Incorporating Problem-Based Learning (PBL) Into the Chemistry

Chapter 8

Downloaded by UNIV OF FLORIDA on November 27, 2017 | http://pubs.acs.org Publication Date (Web): October 31, 2017 | doi: 10.1021/bk-2017-1266.ch008

Incorporating Problem-Based Learning (PBL) Into the Chemistry Curriculum: Two Practitioners’ Experiences Christen Strollo*,1 and Kathryn L. Davis2 1Chemistry

Department, College of Saint Benedict|Saint John’s University, Ardolf Science Center, 37 South College Avenue, St. Joseph, Minnesota 56374, United States 2Chemistry Department, Manchester University, 604 E. College Avenue, North Manchester, Indiana 46962, United States *E-mail: [email protected].

Learning through authentic experience using multiple modes of inquiry is a hallmark of liberal arts education. This approach is reflected in recent improvements in chemistry curricula, which show a shift to more student-centered, problem-based approaches in order to promote student engagement. This chapter describes the implementation of two variants on problem-based learning (PBL) at two different liberal arts institutions, with application to both lower-division and upper-division chemistry courses. By situating course material within the context of real-world science work, the PBL approach helps students to build interdisciplinary connections and give them direct engagement with the scientific method.

Introduction In January 2016, the ACS Committee on Professional Training (ACS CPT) issued the “Excellent Undergraduate Chemistry Programs” supplement to summarize the most recent program guidelines (1). According to that document, “An excellent chemistry program is an integrated, broad-based, challenging chemical experience designed to provide an undergraduate with the intellectual, experimental, and interactive skills to participate effectively in the chemical sciences enterprise.” The curriculum of such a program will “instill in the © 2017 American Chemical Society Kloepper and Crawford; Liberal Arts Strategies for the Chemistry Classroom ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2017.


student an appreciation of chemistry in science and society from a molecular perspective;” and faculty will use pedagogical techniques that “generate an integrative experience in which students learn to apply their knowledge in new contexts and can seamlessly transition to postgraduate activities.” Liberal arts programs, with their focus on holistic education through multidisciplinary coursework and interdisciplinary integration, have a lot to offer in informing effective approaches to chemical education under the new guidelines. In that spirit, it is useful to give examples of some of the variety of pedagogical techniques and assignments that chemistry faculty have used to enhance and to reinforce interdisciplinary connections, integrative experiences, and professional development within the chemistry curriculum. Hodges successfully employed a guided reading and discussion exercise in a biochemistry course to increase knowledge on current topics and improve skills for lifelong learning (2). More recently, Bennett and Taubman incorporated an exercise to facilitate critical reading of the chemical literature in a third-year course to improve reading comprehension (3). Greco (4) and Miller and Chengelis Czegan (5) have designed assignments to promote science literacy as a problem-solving skill for majors and non-majors in a liberal arts setting. Some laboratory courses incorporate professional skills into lab work by requiring students to write business cover letters and memos that accompany their science analyses (6, 7). Other faculty use long-form techniques, such as a problem-based learning (PBL) approach, to achieve the above objectives. Born of constructivist learning theories, PBL has its formal roots in medical education. Although there are many different variations on PBL, Savery identifies that the common theme among all of them is the use of small student groups to investigate open-ended problems, similar to those that they might one day encounter outside of the classroom (8). Savery’s review is a useful survey of the basic terminology and variations of PBL; a longer work by Savin-Baden and Howell provides additional background on the underlying conceptual frameworks for PBL, as well as problem design, the role of teamwork, and assessment (9). PBL is common in the undergraduate chemistry laboratory, where instructors devote parts of courses or entire courses to sustained inquiry into a single, ill-defined problem, such as environmental quality issues (6, 10–13), organic synthesis (14, 15), or spectroscopic analysis (16–18). In some cases, faculty leverage PBL for metacognitive purposes, such as when Clougherty and Wells require instrumental analysis students to develop their own lab activity (19). PBL is somewhat less common in chemistry lecture courses, although it is by no means unused. Cannon and Krow used contemporary chemical literature on complex natural products as the basis for a PBL course in advanced organic synthesis (20). Several instructors have used PBL approaches in biochemistry courses (21, 22). Belt et al. used the principles of project-based learning to develop case studies for analytical chemistry (23). PBL has also been deployed in a graduate-level environmental chemistry course by Jansson et al. (24) There are benefits, both demonstrated and perceived, to problem-based approaches. Spencer finds that problem-based pedagogy is the best way for students to learn and be able to translate those skills to real world problems (24). Sandi-Urena and coworkers have presented qualitative and quantitative 134 Kloepper and Crawford; Liberal Arts Strategies for the Chemistry Classroom ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2017.


data suggesting that the PBL approach leads to improved metacognition and problem-solving skills in first-year general chemistry students, suggesting that this approach improves upon traditional, “cookbook” laboratory pedagogy (26, 27). Additionally, from a liberal arts perspective, the PBL approach, with its focus on learning through authentic experience, should help students to build interdisciplinary connections and give them direct engagement with the scientific method. Lastly, by situating lab work within the context of doing real science, PBL should help students to develop the highly important quality of professional identification, which Graham and coworkers identified as a main determinant for student persistence in STEM majors (28). In this chapter, we describe our experiences with applying varying PBL approaches to our non-majors’ (K. Davis) and majors’ (C. Strollo) courses. As faculty at liberal arts institutions, the PBL approach is compatible with our own educational philosophies and with the educational philosophy of our institutions in general. Both of us find increased student engagement as a result of these techniques and increased stimulation in course planning, although we note similar challenges in development and implementation. It is our hope that you will find our experiences instructive in your own quest to infuse your teaching with some of the principles of a liberal arts education.

Problem-Based Learning at the Introductory Level Scope of Course Chemical Science (CHEM 101) is a non-majors’, introductory chemistry course at Manchester University (North Manchester, IN). This course is part of the “Ways of Knowing – The Natural World” section of the Manchester CORE, or liberal arts requirements. Beginning in January 2012, I (K. Davis) converted my sections of this course to a Project-Based Learning method. (Note that Project-Based Learning is a subcategory of problem-based learning; sometimes both methods are abbreviated as PBL in the literature.) Project-Based Learning methods are far more common in K-12 classrooms than in undergraduate education. However, classification can be difficult, as Thomas notes that there is no universally-accepted model or theory of Project-Based Learning (29). However, Project-Based Learning has several defining features including the long-form investigation of an open-ended question or problem, instructor facilitation to aid students in the creation and synthesis of new knowledge, and the culmination of the work in an authentic final product or presentation. In Chemical Science, students receive and explore course content through the lens of a central project; each project was designed using a modified version of the Buck Institute for Education’s approach to Project-Based Learning (30). This framework consists of seven “Essential Elements” that correspond to the defining elements of Project-Based Learning as suggested by Thomas. Students learn key content knowledge, understanding, and success skills through the “Essential Project Design Elements” (boldface, underlined type) of a challenging problem or question that shapes a sustained inquiry; an authentic problem or product 135 Kloepper and Crawford; Liberal Arts Strategies for the Chemistry Classroom ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2017.


that students might encounter in their personal or professional lives; student voice and choice in shaping the outcome of the project; a reflection process by which students can continually evaluate their current knowledge/skills against those necessary to complete the project; critique and revision to improve the finished product; and a public product. Students complete 1-2 projects per term, each consisting of approximately 20 classroom hours. In my experience, Project-Based Learning provides a great deal of flexibility with regard to content material and final outcomes. This is clear from Table 1, which shows the central questions, content knowledge, and public products that I have implemented over six years of Project-Based Learning course offerings. This flexibility keeps the course interesting and fresh for professor and students, even after many iterations. The Project-Based Learning method also provided focus to my syllabus. Rather than constructing a syllabus around specific concepts and special topics, my focus shifted to creating an authentic central question and product. This meant that the content knowledge naturally unfolded as part of an overarching issue. As a result, the acquisition of content knowledge became more accessible to the students and shifted their focus from simply memorizing facts and algorithms to applying knowledge in context, as discussed below.

Table 1. Project Library for Chemical Science Central Question

Content Knowledge

Public Product

How can we bring the chemical elements to life?

Atomic structure, periodic properties, nuclear chemistry

Library exhibit

How have Manchester graduates influenced the world through their science?

Atomic structure, chemical bonding, polymers

Teaching materials for classmates

Just because a product can be found in a store, does that make it worth buying?

Chemical bonding, molecular shape, intermolecular forces

Advertising analysis essay and advertisement

How do molecules shape our lives and society?

Chemical bonding, molecular shape, intermolecular forces

Presentation to local high school students

What’s in Eel River water, and how can it be made safer for the community?

Solution chemistry, acids and bases, water quality

Fact sheet on pollutant in local watershed

What does scientific discovery look like?

Nanotechnology, polymers, drug design*

News article on a recent scientific discovery

* I do not cover all of these topics in the same unit each year. Instead, I choose one or two topics to focus on and build the unit around recent discoveries in those areas.

136 Kloepper and Crawford; Liberal Arts Strategies for the Chemistry Classroom ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2017.

Implementation – “Stories from the Periodic Table” “Stories from the Periodic Table” is a Project-Based Learning unit that was developed and implemented in January 2016, consisting of 20 classroom hours. Following an introductory activity in which students explored the origins and discovery stories of the elements, they were presented with the challenging question, “How can we bring the chemical elements to life?” Project groups of five to six students (assigned at random) practiced collaboration and self- and group-management to fulfill five parameters, which I outlined in an opening project summary document:


1.

2.

3. 4. 5.

Propose a set of three elements that are in some way related to a general theme. No two groups can choose the same theme or the same element. First come, first served; I will help subsequent groups revise their proposals to resolve any overlap. Divide into three subgroups, each responsible for one specific element. The main group will coordinate the overall look of the display and make sure that each subgroup’s work fits the theme. Develop an exhibit around their chosen elements for display in [campus library]. Submit a reference list in MLA format. Complete a project evaluation.

In order to fulfill these objectives, students performed a sustained inquiry through the topics of atomic structure, periodic properties, nuclear chemistry, chemical formulas and nomenclature, and the mole, incorporating this information into their exhibits where appropriate. They exercised student voice and choice by coupling this content to outside research on the origins, production, and uses of their proposed set of three elements. For example, americium, thorium, and iron comprised the “Super Elements;” or, gold, silver, and platinum comprised “Expensive Elements.” Each group displayed their final exhibit contribution on a four-sided column. To unify the display, I prepared a summary display column on atomic structure, the periodic table, and historical and geographic origins of the elements. Two class periods prior to the exhibit launch, student groups performed a critique of one another’s exhibits, ensuring that the exhibit contributions included the required information on classification, atomic structure, isotopic abundance, and discovery and naming information for each element. Groups also evaluated the coherence of theme and the visual appeal of the display. They used those critiques, along with instructor feedback, to perform a revision of their work, producing the authentic and public product of an exhibit on the chemical elements that remained on display at the University library from January-April. In their post-project reflection, students reported satisfaction with the content and the project-based learning method, as discussed below. They also reported that they had to incorporate information from other fields, such as historical records, and that they exercised skills that are not traditionally practiced in a science course, like writing and graphic design. In doing these things, many students reported 137 Kloepper and Crawford; Liberal Arts Strategies for the Chemistry Classroom ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2017.

that they now understood that the elements are related in many ways beyond the periodic table and that science is a deeply human process. In other words, they had begun to recognize, through practice, one of the key aspects of the liberal arts: that various methods of inquiry are needed to address an ill-defined problem.


Outcomes of Project-Based Learning at the Introductory Level Implementing Project-Based Learning has produced three main rewards for me. First, students report a modest change in their engagement with the course and the course material. Second, students report some shift in their focus from acquiring content knowledge to applying content knowledge. Third, and most relevant to the topic at hand, students (and their instructor!) were required to incorporate skills and knowledge from other fields in order to develop a holistic understanding of the challenging question and to produce a high-quality final product. Students do not report that a Project-Based Learning approach increases the amount of time spent working outside of class. Before conversion to Project-Based Learning, students reported spending of 6.0±2.6 hours (average ± standard deviation, 8/28 students reporting) on work outside of class. After conversion, this value has to be divided into two categories: those students who experienced a Project-Based Learning approach combined with content delivery via traditional lecture (2012-2014, 36/80 students reporting), or students who experienced Project-Based Learning combined with flipped classroom delivery (2015-2017, 56/97 students reporting). Students in the first group reported spending 8.3±3.9 hours working on material outside of class, while students in the second group reported spending 5.9±3.0. A Student’s t-test (α=0.05) shows the traditional lecture mean was not significantly different from the Project-Based Learning plus traditional lecture group; however, it was significantly different from the Project-Based Learning plus flipped classroom group. Furthermore, the mean hours spent out of class for the two Project-Based Learning groups, regardless of content delivery method, were also significantly different. The lesson to learn here is not that Project-Based Learning requires students to spend more time on course material outside of class. Instead, this suggests that the flipped classroom reduces classwork time outside of class. This is far from surprising, since the intention of the flipped classroom is to move application of the material into class time. This certainly includes project work, and I design my syllabi to provide ample time for project work to happen in the classroom. To evaluate student engagement with the material under Project-Based Learning, I also considered whether students viewed the project as catalyzing their interest in learning more about the topics. To evaluate this aspect, in 2015 and 2016, students used a Likert scale to “Rate how important [course components] were to feel engaged with the material in [Unit]. “Engaged” means that you became interested in learning more about the subject. For the two years and two projects surveyed, a minimum of 73% of students rated the public project outcome as “Important” or “Very Important” to their engagement. This suggests that projects, and their public outcomes, are an effective method for engaging 138 Kloepper and Crawford; Liberal Arts Strategies for the Chemistry Classroom ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2017.


the majority of non-majors in the acquisition and application of chemical content knowledge. Under Project-Based Learning, students are less likely to focus on the means for acquiring content knowledge, such as lectures or lecture videos, as important aspects of the course. This shows in student evaluation data for the question, “What aspects of the teaching or the content of this course were especially effective?” (Note that, in this case, the “number of unique responses” in Table 2 does not equal the number of students reporting. Instead, some students cited more than one method as effective, and such answers were coded appropriately.) As seen in Table 2, the implementation of Project-Based Learning, and later, co-implementation of a flipped classroom, correlates with a drop in the number of responses citing lecture materials, such as slides, handouts, etc., as effective aspects of the course. Interestingly enough, the drop in appreciation for the lecture materials was not entirely taken up as appreciation for “direct application” aspects of the course, which would include lab activities and projects. Instead, the overall diversity of responses increased, as reflected by the increase in responses classified as “other.” There was also an unexpected increase in students viewing me as a more relatable, passionate, and engaged instructor under Project-Based Learning, as well as a slight increase in students who now viewed science as more relatable and accessible to them as a non-science major. Fortunately, even though students are now less likely to specifically cite lecture materials as especially effective aspects of the course, they still report high satisfaction with those materials, A minimum of 67% of students reported being “Satisfied” or “Very Satisfied” with lecture materials such as videos, outlines, and study guides. In most cases, that number was in excess of 75%. This suggests to me that students still find the lecture materials useful, but that these materials are no longer the focus of the course for them. Along with the student response trends in Table 2, the switch to Project-Based Learning correlates with a student group who sees the course as less about me as the professor (lecture materials) and more about them as a learner. Since the drive for lifelong learning is another key aspect of an effective liberal arts education, I appreciate the change. Lastly, under Project-Based Learning, students report that they have to employ skills and call upon knowledge that one does not necessarily associate with a chemistry classroom. This information comes from post-project reflections, in which students answer the question, “What do you feel is the most important thing you learned in this project? (This includes all items that might have influenced your project, from lecture, to lab activities, to any outside research.)” Selected student responses are listed below. A brief summary of each project is provided to give additional context to student comments. 2012 Water Quality Project (prepare a fact sheet and a public service announcement about a pollutant in the local Middle Eel River Watershed) • •

“My Mac has a movie making app!” “Not to trust every news report I see about bacteria outbreaks. I learned that most E. coli is harmless, despite its bad reputation on the news.” 139 Kloepper and Crawford; Liberal Arts Strategies for the Chemistry Classroom ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2017.

2012 Consumer Chemistry Project (evaluate the chemical content of a consumer product, analyze an advertisement for that product, and prepare a counter advertisement to benefit the consumer) • •


•

“It’s important to never take anything for what you see in an ad.” “The most important thing I learned was knowing how to look up ingredients and knowing how to classify them to find out how a product really works.” “I learned a lot by researching the ingredients and analyzing the credibility of the ad.”

2015 News Article Project (summarize a press release on a recent advance in chemistry and write a news article that contextualizes that advance for a specific group) • •

“How to write factually but also with interjection of opinion.” “The most important thing I learned is how to make a news article that draws a person’s attention. The inclass [sic] lecture on ledes helped a lot.”

2016 Element Exhibit Project (design a library display on the properties, uses, and discovery of the elements) • • •

“How to research and look for credible sources.” “Creating and recognizing the links between elements.” “Elements have a larger and more complex background than most people believe.”

2017 Scientist Presentation Project (teach classmates about a chemistry topic related to a scientific discovery made by a Manchester University graduate) •

•

• •

“The benefits of going to the library. There was a nice assortment of information on our guy that we researched in the library and not so much stuff online. It is really worth the effort on looking at some of the information over there.” “people need to know about that people that made the project, they need to know there [sic] background and everything, they need to feel connected with them in other to know what they are doing.” “About the chemists that graduated from Manchester. I didn’t know anything about them before these projects” “How what we were learning could be applying [sic] to the research and how we can teach it better.”

These responses show that as a result of completing projects, students counted non-chemical aspects among their important lessons from the course. These include communication skills like audience analysis (2015), writing skills (2015), media literacy (2012), information literacy (2012, 2016), and library 140 Kloepper and Crawford; Liberal Arts Strategies for the Chemistry Classroom ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2017.

skills (2017). They also felt a greater connection to University history (2017), as well as the broader history (2016) of chemistry. Or, in the words of a student evaluating the course as a whole:


“I liked that it could be tailored to those who weren’t chemistry majors. There was math, writing and some creativity. Everyone had an equal chance to show a strength of his or hers.” Taken together, through Project-Based Learning, my students have more opportunities to experience chemistry and the natural sciences as part of a larger whole, allied with the arts, humanities, and social sciences to create a deeper, more nuanced understanding of the world. Surely, this is a key goal of the liberal arts.

Table 2. Percentage of Student Responses Citing Selected Course Aspects as “Especially Effective.” Response Data from Manchester University Student Evaluation of Teaching, 2011-2017. Traditional Lecture (2011)

Project-Based Learning + Lecture (2012-2014)

Project-Based Learning + Flipped Classroom (2015-2017)

Lecture materials

50

30

39

Direct application (labs and projects)

38

30

30

Instructor Engagement

0

17

13

Relatability of Subject

0

3

2

Other

13

20

16

Number of unique responses

8

30

56

Cumulative number of students

26

80

97

Problem-Based Learning at the Upper Level Brief Overview of CSBSJU’s Approach to the Chemistry Curriculum The chemistry department at the College of Saint Benedict and Saint John’s University (CSBSJU) recently revised its curriculum according to the new ACS CPT guidelines to better integrate the five fields of chemistry (31). Students take a one-semester introductory course that develops a qualitative understanding 141 Kloepper and Crawford; Liberal Arts Strategies for the Chemistry Classroom ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2017.


of Structure and Properties from an atoms-first approach (32), followed by a series of five foundational courses in Reactivity (33, 34) and Chemical Analysis. The Reactivity courses bridge organic, inorganic, and biochemistry, while the Chemical Analysis courses combine analytical and physical chemistry. Students also complete four foundation labs focused around purification, separation, synthesis, and measurement followed by an advanced integrated lab course. All of our labs are designed to be enrolled in independently from our introductory and foundation courses, so the only prerequisite for labs are the previous laboratory. In their third and fourth years, students take a series of two-credit, in-depth courses and can obtain a concentration within the major by enrolling in at least four in-depths with a designated theme. Currently, the concentrations that we offer are chemical biology, industrial materials, and environmental chemistry. I will discuss the in-depth course that students are required to take for the environmental chemistry concentration.

Scope of Course Climate and Habitat Change (CHEM 343) is a two-credit, upper-division, in-depth course that is offered every year. This course studies the planet Earth and the changing chemistry of the soil, water and air by investigating the sources, reactions, transport, effects, and fates of chemical species, including the effects of technology and other anthropogenic activities. The course introduces students to 6 major themes in environmental chemistry: Sustainability and Green Chemistry; Atmospheric Chemistry and Air Pollution; Water Chemistry and Water Pollution; Metals, Soil Sediments and Waste Disposal; Toxic Organic Compounds; and Energy and Climate Change. The learning goals expect students to: • • • • •

develop an understanding of environmental stresses from a chemical perspective develop the skills needed to think critically about and discuss environmental issues evaluate environmental arguments improve oral and written communication skills gain an understanding of how environmental samples are analyzed.

This course is discussion based and the reading material comes from the scientific literature, including primary research and literature reviews. I designed the course to be writing intensive. Students prepare weekly response papers to a scientific article of their choosing, in addition to preparing a large final review paper. I assign papers because students in general, and especially in the sciences, do not get enough opportunities to practice their craft of writing. The first time I offered the course, I had students prepare individual final papers. In the most recent iteration of the course, they completed the paper with a partner, because encouraging them to collaborate with a fellow student to write a coherent paper fosters the important skill of cooperation. Writing also promotes a higher order of thinking that better prepares them for discussion. 142 Kloepper and Crawford; Liberal Arts Strategies for the Chemistry Classroom ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2017.


Implementation of Blended Learning Techniques In an upper-level course, where foundation knowledge has already been acquired, we can look at specific chemical problems through current research topics. Inquiry- (or problem-) based learning emphasizes understanding the process and developing the skills to identify problems and propose solutions. I (C. Strollo) employ techniques that prompt students to actively question, analyze and communicate knowledge. Students learn through a variety of channels; therefore, I employ interactive lectures, small-group discussions, response papers, and case-study activities. This allows students to exercise their understanding in a variety of ways. Through classroom exercises, students become proficient in the principles of chemistry, which prepares them to pursue knowledge in the laboratory. Research finds that problem-based pedagogy is the best way for students to learn and be able to translate those skills to real-world problems (25).

Discussion, Case Studies, and Lecture I try to encourage students to actively engage in the material by having them critically analyze recent advances in environmental research. A large part of this course focuses on reading and discussing primary literature. This course also needs to incorporate topics from an analytical chemistry perspective. For every review article, there is also a practical article on instrument design, measurement and quantification, and/or figures of merit. For instance, we read “Regional and global emissions of air pollutants: recent trends and future scenarios” (35) and “Preparation of a particle loaded membrane for trace gas sampling” (36) for one class period, and students are provided with the questions below to guide the discussion. Discussion usually starts with small groups (less than four); then the small groups report out to the larger class throughout the class time. Breakout lectures are used if necessary and when I feel students need redirection or clarification, but I encourage them to seek answers from their peers first. In this particular class period, I spend a little time going over the different chemical model scenarios, as students are not expected to have prior knowledge of them. Regional and Global Emissions of Air Pollutants • • • • • •

What are the goals/findings of this study? What is the significance of the key air pollutants? Evaluate the trends of the key air pollutants in Figure 1. Evaluate the estimates of the key pollutants in Figure 7. Discuss the benefits and/or drawbacks of the bottom-up and top-down methodologies? Describe the different climate scenarios of future emissions?


Trace Gas Sampling • • • • • •

What are the goals/findings of this study? What is cryofocusing? Why do increased particle ratios increase the sampling sensitivity? What is the timeframe for sampling to prevent analyte loss? How do they account for interferences? What are some of the applications for this technique?


Writing Throughout the eight-week course, students are also assessed on their ability to write about current research. Their critical reading of articles is developed through in-class activities; then, they are asked to demonstrate their critical thinking skills by preparing five response papers to articles focused on the themes: Air, Water, Soil, Energy/Biosphere, and one open topic. I (C. Strollo) provide them with a list of appropriate journals to choose from, but the students choose the article. These critical response papers are one to three pages in length to promote concise writing. They are responsible for citing the article they are responding to and any other sources they use. They are asked to demonstrate an understanding of the chemistry by identifying and defining the scientific problem. Then, they evaluate the experimental methods used and assess the conclusions made. Response papers are evaluated on the criteria of organization, clarity, depth and critical thinking. Students also prepare a 10-15 page literature review on some topic relevant to the course. This is a more advanced discussion on a number of topics, particularly ones that have not been covered in class. It is imperative that they thoroughly explain and demonstrate a clear understanding of the science involved. The final paper is evaluated using the following criteria: integration of knowledge, topic focus, depth of discussion, cohesiveness, spelling and grammar, sources, and citations. Students also provide a short presentation to the class on their topic. Outcomes of Project-Based Learning at the Upper Level The first year I taught this course, I required reading and homework from an online textbook (37). Based on mid-semester evaluations, students struggled with the eBook format and connecting the book topics with the discussion topics. In retrospect, I felt students needed more background information, since this was their first environmental chemistry course, but, in fact, I was not exploiting their knowledge gained in foundation courses. During spring 2015, I made the eBook readings and practice problems optional. This worked out well. Students who wanted more background and extra practice could exploit those resources. In the first semester I ran this course, student perceptions of the course were overwhelmingly positive (Table 3). Based on the final student survey results and my own mid-term evaluations, I adjusted the out-of-class assignments from 144 Kloepper and Crawford; Liberal Arts Strategies for the Chemistry Classroom ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2017.

the electronic textbook, and students appreciated that. They thought I facilitated our discussion well, and they reported improvement in their critical reading and writing skills. I did underestimate the amount of time it would take to provide ample feedback on their first papers, so I adjusted due dates to make sure they were not handing in assignments without first receiving feedback on the previous assignment.

Table 3. Summary of Student Responses to End-of-Semester Survey*


Positive

2014 15 students

2015 13 students

Negative

• Improved my ability to critically read and interpret scientific literature (2) • Learned a lot (3) • Liked the format; good mix of reading, discussion and writing (2) • Great attitude, encouraging, engaged, made the classroom a very comfortable setting (4) • Overall good course (4)

• More quizzes and lecture • Textbook overwhelming • More feedback sooner

• Learned a lot (4) • Had a lot of fun, class was fun, interesting (5) • Helped us understand methods of analysis in each article • Good facilitation of the discussions (5) • Emphasized critical thinking • Exposes students to many current, relatable topics (4)

• Too much information (2) • Scientific articles difficult to understand (2)

*

I coded common responses by listing their shared theme and I tallied the total number of responses that fit that theme. The total number of responses is in parentheses after the theme.

The student perceptions for the second offering of this course are also very positive. They enjoyed the discussions and topics and they reported gaining a good understanding of a broad span of topics relating to climate change. Some students found the articles difficult to understand and felt that the course was trying to cover too much information. I have considered the idea of giving the students reading guides initially to help them develop their critical reading skills. Reading scientific articles does take some practice, and I enjoy exploring them with the students and discussing how to read the literature more efficiently. Unlike the first semester, there were a few students who were not chemistry majors enrolled in the course during the second semester. Since I did not receive this comment in the first run of the course, it might be attributed to the fact I had non-majors. I want my course to be accessible to everyone with the prerequisites, but I think I will refrain from 145 Kloepper and Crawford; Liberal Arts Strategies for the Chemistry Classroom ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2017.


using reading guides and instead encourage students to come in to discuss with me in office hours. I want students to engage the material and not just skim it for what is important. As the semester progresses, they gain the critical reading skills needed to understand and identify the salient points. Table 4 shows self-reported student learning gains from an anonymous survey I distributed separately from their end of semester evaluations done through the college. Responses were only collected for Spring 2015, and it is important to note that reading from the textbook was not required. Students report that their knowledge has increased and that discussion, more so than writing, contributed to this. They have a strong understanding of how environmental samples are analyzed and how to evaluate scientific arguments and report being able to think critically about environmental issues. Students were also asked about the strengths of the course and I have included the comments below. Students overwhelmingly reported that discussions on current environmental issues was a strength of the course and a few even enjoyed the final paper.

Table 4. Results of the Student Survey Survey statement

Response*

I developed an understanding of environmental stresses from chemical perspective.

4.3

I developed the skills needed to think critically about and discuss environmental issues.

4.0

I learned to evaluate scientific arguments.

4.3

I improved my oral communication skills.

4.0

I improved my written communication skills.

4.0

I gained an understanding of how environmental samples are analyzed.

4.5

Reading scientific articles enhances my learning of the topics.

4.3

Reading from the textbook enhances my learning of the topics.

3.4

Discussions of scientific articles enhance my learning of the topics.

4.4

Small group discussion enhances my learning of the topics.

4.4

Large group discussion enhances my learning of the topics.

4.5

Writing response/review papers enhances my learning of the topics.

4.1

My knowledge of this subject has increased.

4.6

*

Student learning gains 5-strongly agree, 4-agree, 3-neither, 2-disagree, 1-strongly disagree.


Summary of Student Responses from Home-Grown Survey Strengths of the course • • •


• • • • • • • •

“a large scope of environmental chemistry is presented” “The final paper was a great way to make student dive into a topic rather than just getting a basic understanding of it.” “Getting to the current issues in the environment today was a big strength of the class” “Discussions cleared up questions on articles.” “I think the group discussions helped all students be able to discuss ideas and learn from other perspectives.” “discussion” “Discussion questions got good responses.” “Learned a lot from reading a variety of articles.” “I was not expecting that I would enjoy the final project.” “I wasn’t expecting to get such a wide variety of topics in such a short time period.” “I wasn’t expecting to have good conversations in class every day-- but Dr. Strollo helped us every day in class, and helped my own scientific discussion skills.”

Conclusions: Lessons Learned from PBL Development and Implementation Although we use variants on PBL at different levels of the chemistry curriculum, we note some similar benefits and challenges in implementation. At both levels, our students appreciated the opportunities to use skills from other parts of their coursework, particularly writing, and they found the coursework/instructor to be more relatable. They also expressed discomfort engaging with level-appropriate primary literature, and periodic difficulty in managing and organizing the flow of information. As instructors, we both find that PBL enriched our own courses and helped us to offer our students more authentic engagement with chemistry. From experiencing and seeking to overcome our own challenges, we offer four pieces of encouragement and advice: 1.

Lecture is (comparatively) easy; promoting active learning is hard. Effective implementation of problem-based learning requires turning large parts of the classroom over to the students. Giving a lecture puts you in control of content delivery, but it is not a good way to ensure that students absorb the content and apply it to the problem at hand. Active learning, where students are engaging skills to solve problems, allows students to better internalize material and concepts. However, incorporating those techniques can be difficult as an instructor. For example, leading discussion is very dependent on student personality, preparedness, and willingness to participate. I (C. Strollo) had to make 147 Kloepper and Crawford; Liberal Arts Strategies for the Chemistry Classroom ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2017.


2.

3.

4.

sure I was consciously creating an environment where everyone could participate. When it all comes together, discussions can be extremely rewarding and fun for both the student and the instructor. Students often come up with all kinds of problems they want to solve once they realize they are capable of proposing solutions. Developing and implementing effective writing assignments was another area that drove this lesson home to us. We both found that when our writing prompts were not defined well enough to promote reflection, or when our expectations were not expressed clearly enough, writing assignments were not as useful to the students as we had hoped. Our students tended to want more explicit direction in exactly what to write, while we were trying to get them to use writing to demonstrate their own critical thinking skills. Do not discount your ability to assess non-science work. Even when you use a rubric, assessing “softer” skills like discussion, writing, and collaboration feels much more subjective than assessing students’ ability to accurately perform calculations, recall conceptual material, or apply concepts to solve general problems. However, good assessment in those skills, like writing, discussion, and collaboration, is critical to keeping students motivated to practice them. Call for help when you need it. You do not have to be the only expert in the room. Your colleagues in other fields are an excellent resource: let their experience enrich the students as well. For example, I (K. Davis) invited members of the University marketing department to help with the critique, revision, and final evaluation of a project in which students developed an advertising analysis and a new advertisement for a food or household item. Their input greatly improved the overall experience, as well as the quality of the final projects. Collaboration can be also used to great effect at the overall course level, as evidenced by Cowden and Santiago (21), a chemistry faculty and librarian, who developed an advanced biochemistry course with a strong focus on improving students’ information literacy and critical thinking skills. Although I (K. Davis) have found building and maintaining personal connections with colleagues to be the most effective as I learn to apply problem-based learning to my own courses, I can also recommend the wealth of online information available from the K-12 education community, through websites like Edutopia (https://www.edutopia.org) and the Buck Institute for Education (https://www.bie.org). Do not discount the importance of employing multiple methods of inquiry in your own courses. If our students are to impact the world through their lives and careers, they must learn to develop cogent explanations of their work, and they must also learn to speak and write persuasively about the importance and relevance of scientific inquiry to their peers in science and to society at large. If we, as faculty, do not reinforce the connections between chemistry and other fields in our own courses, we run the risk of implying to our students that those methods are less important than the “hard science” of the lab. On the other hand, when 148 Kloepper and Crawford; Liberal Arts Strategies for the Chemistry Classroom ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2017.

we incorporate discussion, writing, textual analysis, public speaking, etc. into our courses, our students gain a more holistic picture of scientific inquiry in the context of other academic disciplines, as well as broader societal problems. In other words, by taking pedagogical approaches like PBL that favor the application of such skills we, faculty and students, become better practitioners of the liberal arts.


Acknowledgments C. Strollo would like to thank the faculty of CSBSJU’s chemistry department for developing a curriculum that fosters problem-based learning and Learning Enhancement Services for providing training for new faculty. She would also like to thank Alicia Peterson for her discussions on improving this course. K. Davis is grateful to Heather Schilling for early-career introduction to, and training in, Project-Based Learning. She also thanks Kristen Short and the Manchester University Pedagogy Discussion Group for productive discussions on promoting active learning and self-regulated learning.

References American Chemical Society Committee on Professional Training. Excellent Undergraduate Chemistry Program. https://www.acs.org/content/dam/ acsorg/about/governance/committees/training/acsapproved/degreeprogram/ excellent-undergraduate-chemistry-programs.pdf (accessed 29 March 2017). 2. Hodges, L. C. Active learning in upper-level chemistry courses: a biochemistry example. J. Chem. Educ. 1999, 76, 376. 3. Bennett, N. S.; Taubman, B. F. Reading journal articles for comprehension using key sentences: an exercise for the novice research student. J. Chem. Educ. 2013, 90, 741–744. 4. Greco, G. E. Chemical information literacy at a liberal arts college. J. Chem. Educ. 2016, 93, 429–433. 5. Miller, D. M.; Czegan, D. A. C. Integrating liberal arts and chemistry: a series of general chemistry assignments to develop science literacy. J. Chem. Educ. 2016, 93, 864–869. 6. Hicks, R. W.; Bevsek, H. M. Utilizing Problem-Based Learning in Qualitative Analysis. J. Chem. Educ. 2012, 89, 254–257. 7. Shorb, J. M.; Eckermann, A. “Synthesis of Unknown Crystals: Certificate of Analysis.” Chemistry 127 Lab Manual; Hope College: Holland, MI, 2015. 8. Savery, J. R. Interdiscip. J. Problem-Based Learn. 2006, 1, 1–20. 9. Savin-Badin, M. and Howell, C. Foundations of Problem-based Learning; McGraw-Hill Education Europe: Maidenhead, 2004. 10. Ram, P. Problem-Based Learning in Undergraduate Instruction. A Sophomore Chemistry Laboratory. J. Chem. Educ. 1999, 76, 1122–1126. 11. Cancilla, D. Integration of Environmental Analytical Chemistry with Environmental Law: The Development of a Problem-Based Laboratory. J. Chem. Educ. 2001, 78, 1652–1660. 1.



12. Cessna, S. G.; Kishbaugh, T. L. S.; Neufeld, D. G.; Cessna, G. A. A Multiweek, Problem-Based Laboratory Project to Remove Copper from Soil. General Chemistry Labs for Teaching Thermodynamics and Equilibrium. J. Chem. Educ. 2009, 86, 726–729. 13. Davis, E. J.; Pauls, S.; Dick, J. Project-Based Learning in Undergraduate Environmental Chemistry Laboratory: Using EPA Methods to Guide Student Method Development for Pesticide Quantitation. J. Chem. Educ. 2017ASAP DOI:10.1021/acs.jchemed.6b0035. 14. Flynn, A. B.; Biggs, R. The Development and Implementation of a ProblemBased Format in a Fourth-Year Undergraduate Synthetic Organic Chemistry Laboratory Course. J. Chem. Educ. 2012, 89, 52–57. 15. Saloranta, T.; Lönnqvist, J.; Eklund, P. C. Transforming Undergraduate Students into Junior Researchers: Oxidation–Reduction Sequence as a Problem-Based Case Study. J. Chem. Educ. 2016, 93, 841–846. 16. Winschel, G. A.; Everett, R. K.; Coppola, B. P.; Shultz, G. V. Using Jigsaw-Style Spectroscopy Problem-Solving to Elucidate Molecular Structure through Online Cooperative Learning. J. Chem. Educ. 2015, 92, 1188–1193. 17. Erhart, S. E.; McCarrick, R. M.; Lorigan, G. A.; Yezierski, E. J. Citrus Quality Control: An NMR/MRI Problem-Based Experiment. J. Chem. Educ. 2016, 93, 335–339. 18. Nielsen, S. E.; Scaffidi, J. P.; Yezierski, E. J. Detecting Art Forgeries: A Problem-Based Raman Spectroscopy Lab. J. Chem. Educ. 2014, 91, 446–450. 19. Wells, M.; Clougherty, R. Use of Wikis in Chemistry Instruction for ProblemBased Learning Assignments: An Example in Instrumental Analysis. J. Chem. Educ. 2008, 85, 1446–1448. 20. Cannon, K. C.; Krow, G. R. Synthesis of Complex Natural Products as a Vehicle for Problem-Based Learning. J. Chem. Educ. 1998, 75, 1259–1260. 21. Dods, R. F. A Problem-Based Learning Design for Teaching Biochemistry. J. Chem. Educ. 1996, 73, 225–228. 22. Cowden, C. D.; Santiago, M. F. Interdisciplinary Explorations: Promoting Critical Thinking via Problem-Based Learning in an Advanced Biochemistry Class. J. Chem. Educ. 2016, 93, 464–469. 23. Belt, S. T.; Evans, H.; McCreedy, T.; Overton, T. L.; Summerfield, S. A Problem-Based Learning Approach to Analytical and Applied Chemistry. Univ. Chem. Ed. 2002, 6, 65–72. 24. Jansson, S.; Söderström, H.; Andersson, P. L.; Nording, M. L. Implementation of Problem-Based Learning in Environmental Chemistry. J. Chem. Educ. 2015, 92, 2080–2086. 25. Spencer, J. N. New approaches to chemistry teaching. 2005 George C. Pimental Award. J. Chem. Educ. 2006, 83, 528. 26. Sandi-Urena, S.; Cooper, M.; Stevens, R. Effect of Cooperative ProblemBased Lab Instruction and Problem-Solving Skills. J. Chem. Educ. 2012, 89, 700–706.



27. Sandi-Urena, S.; Cooper, M. M.; Gatlin, T. A.; Bhattacharyya, G. Students’ Experience in a General Chemistry Cooperative Problem Based Laboratory. Chem. Educ. Res. Pract. 2011, 12, 434–442. 28. Graham, M. J.; Frederick, J.; Byars-Winston, A.; Hunter, A-B.; Handelsman, J. Science 2013, 341, 1455–1456. 29. Thomas, J. “A Review of Project-Based Learning.” http:// www.bobpearlman.org/BestPractices/PBL_Research.pdf (accessed February 25, 2017). 30. Buck Institute for Education. Gold Standard PBL: Essential Project Design Elements. http://www.bie.org/object/document/ gold_standard_pbl_essential_project_design_elements (accessed Feb 16, 2017). 31. Schaller, C. P.; Graham, K. J.; Johnson, B. J.; Fazal, M. A.; Jones, T. N.; McIntee, E. J; Jakubowski, H. V. Developing and Implementing a reorganized Undergraduate Chemistry Curriculum Based on the Foundational Chemistry Topics of Structure, Reactivity and Quantitation,. J. Chem. Educ. 2014, 91, 321–328. 32. Schaller, C. P.; Graham, K. J.; Johnson, B. J.; Jakubowski, H. V.; McKenna, A. G.; McIntee, E. J; Jones, T. N.; Fazal, M. A.; Peterson, A. A. Chemical Structure and Properties: A Modified Atoms-First, One-Semester Introductory Chemistry Course. J. Chem. Educ. 2015, 92, 237–246. 33. Schaller, C. P.; Graham, K. J.; Johnson, B. J.; Jones, T. N.; McIntee, E. J. Reactivity I: A Foundation-Level Course for Both Majors and Non-majors in Integrated Organic, Inorganic, and Biochemistry. J. Chem. Educ. 2015, 92, 2067–2073. 34. Schaller, C. P.; Graham, K. J.; McIntee, E. J; Jones, T. N.; Johnson, B. J. Reactivity II: A Second Foundation-Level Course in Integrated Organic, Inorganic, and Biochemistry. J. Chem. Educ. 2016, 93, 1383–1390. 35. Amann, M.; Klimont, Z.; Wagner, F. Regional and global emissions of air pollutants: recent trends and future scenarios. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 2013, 38, 31–55. 36. Jiang, R.; Pawliszyn, J. Preparation of a Particle-Loaded Membrane for Trace Gas Sampling. Anal. Chem. 2014, 86, 403–410. 37. Bailey, R. A.; Clark, H. M.; Ferris, J. P. Chemistry of the Environment, 2nd ed.; Harcourt/Academic Press: San Diego, CA, 2002.


Incorporating Problem-Based Learning (PBL) Into the Chemistry

Recommend Documents