T. M. Poole University of Surrey Gulldford,Surrey. United Kingdom
Evaluation of a Keller Type Course in Organic Chemistry
A modified Keller course has been developed and used since 1972 to teach organic chemistry to first year undergraduates in the Chemistry Department at Surrey University. The need for innovation in teachine: arose initiallv as a result of ser\,ice teaching to biochemists. f i e s e studentsdid consistently badly and worse then chemists, who followed the same lecture course, in the final examinations. This was due not to the biochemists' lower ability but to their lower motivation. The Keller Plan was imported into England in 1971 by physicists and was believed to he particularly suitahle for conceptual subjects and not factual ones.' Keller Plan is valuahle for learning in discrete steps which take place in a prescribed order. Concepts in science are developed from experimental facts and facts must be considered as essential steps in the learning of systematic organic chemistry hased on modem electronic theory. One doubts whether heterocyclic chemistry can he made sense of without nrevious studv of aliphaticand aromatic chemistry, or whether carbohydrates ran t ~ assimilated e without knowledge al- of simple . hvdroxv . dehydes. A 2-year grant from the Teaching and Leamine Committee of the University allowed the development of the Keller type course. Within this time the course had to be used without prejudicing the students and evaluated so as to he accepted or rejected by the faculty. The experimental course had w fit into the system and the primarymodification to the Keller concept was that i t did not replace lectures but run in parallel with them providing the basic framework to the more detailed lecture course. I t thus replaced the tutorials. Students were not used as tutors and experience has further convinced us of the danger of using tutors who know little more than their students. First-year students often ask penetrating questions and it is essential that they be given correct answers. Members of staff, post-doctoral fellows, and final year postgraduates are always used as tutors. A studentlstaff ratio which allows l the 22-wk 20 min/wk/student has been found o ~ t i m a for course of 23 units, covered in two terms. In the third term students sit a 3-hr examination set by the lecturers. The examination is thus an independent measure of the student's mastery of the organic chemistry course. After the examination 118students filled in a questionnaire designed to obtain correlations of A-level grades, Keller Plan units completed, and organic chemistry examination results; a scale was also ohtained which measured their attitudes to the Keller Plan in relation to organic chemistry. Statistical data for each year indicated trends hut had limitations of small numbers. T o correct for this a computer analysis was run on the 3-yr sample (118 students). It was not possible to have a control mouo. - . With improved course organization the number of students completing 2&23 units (fast) rose from 26.5 to 61.1%,the slow "tail" has been reduced from 47.1 to 12.0%. The median score in the examination rose from 35.5% (no Keller Plan) to 49% (3rd year of Keller Plan). Comparison of students' abilities in terms of their A-level entry qualifications showed a certain lowering of entry qualifications (in 1972173 15.5% bad top grade A in Chemistry, and 6% in 1914175;corresponding Alevel mean of 4.6-4.0 dropped from 33.3% to 18.5%). Correlation between number of Keller Plan units completed (product moment coefficient) and examination results, was f = 0.635 with p = 1% < x 2 < 0.1%. NOsignificant correlation was obtained between examination scores and A-level entry
~. ~~
750 1 Journal of Chemical Education
aualifications. A reliable scale was obtained. a value 0.79.2 Ghich measured attitudes to Keller Plan in relation to organic chemistry. Students with positive attitudes to Keller Plan performed well in theexamination. Thisdid not apply to the worst or best students (scorine below 40% or above 69% in the examination) but is clearly Gue of the middle range which covers half the students. Concluslon The significant correlation between organic chemistry examination marks and the number of Keller Plan units completed by students seems to indicate that the modified Keller Plan as used by us improves the learning of organic chemistry by students. Though the Keller Plan represents a fairly low teachinghearnine situation as it controls the material the students cover, it seems very suitable for 1st-year undergraduates doing foundation courses which require memorizing of considerable material as well as understanding of fundamental principles. The more advanced aims in the teaching of science-perception of the whole subject, creativity and inventiveness,and solution of problems are not likely to be achieved through the Keller type courses. The complete education of a chemist can only he gained by supplementing self-paced study with lectures, discussions, and practical work. Learning begins when the emotional climate is right and in the Keller Plan students get regular individual contact with tutors. The svstem encouraees reeular studv and eives the " students and'tutors immediate feeh-back onthe progress of learning. I t is well received bv most students even thoueh i t is time consuming, and the tutors get very enthusiastic aiiout this type of teaching. However. the Keller Plan is labor intensive and thus expensive to run. The extra time, as compared with the system of group tutorials, amounts to about 17 min/studentlwk. It seems unlikely that this amount of extra teaching would have much effect if it were not for the discipline imposed on both tutors and students by the structuring of the course material. The Board of Study in Biochemistry has commended this type of teaching and asked us to continue it and to expand i t to the inorganic and physical chemistry teaching. The Department of Chemistry has adopted this system for its firstyear undergraduates not only for organic but also for inorganic chemistry. In the five years 35 people from various countries have acted as tutors on the course-many of them, convinced of the usefulness of this type of teaching, are trying to adopt the course in their own institutions. I t seems that courses hased on the Keller conceot are not likely to follow so many other educational innovations which have died after the initial enthusiasm. Acknowledgment I wish to thank Dr. E. E. Zinck of Acadia University, Nova Scotia, who wrote most of the initial units; Mr. K. McDonald of the Sociology Department, University of Surrey who helped to devise and analyze the questionnaire and the University of Surrey Teaching and Learning Methods Committee who ~~~
' Elton, L. B. R., et a]., Chem. Brit.,9,164 (1973).
~
McKennel, A., "Attitude MeasurementUse of Coefficient with Cluster Factor Analysis," Sociology, 4 [2], (May 1970).
cave me a mant which made it ~ossibleto carry out this project. I am also indebted to all the tutors without whose hard work the "Keller Plan" course could never have been started. General References ~ ~ 1 F. 1S.."God~hye ~ ~ . Teacher," J. ApplBehoviour Anolvsis. (spring 1968). Green. Jr. B. A,. "Physics Teaching by the Keller Plan at MIT." Amer. il Phya.. (July, 1971).
G.oe.,~r.,~.~.."~~the~eu~~~lan~~tchi~~n~~~~t-~.~~~~n 1971). Analyais in Psycholw and Education," Mffiraw-Hill, 2nd Ed.. Fergllmn. G. A.."St~ti~tied L O " ~ O ~1966. . D. 388. Gage, N.L.,Edilor. "HandbaokofRe~arehandTeaching."RandMcNally&Co., Chicago, lPll .....
M C K ~ I I ~A~ .I ," ~ t t i t ~~ d ~ ~ 01 caefficient ~= with cluster ~ or ~~~t~~ Analsis,"Soeiology, 4. no. 2. (May 1970). Maxwell, A. E., "Basis Ststistia in Behsvioursl Research." Penguin, 1972. Mommy. M. J.. "Fecfs from Figures." Pelican. 1967.
Volume 54, Number 12,December 1977 / 751
~
