In the Classroom
Chemistry ConcepTests: Considerations for Small Class Size Todd Wimpfheimer Department of Chemistry and Physics, Salem State College, Salem, MA 01970;
[email protected] Implementation of student active learning methods (SAL) is on the rise in the college classroom. One technique, ConcepTests, has been used since it was first reported in the mid-1990s by Mazur (1, 2). In this method, students vote individually on the answers to multiple-choice questions, discuss their answers with their peers, and then individually re-vote (3, 4). Most instructors have used ConcepTests in large classes (100–300 students) as a way to engage the students and elicit feedback (3, 5). This paper reports on some of the special considerations that were necessary when ConcepTests were used in a smaller class (15 students). The Use of ConcepTests in a Small Class The class was a fourth-semester general chemistry class usually taken by biology and chemistry majors immediately after two semesters of organic chemistry. In the spring of 2001, this class had 15 students. The class was run using ConcepTests, with lecturing “around” them when necessary. Some days only one or two ConcepTests were used, while other days as many as four or five were used. The benefits of using this SAL method (3, 4, 6 ) became apparent immediately after the first couple of classes and continued throughout the semester. The class as a whole became a more vibrant, active place. The students became engaged in their work, rather than passively listening and recording notes. Over the course of the semester, absenteeism dropped when compared to past classes. The students appeared to be having a more enjoyable experience in the classroom, an observation confirmed by student evaluations. As the instructor, I found myself also enjoying the class thoroughly. Much of the literature on ConcepTests describes how they function in large classes. In a small class of 15, however, several situations arose that were a function of the smaller class size. Students were initially very self-conscious in the small setting. If a student consistently voted incorrectly against the majority of the class they couldn’t “hide” as they could in a big class. Some students would sneak peeks at how others were voting and in a class of 15, a swing of 1 or 2 votes is noticeable. In spite of these concerns, I discovered a remarkable thing: student participation in these exercises was close to one hundred percent! In nearly every class all semester, every student voted and re-voted on every question. These students were much more engaged in the material than they would have been had the material been delivered as a traditional lecture.
592
Another small matter arose when, during the discussion portion, some of the class would eavesdrop on the two or three “best” students and would simply vote as they did, without really thinking the exercise through themselves. This is inherent in the smaller setting where everyone can hear everyone else if they try. I found this problem to be selfcorrecting when early on the “best” students missed several questions. Amazingly this gave the rest of the students more confidence to vote their own mind. Several consequences of the small class size turned out to be positive. The class voted by holding up A, B, C, D cards and the small class size allowed easy and accurate counting and tabulation by the instructor. In the absence of hand-held touch pads, this was a great benefit. When students were called upon to give their reasoning, they were easily heard by the others, which I’m not sure is always the case in a large lecture hall. Also, by the end of the semester, every student had had a chance to “report out” his or her answer. Because of the small class size, it was easy for the instructor to take attendance daily. This was important, as extra-credit points were awarded to students present during successful exercises. Despite my initial concerns, the use of ConcepTests was a great way to actively engage students in this smaller class setting. Not only were the usual benefits of student active learning obtained, there were other advantages that arose as a result of the more intimate class size. Literature Cited 1. Mazur, Eric. Peer Instruction: A User’s Manual; Prentice Hall: Upper Saddle River, NJ, 1997. 2. Project:Galileo; http://galileo.harvard.edu (accessed Feb 2002). 3. Landis, Clark R.; Ellis, Arthur B.; Lisensky, George C.; Lorenz, Julie K.; Meeker, Kathleen; Wamser, Carl C. Chemistry ConcepTests: A Pathway to Interactive Classrooms; Prentice Hall: Upper Saddle River, NJ, 2001. 4. ConcepTests; New Traditions Project, University of Wisconsin: Madison, WI; http://www.chem.wisc.edu/~concept/ (accessed Mar 2002). 5. Kovac, Jeffrey D. J. Chem. Educ. 1999, 76, 120. 6. Wright, John C.; Millar, Susan B.; Kosciuk, Steve A.; Penberthy, Debra L.; Williams, Paul H.; Wampold, Bruce E. J. Chem. Educ. 1998, 75, 986.
Journal of Chemical Education • Vol. 79 No. 5 May 2002 • JChemEd.chem.wisc.edu
