven Reasons for Standards-Based Grading. Educational Leadership 2008, 66 (2), 70−74. (6) Bloom, B. Learning for Mastery. Evaluation Comment. 1968, 1 (2), 1−12. (7) Nilson, L. Specifications Grading: Restoring Rigor, Motivating Students, and Saving Faculty Time; Stylus Publishing: Sterling, VA, 2014. (8) Ring, J. Specifications Grading in the Flipped Organic Classroom. https://confchem.ccce.divched.org/2016fallConfChemP2 (accessed Apr 2017). (9) American Chemical Society, Division of Chemical Education, Committee on Computers in Chemical Education. Fall 2016 ConfChem: Select 2016 BCCE Presentations. https://confchem.ccce. divched.org/2016fallconfchem (accessed Apr 2017). (10) ACS CHED Committee on Computers in Chemical Education. http://www.ccce.divched.org/ (accessed Apr 2017). (11) Wiggings, G.; McTighe, J. Understanding by Design, 2nd ed.; Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development: Alexandria, VA, 2005.
■
CONFCHEM DISCUSSION SUMMARY The discussion during ConfChem8 included many questions, particularly about the choices in outcomes, and about the grading (particularly as it related to large class scale-up). Regarding the outcomes, I chose to assemble mine using backward design11 in mapping a skill tree (seen in Figure 1);
Figure 1. Skill tree.
the outcomes that led along the main trunk were those designated as essential, and those that branched off became the general outcomes. There are many different ways to choose and arrange outcomes for Organic Chemistry, several of which were suggested during the discussions, and indeed, the outcomes in my class were modified for Fall 2016 and again for Fall 2017. In terms of grading and scale-up, this adaptation of Specs Grading has led to more time investment in creating quests and retakes (which would not change with class size), but the time spent grading has reduced, due to the simplicity of grading for mastery, i.e., without assigning partial credit. The discussions during ConfChem were broad and lively, and many of the B
DOI: 10.1021/acs.jchemed.6b01000 J. Chem. Educ. XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX
