A Team Learning Method for Organic Chemistry Frank J. ina an' and Valerie A. Frydrychowski Canisius College, Buffalo, NY 14208 A variety of recently reported research indicates that the lecture method, the mode of presentation most widely used in undergraduate chemistry courses, is less effective than is widelv assumed to be the case. Research indicates that students retain only a small fraction of the material which they are exposed to from a lecture alone ( I ) . An extensive study of the effectiveness of the lecture method in the teaching of general chemistry was conducted a t Arizona State University over a period of several years and concluded that: 1. the extent of learning that occurs in a chemistry course
taught by the lecture method is independent of the lecturer, and 2. attendance at lecture had only a marginal effecton student performance (2). Sheila Tobias's findings have disclosed another negative outcome associated with the use of the lecture method. Her research indicates that many capable students are driven from science by their inability to tolerate the traditional lecture approaih, and by the-resulting student passivity observed in many introductory level science courses (3). In contrast to these obsemitions, the body of evidence that indicates that small group, student-centered learning methods lead to desirable educational outcomes is substantial and growing. Small group instruction has been demonstrated to increase learning skills (41, decrease drop-out rates (5).reduce gender and racial bias (61, and retain non-traditional students (3). Despite this evidence the use of small group, studentcentered instruction methods a t the post-secondary level in chemistry courses is not common. This appears to result from several assumptions commonly made by faculty (7): 1. If the professor has not lectured an the course material, it
has not been covered: 2. the use of small groups to cover course material is inher-
ently inefficientand will result inevitahly in decreased coverage of content; 3. the use of small gmup methods will lead to the instructor having less control over the classroom. These implicit assumptions, coupled with the fact that many chemistry faculty have had little or no training in the use of small groups, tend to encourage faculty to rely on the only instructional methodology with which they are extensively familiar, the lecture method. Additionally, many faculty members were exposed to infrequently used and inexpertly conducted small group instruction a s students, and have, therefore, become convinced that this this type of instruction is inherently ineffective. Hence, if faculty use small groups a t all, they tend to be used in a superficial manner that often is selfdefeating. For example, small groups often are formed on a ternnoram basis to discuss a tooic or solve a ~roblem.and then they &e disbanded quickly.A~his leads t o a lack of continuity and commitment within the group, and the quality of its work inevitably suffers. Some additional reasons for the failure of a t t e m ~ t sto use small moups in the classroom have been the subject of a recen
