Catalyze! Lowering the Activation Barriers to Undergraduate Students

Activity Cite This: J. Chem. Educ. XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX

pubs.acs.org/jchemeduc

Catalyze! Lowering the Activation Barriers to Undergraduate Students’ Success in Chemistry: A Board Game for Teaching Assistants Stacey Brydges* and Holly E. Dembinski Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, California 92093, United States

J. Chem. Educ. Downloaded from pubs.acs.org by WEBSTER UNIV on 02/20/19. For personal use only.

S Supporting Information *

ABSTRACT: The commercial board game Cranium is the inspiration for an educational exercise developed for both undergraduate and graduate teaching assistants (TAs) in chemistry. Catalyze! has been used to highlight the value of game-based active learning while serving as a review of factors that influence undergraduate students’ persistence and success in chemistry studies, as well as teaching techniques and resources TAs can draw on to help students realize their academic potential. Players are challenged to consider common teaching and learning scenarios under five card categories: study strategies, prior knowledge and misconceptions, motivation and mindset, classroom climate, and social and personal issues. Overall, TAs appreciate the engagement and insights afforded them by the game. Catalyze! scenarios can be easily customized across disciplines and for use at other institutions, and the game can be incorporated in a variety of TA professional development contexts. KEYWORDS: Graduate Education/Research, Upper-Division Undergraduate, Interdisciplinary/Multidisciplinary, Collaborative/Cooperative Learning, Humor/Puzzles/Games, Professional Development, TA Training/Orientation

T

exception of one board game,19 the case is similar for K−12 preservice and in-service teachers.20 Herein we describe a new board game for use in (undergraduate and graduate) TA professional development. An adaptation of the commercially available Cranium,21 the game features a variety of scenarios that can serve as barriers to undergraduate students’ success in chemistry, along with teaching techniques and resources that TAs may utilize to help catalyze student learning and individual growth. The game format is an intentional choice for this content as it promotes collaborative problem-solving among an entire group of TAs (i.e., the players) rather than didactic delivery of information by a “teaching expert” (i.e the moderator), thereby reinforcing the value of active learning (and constructivism as its theoretical basis).

eaching assistants (TAs), who are predominantly graduate students, play an important role in the delivery of quality undergraduate education at most research universities.1,2 In the chemical sciences, TAs typically facilitate instructional laboratories and discussion sections (also referred to as recitation or quiz sections), host office hours, and assist faculty with various teaching tasks, including grading.3 In these and other more informal capacities, TAs have the opportunity to impact student learning and development.4,5 To do so positively, TAs must have a strong command of the chemistry subject matter,6 and knowledge of how best to teach such content as well as create effective learning environments for students with diverse backgrounds and interests.7,8 Disciplinespecific professional development that supports TAs in their preparation and implementation of evidence-based instructional practices is thus very important9 and should mirror the active-learning methods TAs are increasingly expected to employ in their undergraduate chemistry courses.6,10 Among active-learning interventions,11 educational games have been recognized for their many benefits, including increased motivation, social competence, performance, and transfer of learning.12 Indeed, there are numerous reports of analog (e.g., board, card, puzzle) and digital (e.g., video, esimulation) games targeting secondary-level and undergraduate students in chemistry, with a focus on specific concepts or broader course reviews.13−17 The use of such pedagogical tools in chemistry graduate education has thus far been limited to simulations and role-playing.18 With the © XXXX American Chemical Society and Division of Chemical Education, Inc.

■

THE GAME: CATALYZE!

Objective

In Catalyze!, two teams of teaching assistants (2−3 each is optimal) engage in a contest of professional teaching competencies as they consider ways to “engineer” effective learning environments22 for undergraduate students in chemistry. The object is to move around the game board’s Received: July 10, 2018 Revised: November 11, 2018

A

DOI: 10.1021/acs.jchemed.8b00544 J. Chem. Educ. XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX

Journal of Chemical Education

Activity

Figure 1. Catalyze! game components, including the board, card decks, die, team tokens, notepads, and pencils/pens.

circuit, which is composed of regularly repeating squares of

Materials

different colors that correspond to five categories of teaching

Each game board is accompanied by more than 50 playing cards, a 6-sided colorful die, 2 team tokens, notepads, and pencils/pens (see Figure 1). Players are required to have on hand a timing device. A printable version of the board and playing cards are provided in Supporting Information; other materials can be purchased independently.

and learning scenarios: study strategies, prior knowledge and misconceptions, motivation and mindset, classroom climate, and social and personal issues (see Figure 1). The purple “Catalyze” spaces, which appear at every sixth position, give a

Setup

team or their opponents a choice of category. Ultimately, the

The game board is arranged with the timer and five different scenario card stacks, questions side up, beside it. Each team is given a game token, pencils or pens, and notepad. Players on

first team to successfully complete a final scenario in “Catalyze” Central wins the game. B



Activity

Figure 2. Sample playing cards, depicting questions on the front (top) and answers on the reverse (bottom) for each category. The full card set can be found in the Supporting Information.

recommended answers and supporting explanations are featured on each card’s reverse side, valid responses may be less detailed and/or include other solutions not listed. In assessing a given response, the opposing team should exercise fairness and reason and offer feedback that is effective. Any questions or points of clarification that arise during play should be directed to a moderator (a course instructor or senior graduate TA, for example); if such an individual is unavailable, and teams are unable to reach a resolution, another scenario card is drawn. In each of the five card categories players will find a variety of scenarios, as well as “All Play” and “Blank” cards. An “All Play” card pauses the game and gives both teams a chance to compete at the same time. The team to arrive at the best answer after 30 s takes a bonus roll and move, and then play continues with the team whose turn it was originally. Note that if this team has won the “All Play” challenge, their next question may originate from a different card deck. If a team draws a “Blank” card, the opposing team must generate an authentic question or scenario for them to address, along with one or more acceptable responses. This feature of Catalyze! encourages players to share their own experiences while contributing to the game development.24 As teams alternate turns reciting and responding to teaching and learning scenarios, the game progresses with each satisfactory solution that is presented. Once a team reaches the central Catalyze! space, it is their opponents who decide on

the same team are advised to sit near one another to facilitate discussion. Rules

The game begins with teams placing their token on the “Catalyze” space adjacent to Go!. The team whose member has the most students in their lab or discussion section takes the first turn. On each turn, a team has one chance to respond to a scenario card and advance along the circuit. If a team is on a purple “Catalyze” space (excluding the central square), they can select any scenario category. If a team is on one of the other colored spaces, they must address a scenario from the corresponding category. In all cases, the opposing team draws the top card from the deck of that category and reads aloud the scenario that appears on the front of the card. If the team whose turn it is answers the question correctly in 1 min or less (as judged by the opposing team), they roll the colored die, move their token to the next space indicated by the die, or to a purple Catalyze! space, whichever is f irst along the circuit,23 and wait for their next turn. If the team is incorrect, they do not roll the die or move their token; instead, they must attempt another question card in the same category when it is their next turn. As collaboration is an integral part of the game, a team also forgoes their chance to advance if an answer is provided without discussion among team members. Given the complexity of teaching and learning, creativity is encouraged of all players in providing responses. And while C



Activity

the card category from which a final question will originate. In the event that both teams land on Catalyze! Central and an “All Play” card is drawn, it still holds that the first team to solve a scenario in Catalyze! Central wins.

slump”. TAs have already been introduced to campus resources for teaching and learning during a two-day TA orientation at the beginning of the academic year, and TA issues are addressed weekly at the beginning of each new workshop. Before launching the game, we discuss the factors that are known to influence persistence in or departure from undergraduate STEM studies,4,27,28 provide statistics from our own institution,29 and challenge TAs to consider their spheres of influence, essentially highlighting the five learning outcomes associated with the card categories in Catalyze! (vide supra). Participant feedback collected by an anonymous, freeresponse survey question30 has revealed three major benefits to TAs. First, Catalyze! provides a fun, low-stakes means for TAs to self-assess and expand upon their knowledge and practice of teaching in the discipline. This can boost TAs’ confidence and better equip them to address the learning needs of their students in undergraduate chemistry courses. “I think the board game was a great way of demonstrating the new knowledge we’ve gained this quarter... It felt like both a review and a celebration of the experiences we’ve had.” “...I found that engaging in that exercise allowed me to see the bigger picture about student struggles and how to help them overcome certain barriers.” “I like how there’s all these different resources available to students that I didn’t know existed.” Second, Catalyze! fosters professional dialogue and expertise exchange among TAs with shared responsibilities whose teaching assignments and experiences may differ. This helps to reduce the professional isolation that is commonly experienced by TAs, and all other educators, and to build a TA culture that is more inclusive and supportive. “...the game gave me the opportunity to listen to my peer’s insights on some of the situations that might be encountered while teaching. The shared experiences and points of view enriched my perspective and made me think about ways to look at situations I wouldn’t have thought by myself.” “One of the strategies highlighted in the game was talking to others and asking for advice. I have done this before by asking [the Sr. TA] or other TAs for help in my section, but it reinforced the fact that even if the TA doesn’t teach the same class as I do, it can be good to go to them for advice because their experience with a different class could give them a different perspective on situations, thus helping me solve different problems.” Third, Catalyze! enables a TA-centered learning experience and reinforces the value of games as a constructivist educational tool. Many TAs are inspired to implement an educational game in their chemistry classrooms, while others express reservations about logistics (particularly time constraints), as well as buy-in from students and the course instructor. “...recognizing that education is a dynamic field, and we as educators should not be afraid to try out new teaching techniques and classroom activities. Just because something has been done a certain way, doesn’t mean that it should prevent you from enacting change.” “I really enjoyed the board game and wanted to implement something like it in lab for a review session, but unfortunately this isn’t allowed this quarter. I plan to use these fun, interactive techniques next quarter!”

Card Categories

Generally, the game aims to impress upon TAs the ways in which they can positively impact their student’s learning experiences by • modeling for students effective learning approaches, • identifying and addressing incomplete prior chemical knowledge and misconceptions that students may hold, • employing strategies that enhance the motivation and develop the growth mindset of students, • mitigating implicit bias and maintaining classroom environments in which diverse students can succeed, and • acknowledging that personal issues (finances, health, identity and self-development, relationships, and more) can adversely affect students’ academic performance. It is recognized that TAs play a critical role in guiding students to develop content knowledge and skills associated with particular lecture or lab courses in the various chemistry domains (e.g., general, organic, inorganic, physical, biochemistry, environmental, computational/theoretical). However, to appeal to as broad a TA audience as possible, we focus instead on issues that typically apply to all areas and levels of chemistry studies. Accordingly, the aforementioned learning outcomes represent the five card categories in Catalyze!. The scenarios that appear in each of these categories have been sourced from the literature, online teaching forums, and numerous discussions with TAs. As noted previously, playing cards feature a question on the front side and acceptable answers on the reverse side (see Figure 2). They also include references for TAs seeking additional information, and to underscore the importance of making evidence-based teaching decisions.25 The full set of citations, together with a handout highlighting learning outcomes, accompany the other game materials to be printed and in this case, distributed to TAs (see Supporting Information).

■

USAGE AND FEEDBACK Approximately 220 teaching assistants in Chemistry and Biochemistry have thus far played Catalyze! as part of a forcredit, 10-week (academic quarter) professional development course on teaching and learning in the discipline that is a corequisite with the first TA assignment in the department.26 The course, which is constructivist-centered by design, explores lecture and laboratory teaching strategies specific to chemistry at the university level and promotes the development of skills to facilitate active, student-centered learning in both settings. More generally, and with the assistance of a Sr. Mentor Graduate TA, the course fosters a professional peer network and helps TAs ascertain their roles and responsibilities within the department and specific courses, while supporting their growth as scholars. Depending on the class size, anywhere from 3 to 18 tables of players have competed simultaneously. The game is featured during a workshop of the same title, “Helping Our Students Over the “Activation Barriers” to Learning Chemistry”, that is scheduled in the second half of the academic term. By this stage, TAs are familiarized with their assigned course and its students, many of whom are experiencing “the midterm D



Activity

“...playing a board game is incredibly active and a very good idea for a classroom. However, I feel like what it lacks is feasibility. I think with how fast-paced a quarter system is and how much material professors expect TAs to cover in discussion, it is very hard to create a game that can be played long enough to be beneficial.” As part of a debriefing exercise to the game, we discuss with TAs the importance of applying pedagogical reasoning to selecting and using a game (as one of many active learning activities) in a particular context. That is, TAs are prompted to consider how a particular game might enhance student learning and not simply serve as a means to disrupt classroom routines. To enable the adoption of games in undergraduate chemistry lectures and laboratories, TAs are provided with an annotated bibliography and database of published games via the course Web site. Other methods for supporting high-impact learning are also explored during the course.

■

*E-mail: [email protected]. ORCID

Stacey Brydges: 0000-0001-8160-4890

■

Notes

The authors declare no competing financial interest. The Catalyze! Board Game is also available at http://catalyze. ucsd.edu/ (accessed Nov 2018).

■

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The authors would like to thank all of the graduate and undergraduate students concomitantly enrolled in CHEM 195/509 and serving as teaching assistants for the Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry who contributed to the development and refinement of this game through their participation and helpful feedback. We are also grateful to other Sr. Mentor Graduate TAs for CHEM 195/509, particularly Mark Boerneke and Cory Weinstein, for providing input on this project. H.E.D. wishes to acknowledge the U.S. Department of Education for a GAANN Fellowship (2013− 2015) and the Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry at UC San Diego for the additional funding she received as the Sr. Mentor TA for CHEM 195/509 (2013−2015).

■

REFERENCES

(1) (a) Boyer Commission on Educating Undergraduates in the Research University. Reinventing Undergraduate Education: A Blueprint for America’s Research Universities; State University of New York: Stony Brook, NY, 1998. (b) Boyer Commission on Educating Undergraduates in the Research University. Re- inventing Undergraduate Education: Three Years after the Boyer Report; State University of New York: Stony Brook, NY, 2002. (2) U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. Occupational Employment Statistics (25-1191 Graduate Teaching Assistants). https://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes251191.htm (accessed Nov 2018). (3) See for example: https://www-chem.ucsd.edu/graduateprogram/ta.html (accessed Nov 2018). (4) Seymour, E.; Hewitt, N. M. Talking about Leaving: Why Undergraduates Leave the Sciences; Westview Press: Boulder, CO, 1997. (5) O’Neal, C.; Wright, M.; Cook, C.; Perorazio, T.; Purkiss, J. The Impact of Teaching Assistants on Student Retention in the Sciences. J. Coll. Sci. Teach. 2007, 36 (5), 24−29. (6) Gardner, G. E.; Jones, M. G. Pedagogical Preparation of the Science Graduate Teaching Assistant: Challenges and Implications. Sci. Educ. 2011, 20 (2), 31−41. (7) Shulman, L. Those who understand: knowledge growth in teaching. Educ. Res. 1986, 15 (2), 4−14. (8) Cochran, K. F.; DeRuiter, J. A.; King, R. A. Pedagogical content knowing: An integrative model for teacher preparation. J. Teach. Educ. 1993, 44, 263−272.

ASSOCIATED CONTENT

S Supporting Information *

The Supporting Information is available on the ACS Publications website at DOI: 10.1021/acs.jchemed.8b00544. Catalyze! Catalyze! Catalyze! Catalyze! Catalyze! DOCX)

AUTHOR INFORMATION

Corresponding Author

CONCLUSION Catalyze! incorporates various principles of motivation and engagement31 to bolster TAs’ pedagogical (content) knowledge and expand their repertoire of teaching tools: challenge, by presenting a task that requires TAs to apply their theoretical knowledge to authentic situations; choice, by allowing TAs to exercise control over scenario selection and responses; collaboration, by facilitating the exchange of strategies and perspectives among TAs; constructed meaning, by having TAs assess the suitability and merit of teaching peers’ proposed strategies for supporting students, underscoring the value of peer feedback and the shared aims and experiences of teaching chemistry; and consequences, by recognizing TA’s evolving expertise and contributions to game development. Originally designed and adapted within the context of a graduate-level teaching professional development course, Catalyze! has versatility with respect to target audience (level, size), moderator participation, and setting. The game can be played with as few as four graduate and/or undergraduate TAs, and with or without a moderator. It can be used both to introduce and to reinforce teaching and learning strategies in chemistry, during orientation programs, stand-alone workshops, or as part of courses of any duration. Scenarios can be easily tailored to other institutions (e.g., by adding course titles) and to other disciplines (e.g., by refining question content). Ultimately, Catalyze! serves as an active learning activity that highlights the multiple ways in which TAs can positively impact the academic experiences of undergraduate students in the chemical sciences. Allowing TAs to experience first-hand game-based learning can also empower them to employ more student-centered pedagogies in their undergraduate chemistry courses.

■

Catalyze! playing cards, prior knowledge & misconceptions category (PDF, DOCX) Catalyze! playing cards, motivation & mindset category (PDF, DOCX) Catalyze! playing cards, classroom climate category (PDF, DOCX) Catalyze! playing cards, social and personal issues category (PDF, DOCX)

game board (PDF) game instructions (PDF) handout for players, TAs (PDF) game references (PDF) playing cards, study strategies category (PDF, E



Activity

Game. J. Chem. Educ. 2003, 80 (4), 423−424. (k) Gublo, K. I. A Laboratory Safety Trivia Game. J. Chem. Educ. 2003, 80 (4), 425. (l) Greengold, S. L. The Match Game: A Discovery of the Laboratory Equipment Used in High School Chemistry. J. Chem. Educ. 2005, 82 (4), 547−548. (m) Boyd, S. L. Puzzling through General Chemistry: A Light-Hearted Approach to Engaging Students with Chemistry Content. J. Chem. Educ. 2007, 84 (4), 619−621. (n) Capps, K. Chemistry Taboo: An Active Learning Game for the General Chemistry Classroom. J. Chem. Educ. 2008, 85 (4), 518. (o) Morris, T. A. Go Chemistry: A Card Game To Help Students Learn Chemical Formulas. J. Chem. Educ. 2011, 88 (10), 1397−1399. (p) Antunes, M.; Pacheco, M. A. R.; Giovanela, M. Design and Implementation of an Educational Game for Teaching Chemistry in Higher Education. J. Chem. Educ. 2012, 89 (4), 517−521. (q) Franco-Mariscal, A. J.; OlivaMartínez, J. M.; Márquez, S. B. An Educational Card Game for Learning Families of Chemical Elements. J. Chem. Educ. 2012, 89 (8), 1044−1046. (r) Kavak, N. ChemPoker. J. Chem. Educ. 2012, 89 (4), 522−523. (s) Kavak, N. ChemOkey: A Game To Reinforce Nomenclature. J. Chem. Educ. 2012, 89 (8), 1047−1049. (t) Stringfield, T. W.; Kramer, E. F. Benefits of a Game-Based Review Module in Chemistry Courses for Nonmajors. J. Chem. Educ. 2014, 91 (1), 56−58. (u) Bayir, E. Developing and Playing Chemistry Games To Learn about Elements, Compounds, and the Periodic Table: Elemental Periodica, Compoundica, and Groupica. J. Chem. Educ. 2014, 91 (4), 531−535. (v) Marti-Centelles, V.; Rubio-Magnieto, J. ChemMend: A Card Game To Introduce and Explore the Periodic Table while Engaging Students’ Interest. J. Chem. Educ. 2014, 91 (6), 868−871. (w) Moreno, L. F.; Hincapié, G.; Alzate, M. V. Cheminoes: A Didactic Game To Learn Chemical Relationships between Valence, Atomic Number, and Symbol. J. Chem. Educ. 2014, 91 (6), 872−875. (x) Kurushkin, M.; Mikhaylenko, M. Chemical Alias: An Engaging Way To Examine Nomenclature. J. Chem. Educ. 2015, 92 (10), 1678− 1680. (y) Franco-Mariscal, A. J.; Oliva-Martínez, J. M.; Blanco-López, Á .; España-Ramos, E. A Game-Based Approach To Learning the Idea of Chemical Elements and Their Periodic Classification. J. Chem. Educ. 2016, 93 (7), 1173−1190. (z) Kurushkin, M.; Mikhaylenko, M. Orbital Battleship: A Guessing Game to Reinforce Atomic Structure. J. Chem. Educ. 2016, 93 (9), 1595−1598. (aa) Kavak, N.; Yamak, H. Picture Chem: Playing a Game To Identify Laboratory Equipment Items and Describe Their Use. J. Chem. Educ. 2016, 93 (7), 1253− 1255. (ab) Lee, C.-H.; Zhu, J. F.; Lin, T.-L.; Ni, C.-W.; Hong, C. P.; Huang, P.-H.; Chuang, H.-L.; Lin, S.-Y.; Ho, M.-L. Using a Table Tennis Game, “Elemental Knock-Out”, To Increase Students’ Familiarity with Chemical Elements, Symbols, and Atomic Numbers. J. Chem. Educ. 2016, 93 (10), 1744−1748. (ac) Zhang, X. Acid−Base Poker: A Card Game Introducing the Concepts of Acid and Base at the College Level. J. Chem. Educ. 2017, 94 (5), 606−609. (ad) de Melo Silva, D.; Ribeiro, C. M. R. Analogue Three-Dimensional Memory Game for Teaching Reflection, Symmetry, and Chirality to High School Students. J. Chem. Educ. 2017, 94 (9), 1272−1275. (ae) da Silva Junior, J. N.; Sousa Lima, M. A.; Xerez Moreira, J. V.; Oliveira Alexandre, F. S.; de Almeida, D. M.; de Oliveira, M. C. F.; Melo Leite Junior, A. J. Stereogame: An Interactive Computer Game That Engages Students in Reviewing Stereochemistry Concepts. J. Chem. Educ. 2017, 94, 248−250. (af) Kurushkin, M.; Mikhaylenko, M. Addition to Orbital Battleship: A Guessing Game To Reinforce Atomic Structure Recommendations on How To Organize Game Play of Orbital Battleship. J. Chem. Educ. 2017, 94 (7), 980. (ag) Adair, B. M.; McAfee, L. V. Chemical Pursuit: A Modified Trivia Board Game. J. Chem. Educ. 2018, 95 (3), 416−418. (15) Organic chemistry: (a) Schneider, R. Chemical Crossword Puzzle. J. Chem. Educ. 1966, 43 (8), 445−446. (b) Eglinton, G.; Maxwell, J. R. Chemsyn Chemical Card Game 1. Educ. Chem. 1971, 8, 142−144. (c) Kristol, D.; Perlmutter, H. D. Organocards−Chemical Card Game 2. Educ. Chem. 1971, 8, 145−147. (d) Kristol, D.; Perlmutter, H. D. Organocards−Chemical Card Game 3. Educ. Chem. 1971, 8, 176−177. (e) Pendarvis, R. Infrared-Spectroscopy Checkers. Chem. Educ. 1998, 3 (4), 1−5. (f) Pieroni, O. I.; Vuano, B. M.; Ciolino, A. E. Classroom Innovation: Games to Make Chemistry

(9) Examples of graduate-level professional development programs focused on the teaching of chemistry: (a) Nurrenbern, S. C.; Mickiewicz, J. A.; Francisco, J. S. The Impact of Continuous Instructional Development on Graduate and Undergraduate Students. J. Chem. Educ. 1999, 76 (1), 114−119. (b) Mazlo, J.; Kelter, P. Graduate-Level Course for Successful Class Strategies: Preparing Graduate Students for the Next Step. J. Chem. Educ. 2000, 77 (9), 1175−1177. (c) Kurdziel, J. P.; Turner, J. A.; Luft, J. A.; Roehrig, G. H. Graduate Teaching Assistants and Inquiry-Based Instruction: Implications for Graduate Teaching Assistant Training. J. Chem. Educ. 2003, 80 (10), 1206−1210. (d) Bond-Robinson, J.; Rodriques, R. A. B. Catalyzing Graduate Teaching Assistants’ Laboratory Teaching through Design Research. J. Chem. Educ. 2006, 83 (2), 313−323. (e) Gerdeman, R. D.; Russell, A. A.; Eikey, R. A. A Course to Prepare Future Faculty in Chemistry: Perspectives from Former Participants. J. Chem. Educ. 2007, 84 (2), 285−291. (f) Tofan, D. C. Improving Chemistry Education by Offering Salient Technology Training to Preservice Teachers. A Graduate-Level Course on Using Software to Teach Chemistry. J. Chem. Educ. 2009, 86 (9), 1060−1062. (g) Marbach-Ad, G.; Schaefer, K. L.; Kumi, B. C.; Friedman, L. A.; Thompson, K. V.; Doyle, M. P. Development and Evaluation of a Prep Course for Chemistry Graduate Teaching Assistants at a Research University. J. Chem. Educ. 2012, 89, 865−872. (h) Knutson, C. C.; Jackson, M. N., Jr.; Beekman, M.; Carnes, M. E.; Johnson, D. W.; Johnson, D. C.; Keszler, D. A. Mentoring Graduate Students in Research and Teaching by Utilizing Research as a Template. J. Chem. Educ. 2014, 91, 200−205. (i) Richards-Babb, M.; Penn, J. H.; Withers, M. Results of a Practicum Offering Teaching-Focused Graduate Student Professional Development. J. Chem. Educ. 2014, 91, 1867−1873. (j) Dragisich, V.; Keller, V.; Zhao, M. An Intensive Training Program for Effective Teaching Assistants in Chemistry. J. Chem. Educ. 2016, 93, 1204−1210. (k) Dragisich, V.; Keller, V.; Black, R.; Heaps, C. W.; Kamm, J. K.; Olechnowicz, F.; Raybin, J.; Rombola, M.; Zhao, M. Development of an Advanced Training Course for Teachers and Researchers in Chemistry. J. Chem. Educ. 2016, 93, 1211−1216. (l) Kim, K. S.; Rackus, D. G.; Mabury, S. A.; Morra, B.; Dicks, A. P. The Chemistry Teaching Fellowship Program: Developing Curricula and Graduate Student Professionalism. J. Chem. Educ. 2017, 94, 439−444. (10) Seymour, E. Partners in Innovation: Teaching Assistants in College Science Teaching; Rowman and Littlefeld: Boulder, CO, 2005. (11) 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, 8410−8415. (12) Kumar, R.; Lightner, R. Games as an Interactive Classroom Technique: Perceptions of Corporate Trainers, College Instructors and Students. Int. J. Teach. Learn. High. Educ. 2007, 19, 53−63. (13) (a) Russell, J. V. Using Games To Teach Chemistry: An Annotated Bibliography. J. Chem. Educ. 1999, 76 (4), 481−484. (b) Samide, M. J.; Wilson, A. M. Games, Games, Games; Playing to Engage with Chemistry Concepts. Chem. Educator. 2014, 19, 167− 170. (14) High School/Introductory Chemistry: (a) Armitage, G. M. Odd Man Out - A Chemical Game. J. Chem. Educ. 1979, 56 (9), 609. (b) Deavor, J. P. Chemical Jeopardy. J. Chem. Educ. 1996, 73 (5), 430. (c) Olbris, D. J.; Herzfeld, J. Nucleogenesis! A Game with Natural Rules for Teaching Nuclear Synthesis and Decay. J. Chem. Educ. 1999, 76 (3), 349−352. (d) Russell, J. V. Using Games To Teach Chemistry. 2. CHeMoVEr Board Game. J. Chem. Educ. 1999, 76 (4), 487−488. (e) Crute, T. D. Classroom Nomenclature Games BINGO. J. Chem. Educ. 2000, 77 (4), 481−482. (f) Deavor, J. P. Who Wants to be a (Chemical) Millionaire? J. Chem. Educ. 2001, 78 (4), 467. (g) Campbell, S.; Muzyka, J. Chemistry Game Shows. J. Chem. Educ. 2002, 79 (4), 458. (h) Olbris, D. J.; Herzfeld, J. Depletion: A Game with Natural Rules for Teaching Reaction Rate Theory. J. Chem. Educ. 2002, 79 (10), 1232−1234. (i) Koether, M. The Name Game: Learning the Connectivity between the Concepts. J. Chem. Educ. 2003, 80 (4), 421−422. (j) Myers, S. A. The Molecular Model F



Activity

More Interesting and Fun. Chem. Educ. 2000, 5, 167−170. (g) Welsh, M. J. Organic Functional Group Playing Card Deck. J. Chem. Educ. 2003, 80 (4), 426−427. (h) Erdik, E. Spiral Puzzle for Organic Chemistry Students. J. Chem. Educ. 2003, 80 (4), 428−430. (i) Erdik, E. Using Building-Block Puzzles To Practice Drawing Organic Mechanisms. J. Chem. Educ. 2005, 82 (9), 1325−1326. (j) Perez, A. L.; Lamoureux, G. Sudoku Puzzles for First-Year Organic Chemistry Students. J. Chem. Educ. 2007, 84 (4), 614. (k) Costa, M. J. CARBOHYDECK: A Card Game To Teach the Stereochemistry of Carbohydrates. J. Chem. Educ. 2007, 84 (6), 977−978. (l) Follows, D. A versatile Puzzle for Use as a Teaching Aid in Organic Chemistry at Secondary School. J. Chem. Educ. 2010, 87 (4), 405. (m) Angelin, M.; Ramström, O. Where’s Ester? A Game That Seeks the Structure Hiding behind the Trivial Names. J. Chem. Educ. 2010, 87 (4), 406− 407. (n) Mosher, M. D.; Mosher, M. W.; Garoutte, M. P. Organic Mastery: An Activity for the Undergraduate Classroom. J. Chem. Educ. 2012, 89 (5), 646−648. (o) Moreira, R. F. A Game for the Early and Rapid Assimilation of Organic Nomenclature. J. Chem. Educ. 2013, 90 (8), 1035−1037. (p) Eastwood, M. L. Fastest Fingers: A MoleculeBuilding Game for Teaching Organic Chemistry. J. Chem. Educ. 2013, 90 (8), 1038−1041. (q) Carney, J. M. Retrosynthetic Rummy: A Synthetic Organic Chemistry Card Game. J. Chem. Educ. 2015, 92 (2), 328−331. (r) Knudtson, C. A. ChemKarta: A Card Game for Teaching Functional Groups in Undergraduate Organic Chemistry. J. Chem. Educ. 2015, 92 (9), 1514−1517. (s) Farmer, S. C.; Schuman, M. K. A Simple Card Game To Teach Synthesis in Organic Chemistry Courses. J. Chem. Educ. 2016, 93 (4), 695−698. (t) Winter, J.; Wentzel, M.; Ahluwalia, S. Chairs!: A Mobile Game for Organic Chemistry Students To Learn the Ring Flip of Cyclohexane. J. Chem. Educ. 2016, 93 (9), 1657−1659. (u) Smaldone, R. A.; Thompson, C. M.; Evans, M.; Voit, W. Teaching science through video games. Nat. Chem. 2017, 9 (2), 97−102. (v) Gogal, K.; Heuett, W.; Jaber, D. CHEMCompete: An Organic Chemistry Card Game To Differentiate between Substitution and Elimination Reactions of Alkyl Halides. J. Chem. Educ. 2017, 94 (9), 1276−1279. (w) O’Halloran, K. P. Teaching Classes of Organic Compounds with a Sticky Note on Forehead Game. J. Chem. Educ. 2017, 94 (12), 1929−1932. (16) Biochemistry: (a) Lemley, P. V. A Game Show Approach to Teaching Peptide Sequencing. J. Chem. Educ. 1989, 66 (12), 1011. (b) Ooi, B. G.; Sanger, M. J. Which Pathway Am I?″ Using a Game Approach To Teach Students about Biochemical Pathways. J. Chem. Educ. 2009, 86 (4), 454−455. (c) Roštejnská, M.; Klímová, H. Biochemistry Games: A-Z Quiz and Jeopardy! J. Chem. Educ. 2011, 88 (4), 432−433. (d) Conway, C.; Leonard, M. Insulin−Glucagon Interactions: Using a Game to Understand Hormonal Control. J. Chem. Educ. 2014, 91 (4), 536−540. (e) Conway, C.; Leonard, M. Playing an Electron Transport System Game to Improve Health Students’ Learning. J. Chem. Educ. 2015, 92 (5), 871−873. (17) Analytical, environmental, and physical chemistry: (a) Nowosielski, D. A. Use of a Concentration Game for Environmental Chemistry Class Review. J. Chem. Educ. 2007, 84 (2), 239−240. (b) Pippins, T.; Anderson, C. M.; Poindexter, E. F.; Sultemeier, S. W.; Schultz, L. D. Element Cycles: An Environmental Chemistry Board Game. J. Chem. Educ. 2011, 88 (8), 1112−1115. (c) Daubenfeld, T.; Zenker, D. A Game-Based Approach to an Entire Physical Chemistry Course. J. Chem. Educ. 2015, 92 (2), 269−277. (d) Grinias, J. P. Making a Game Out of It: Using Web-Based Competitive Quizzes for Quantitative Analysis Content Review. J. Chem. Educ. 2017, 94 (9), 1363−1366. (18) Marbach-Ad, G.; Schaefer, K. L.; Kumi, B. C.; Friedman, L. A.; Thompson, K. V.; Doyle, M. P. Development and Evaluation of a Prep Course for Chemistry Graduate Teaching Assistants at a Research University. J. Chem. Educ. 2012, 89, 865−872. (19) Turcotte, N.; Betrus, A. Teaching Bad Apples: A Fun Way to Tackle Difficult Teaching Situations. TechTrends 2016, 60, 398−401. (20) simschool Teacher Training Platform. 2005. http://www. simschool.org. (accessed Nov 2018).

(21) Hasbro Gaming. Cranium. https://hasbrogaming.hasbro.com/ en-us/product/cranium-game:84DD09AD-5056-9047-F51B702BA83401F7 (accessed Nov 2018). (22) Bain, K. What the Best College Teachers Do; Harvard University Press: Cambridge, MA, 2004. (23) If players wish to complete the game in a shorter time frame, this rule may be disregarded. (24) Players are instructed to record their question and its response(s) on the “Blank” cards, to be collected at the end of the game. Once vetted, the new scenario can be included in future renditions of the game, with appropriate attribution given to the student authors (TAs). (25) Kober, N. Reaching Students: What Research Says about Effective Instruction in Undergraduate Science and Engineering; The National Academies Press: Washington, DC, 2015. (26) CHEM 509/CHEM 195 (“Teaching Methods in Chemistry and Biochemistry”) is a cross-listed graduate- and undergraduate-level professional development seminar for Graduate Teaching Assistants (GTAs) and Tutors/Readers (also called Undergraduate Instructional Apprentices, UGIAs) in chemistry and biochemistry, respectively, that must be taken concurrently with the first teaching apprenticeship in the department. Typically, the majority of course participants are M.S. and Ph.D. students. (27) Tinto, V. Leaving College: Rethinking the Causes and Cures of Student Attrition, 2nd ed.; University of Chicago: Chicago, IL, 1993. (28) Shedlosky-Shoemaker, R.; Fautch, J. M. Who Leaves, Who Stays? Psychological Predictors of Undergraduate Chemistry Students’ Persistence. J. Chem. Educ. 2015, 92, 408−414. (29) These are taken from the University of California Undergraduate Experience Survey (UCUES), which provides a detailed portrait of students’ backgrounds, academic/co-curricular activities, and perceived obstacles to academic success. (30) Here is the survey question: “In our seminar we explored the broad topic of “Lowering the Activation Barriers to Student Success” through our board game Catalyze!. Which ideas, strategies, or resources from the seminar will be of help to you in your teaching?” Adapted from Handelsman, J.; Miller, S.; Pfund, C. Scientific Teaching; W. H. Freeman and Company, New York, NY, 2007. (31) Turner, J.; Paris, S. G. How literacy tasks influence children’s motivation for literacy. Read Teach. 1995, 48 (8), 662−673.

G


Catalyze! Lowering the Activation Barriers to Undergraduate Students

Recommend Documents