Commentary pubs.acs.org/jchemeduc
Developing and Implementing a Collaborative Teaching Innovation in Introductory Chemistry from the Perspective of an Undergraduate Student Kristina Klara,* Ning Hou, Allison Lawman, and Li-Qiong Wang Department of Chemistry, Brown University, Providence, Rhode Island 02912, United States ABSTRACT: At present, many faculty members in chemistry are calling for reform in teaching. Efforts have been made to garner student interest in chemistry and to help students better understand the material. Thus far, these efforts have been championed by teachers. However, collaboration between faculty and students may prove an even better way of addressing current issues in chemical education. The Karen T. Romer Undergraduate Teaching and Research Award (UTRA) at Brown University offers students the opportunity to work with professors to improve the curriculum for existing courses. This unique program has fostered the student−teacher collaboration necessary to improve the first-year chemistry laboratory course at Brown University and may provide a promising model for teaching innovation at other academic institutions. This commentary is written from the perspective of an UTRA student. KEYWORDS: High School/Introductory Chemistry, First-Year Undergraduate/General, Second-Year Undergraduate, Curriculum, Laboratory Instruction, Collaborative/Cooperative Learning, Hands-On Learning/Manipulatives, Inquiry-Based/Discovery Learning, Electrochemistry
■
INTRODUCTION When I stepped into my first-year chemistry course, I was prepared for the worst.1 Countless students warned me that chemistry was not only difficult to understand, but also rather dull. They said they did not gain a full understanding of chemical concepts or find any real-life applications. These opinions summarize the subject’s reputation in the modern academic world. Chemistry is often seen as difficult, abstract, and unrelated to daily life. Many teachers have attempted to put chemistry in a more relevant context by relating simple concepts to real-world examples and problems.2−15 These methods are grounded in research proving that students learn best when able to make connections to past experience or when information connects to their lives. Students absorb more when they are engaged and can see the real-world applications of their studies.16−20 Laboratory experiments offer the perfect opportunity for this real-world connection. Though reforms are being made slowly, many traditional general chemistry labs are modeled after “cookbook”-type activities that enable high throughput of students and limit the amount of discovery and inquiry that are fundamental to science. Many universities are still using 19thcentury technology and manuals that show step-by-step directions. Almost all of the experiments confirm something the students are sure will happen instead of allowing them to explore and discover. Real-world applications and studentdesigned procedures have been shown to better engage students and improve their understanding.21−23 © 2013 American Chemical Society and Division of Chemical Education, Inc.
General chemistry is a course required for most science majors at Brown University, where this program takes place; it is also a requirement for those interested in attending medical, dental, or veterinary school. General chemistry has both lecture and lab components. Approximately 420 students take the course in the fall and 150 in the spring. General chemistry is a prerequisite for subsequent chemistry classes, and a student’s experience in this course can affect his or her decision to proceed further in the department. Because of its large size and fundamental content, an engaging and well-taught general chemistry course is necessary. Through a unique Brown University program, I was able to help Li-Qiong Wang, a professor in the chemistry department,1 revise the lab portion of this class.
■
THE KAREN T. ROMER UNDERGRADUATE TEACHING AND RESEARCH AWARD PROGRAM
Brown offers undergraduate teaching and research awards (UTRAs) for students interested in improving the curriculum for an existing course. Members of the faculty collaborate with students who, having just completed the class, lend their perspectives and provide valuable advice for improvement. Professors often find that students’ suggestions improve the general opinion about classes and enhance learning outcomes. Published: March 5, 2013 401
dx.doi.org/10.1021/ed300525g | J. Chem. Educ. 2013, 90, 401−404
Journal of Chemical Education
Commentary
tailored to correlate specifically to the lecture portion of Brown’s general chemistry course. Wang and I met together multiple times per week to discuss our research and ideas for experimental design. Throughout the project, Wang constantly encouraged me to think creatively and independently. Though she gave me full freedom to do so, Wang provided me with valuable guidance and advice. I drafted the first versions of new procedures and assignments, which were then revised by Wang. Each new experiment was first tested with a small population of students as a make-up lab (a lab period scheduled for students who missed an experiment during the semester in which about 20 students participate). The small issues that surfaced during the make-up lab were rectified before the experiment was added to the curriculum. Wang had previously been involved in energy and materials chemistry research at Pacific Northwest National Laboratory and therefore brought expertise in energy-related experimentation. As we discussed the energy crisis, we decided to develop a hydrogen fuel cell add-on to a standard electrolysis experiment. Electrolysis has been used to teach chemistry since the 19th century, but we brought it into the 21st by incorporating fuel cell technology into the existing curriculum. A hydrogen fuel cell converts chemical energy in the form of hydrogen and oxygen to electrical energy. The electrical energy can then be converted to mechanical energy and used to do physical work. We purchased a commercial fuel cell car kit and modified it with an innovative circuit board containing a mini cellular phone vibrator that allowed students to measure the efficiency of the fuel cell using current and potential measurements, along with standard thermodynamic data. In the prelaboratory lecture, Wang discussed the increasing demand for clean-energy technology and explained how fuel cells can meet this need. This lab was quite interesting to students because it incorporated a relevant, real-world issue that perfectly exemplified how the chemistry we studied could better our lives. Surveys taken at the completion of the course indicated that the vast majority of students considered this lab their favorite. One student commented on the fuel cell experiment by noting: [It] was valuable for capturing students’ interest and teaching them to apply the information they learn in class to real issues and problems...[and it provided him with] a greater interest and even incentive to learning otherwise abstract concepts. We were asked by several students to develop more labs like the fuel cell experiment. More detailed information on this lab will be published separately.24 In an attempt to promote critical thinking and creativity, Wang and I incorporated a lab in which students design their own experimental procedures rather than following step-bystep directions. This gives students independence and an opportunity for critical thinking. We introduced an experiment in which 11 colorless solutions were identified through a selection of different assays. Students were provided directions for performing various identification tests on the compounds. They were instructed to develop their own preliminary procedures as a prelaboratory assignment. When they arrived to lab, partners shared individual procedures and then had their final procedures reviewed by a teaching assistant. This type of experiment is not new; however, many other students and I were frustrated by the detailed directions in most experiments and wanted more freedom in lab. On surveys, many students commented that the 11 colorless solutions lab was a favorite
Together with professors’ expertise, student insights can make a class or lab more interesting and engaging. The UTRA award is competitive and requires that students approach faculty and voice their ideas. Two types of awards are granted through the UTRA program: one for students to participate in scientific research, and the other for students to aid in curriculum development. Once a student secures a faculty partner, the two begin the grant application process. They meet to discuss their project proposal and then each completes an independent application, which is submitted to the university for review. The student’s portion of the application includes a written project proposal, a list of all tasks to be completed by the end of the project, the student’s long-term goals, the expected products of the project, a list of courses taken, and the student’s past teaching or research experience that will inform the project. The faculty portion of the application includes a project proposal, a list of the faculty member’s responsibilities, a description of how the project complements faculty research goals or interests, and reasons why the student partner is suited for the project. UTRA awards are offered in the summer and fall. A stipend is included for students to remain on campus while completing their projects in the summer and for students to work on their projects in the fall. The faculty partner supervises and oversees the project, generally meeting with the student at least once per week to provide guidance and support. In January 2010, during the second semester of my first year, I learned that Li-Qiong Wang was looking for a student with whom to apply for an UTRA teaching award. We applied for a project entitled “Collaborative Teaching Innovation in Freshman Chemistry” and received the grant. Wang and I aimed to design more interesting, original, and relevant experiments for the lab course by introducing new technology and relating chemistry to daily life. Wang and Ning Hou continued these efforts the following year, as Hou was awarded the UTRA to continue “Collaborative Teaching Innovation in Freshman Chemistry”.1 Because of the exciting progress made by this project, the university funded Wang and a student partner for three consecutive years. Current work in the UTRA project by Wang and Allison Lawman is focused on the development of inquiry based, green chemistry experiments.1 The overarching goal of our UTRA projects is to use student−teacher collaboration to design a suite of new experiments that will use current technology and real-world application to pique students’ interest and enhance their learning. Each summer, the project has been passed to an undergraduate student who has just finished the general chemistry class. Every new student brings a different perspective and can provide updated feedback. Based on my knowledge, plenty of other universities offer undergraduates the opportunity to work in faculty research groups, but few or no other schools offer a program that allows undergraduates to work with professors to improve teaching.
■
PERSONAL EXPERIENCE WITH THE UTRA PROGRAM Before beginning curriculum development, Wang and I conducted a literature search on the existing pedagogical research to assess innovative teaching approaches. We also analyzed student surveys to determine which labs were least effective and to consider student suggestions on how the course could be improved. Although many studies have been published on inquiry-based labs and curricula and real-world applications of chemistry,2−23 we needed experiments that were 402
dx.doi.org/10.1021/ed300525g | J. Chem. Educ. 2013, 90, 401−404
Journal of Chemical Education
Commentary
order to give students more opportunity to express their specific opinions.
because they did not have to follow step-by-step instructions. One wrote, “we had to use creativity and investigative skills”, and another said that it was “challenging to make up [her] own procedure”.
■
■
THE BENEFITS OF STUDENT−TEACHER COLLABORATION FOR FACULTY AND STUDENTS Student−teacher collaboration provides many benefits for faculty. Wang’s student ratings (from surveys taken at the end of the course) have improved since the UTRA project began. Students are able to help develop engaging labs at an appropriate level. They lend a unique perspective and contribute labor, continued feedback, and creative ideas to lab development or revision processes. Moreover, it is gratifying for faculty to see UTRA students grow as people and independent thinkers throughout the project. The student and professor develop a very strong and productive relationship through their numerous one-on-one interactions. Student−teacher collaboration benefits students as well. In this instance, I have developed a wonderful relationship with LiQiong Wang, and I continue to visit her office to help with and learn about the progress of the UTRA project. I look to her as an advisor and mentor, and I value the time spent working with her, which was an incredible learning experience. Participation in the UTRA project taught me how curriculum changes are developed and implemented. I also gained experience in pedagogical research and experimental design. Most importantly, though, my UTRA experience allowed me to delve deeper into the chemistry I learned. I thought creatively about the subject and searched for its applications in daily life. This experience increased my understanding and love of chemistry and made me realize how much I enjoy sharing that passion with others. It prompted me to become a chemistry tutor and cemented my decision to major in biochemistry.
IMPACT OF TEACHING INNOVATION ON INTRODUCTORY CHEMISTRY LAB COURSE To assess the effects of our efforts, we compared surveys taken before any curriculum updates to those taken after changes were made in the UTRA program. In the free-writing section of the survey, students responded much more positively about the lab course after UTRA changes were made. They seemed more enthusiastic about individual labs and about the lab course as a whole. To quantify the shift in opinion, we asked students to rate the statement: “I enjoyed the lab section of this course” from 1 to 5, as shown in Figure 1. A vote of “1” indicated that the
■
SUMMARY The Karen T. Romer UTRA program offers students a platform to speak to professors about their ideas for curriculum improvement, an otherwise intimidating and difficult task. The program has proven very effective for the general chemistry laboratory course at Brown University and may be useful at other academic institutions. Though chemistry seems to have a reputation for being difficult and abstract, student− teacher collaboration is a new way of approaching and conquering the difficulty. Students are an amazing resource (if I do say so myself). Use us!
Figure 1. Synopsis of students’ survey responses regarding general chemistry lab. Students rated the statement “I enjoyed the lab section of this course” from 1 to 5, in which “1” indicated that a student strongly disagreed, “2” that a student disagreed, “3” that a student neither agreed nor disagreed, “4” that a student agreed, and “5” that a student strongly agreed. Surveys were taken in the spring of 2010, before any UTRA changes were put into effect, and in the spring of 2011, after the changes discussed in this article were made.
student strongly disagreed with this idea, and a “5” indicated that the student strongly agreed. Students were surveyed in the spring of 2010, before the UTRA project began, and in the spring of 2011, after UTRA changes were made. The number of students who voted toward the middle of the spectrum (e.g., 2, 3, and 4) changed negligibly. The percentage of students who strongly disagreed with the statement “I enjoyed the lab section of this course” decreased from 11% in 2010 to 2% in 2011, and the frequency of students who strongly agreed with the statement increased from 6.5% in 2010 to 12.5% in 2011. The sharp drop in the percentage of students who strongly disagreed and the increase in the percentage who strongly agreed illustrates that the changes made from the UTRA program produced positive results. It should be noted, however, that while this graph is a good pictorial representation of the feedback received, the data are not statistically significant and may be affected by confounding variables. In the spring of 2012, the lab surveys were changed to all free-response questions in
■
AUTHOR INFORMATION
Corresponding Author
*E-mail:
[email protected]. Notes
The authors declare no competing financial interest.
■
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The work on “Collaborative Teaching Innovation in Freshman Chemistry” is funded by the Karen T. Romer Undergraduate Teaching and Research Award program at Brown University. We thank Al Tente, electronics technician, Chemistry Department of Brown University, and Drew Morrill for their help in experimental design. We also thank Richard Stratt for his useful comments and Nicole Cyr for help with data analysis. 403
dx.doi.org/10.1021/ed300525g | J. Chem. Educ. 2013, 90, 401−404
Journal of Chemical Education
■
Commentary
REFERENCES
(1) This commentary is written from the perspective of Kristina Klara, the first UTRA (undergraduate teaching and research award) student; Ning Hou is the second UTRA student, who carried on the work from the first UTRA project; Allison Lawman is the third UTRA student, whose project to incorporate green chemistry labs into the curriculum is mentioned in this article; Li-Qiong Wang is the faculty adviser who supervised all Collaborative Teaching Innovation in Freshman Chemistry UTRA projects. (2) Csizmar, C. M.; Force, D. A.; Warner, D. L. J. Chem. Educ. 2012, 89 (3), 379−382. (3) Siggia, S. J. Chem. Educ. 1967, 44 (9), 545−546. (4) Cann, M. C.; Dickneider, T. A. J. Chem. Educ. 2004, 81 (7), 977− 980. (5) Pontin, J. A.; Arico, E.; Pitoscio Filho, J.; Tiedemann, P. W.; Isuyama, R.; Fettis, G. C. J. Chem. Educ. 1993, 70 (3), 223−226. (6) D’Amelia, R.; Franks, T.; Nirode, W. F. J. Chem. Educ. 2007, 84 (3), 453−455. (7) Black, S. L. J. Chem. Educ. 1996, 73 (8), 777−778. (8) Cunningham, K. J. Chem. Educ. 2007, 84 (3), 430−433. (9) Deckert, A. A.; Nestor, L. P.; DiLullo, D. J. Chem. Educ. 1998, 75 (7), 860−863. (10) Green, W. J.; Elliott, C. J. Chem. Educ. 2004, 81, 239−241. (11) Cacciatore, K. L.; Amado, J.; Evans, J. J.; Sevian, H. J. Chem. Educ. 2008, 85 (2), 251−253. (12) Browne, L. M.; Blackburn, E. V. J. Chem. Educ. 1999, 76 (8), 1104−1107. (13) Canaria, J. A.; Schoffstall, A. M.; Weiss, D. J.; Henry, R. M.; Braun-Sand, S. B. J. Chem. Educ. 2012, 89 (11), 1371−1377. (14) Abraham, M. R. J. Chem. Educ. 2011, 88 (8), 1020−1025. (15) Zoller, U. J. Chem. Educ. 2012, 89 (3), 297−300. (16) Anthony, S.; Mernitz, H.; Spencer, B.; Gutwill, J.; Kegley, S. E.; Molinaro, M. J. Chem. Educ. 1998, 75, 322−324. (17) Ege, S. N.; Coppola, B. P.; Lawton, R .G. J. Chem. Educ. 1997, 74 (1), 74−83. (18) Gutwill-Wise, J. P. J. Chem. Educ. 2001, 78 (5), 684−690. (19) Kavak, N. J. Chem. Educ. 2012, 89, 522−523. (20) Prilliman, S. G. J. Chem. Educ. 2012, 89, 1305−1307. (21) Heikkinen, H. W. J. Chem. Educ. 2010, 87 (7), 680−684. (22) Magner, J. T.; Chadwick, J. E.; Chickering, J.; Collins, C.; Su, T.; Villarba, M. J. Chem. Educ. 2002, 79 (5), 544−547. (23) Rudd, J. A., II; Greenbowe, T. J.; Hand, B. M.; Legg, M. J. J. Chem. Educ. 2001, 78 (12), 1680−1686. (24) Klara, K.; Hou, N.; Morrill, D.; Lawman, A.; Wu, L.; Tente, A.; Wang, L.-Q. The Hydrogen Fuel Cell: A Simple Experiment To Connect Chemistry to Its Practical Applications. J. Chem. Educ., to be submitted for publication.
404
dx.doi.org/10.1021/ed300525g | J. Chem. Educ. 2013, 90, 401−404
