Symposium: lecture and learning: Rre They Compatible?
Introduction Diane M. Bunce The Catholic University of America, Washington, DC 20064
The following papers were presented as part of a symposium that tried to answer the auestion: Lecture and Learning: Are they Compatible? thai was presented at the 12th Hienniul Conference on Chemlcal Education held at The University of California, Davis in August 1992. Chemistry, particularly freshman chemistry, is taught in lecture formats in colleees and universities around the world. A class is considered small when it has 40-50 students, hut, in our larger universities, chemistry courses typically have 200, 400, or more students in each lecture section. Some lecture halls are so large that TV monitors must be placed a t strategic places in the lecture hall so that students can see what the professor is doing at the front. Projection screens in these lecture halls often are large enough to rival those in movie theaters. This is the physical environment into which we put 18-20-year-old, novice chemistry students and then expect them to gain conceptual knowledge of abstract chemical principles. We also expect them to be able to solve mathematical applications of these vrincivles. Professors in this situation are hard-pressed to even recognize names and faces of students let alone develo~a mentor relationshiv with each. We know from learning theory research that learning is a personal activity. It involves the integration of incoming knowledge with that already possessed by the individual. This process of knowledge integration is more than the sum of its varts. The new realitv created bv the individual student .;hould be multi-facctcd and thus Integrate the i n formatio~umccotsof the vrinted word (textbook!with the spoken word (p~ofessor),and the reality (demonstration). The individual must have intemated all of this with what he iihe learned prcviously andbe ready to apply it in l:ih and homework pn~blems.All of this mtegration and application or use of knowledge takes time. o he learner must be awake (first of all), be actively engaged in the discussion of chemistry, and have the opportunity to test hisher initial integration. For instance, a professor who intends to define gases; explain the Kinetic Theory; develop the relationship among temperature, pressure, volume, and moles; and then apply that knowledge in Boyle's, Charles', Avogadro's, and the Ideal Gas law in one or two lectures may truly leave the student in the dust. In a lecture format, it is incnnvenient and some might say impossible, to judge how well the student is integratine new knowledee with that oreviouslv learned. It is also extremely diffic& to provide kach s t d e n t with a n opportunity to test the quality ofhisher own integration against the chemical reality. All of this sets up a situation that is very frustrating to professor and student alike. Students often can't understand why they don't do better in chemistry. After all, they "studied for hours" hut the questions on the test just didn't match what they had learned. The professor. on the other hand, is also frustrated because helshe has devoted a lot of time to selecting appropriate homework ~roblemsthat seem to go undone and sat for endless houriwith students going over problem after problem. If the professor is sincere and caring, then it would appear that it must he the student's fault that helshe isn't learning. But this may not he the case. In light of what learning
theory research shows, there may, in fact, he a mismatch between the way the expert (professor)is presenting material and the way the novice (student) learns. Although far from all the variables in the learning process have been identified, success may lie in r e m ~ v i n ~ r ~ a d b l oto c klearns ing that we do know exist. These involve placing more emphasis on understanding the concepts, teaching problemsolving analysis directly, being explicit in class in how the professor (expert) analyzes and solves problems, providing time for students to integrate knowledge and testing for meaningful learning rather than rote memorization. Not all techniques work in all size lecture formats, but movement towards a more student-centered learning environment that removes some of the more obvious roadblocks can provide a big first step. The movement towards a student-centered environment where meaningful learning is promoted begins with the attitude held by the professor towards students. There must be a basic resvect for the intemitv and desire to learn of the students. & attitude on tce ;art of the professor that helshe must safeeuard the "standards of chemistw" from students who arelooking for an easy way out is not helpful. The truth is that students develop a "passing a t any cost" mentality when their frustration level gets too high. All that anxiety is a waste of energy that should be channeled into productive learning. Often, the professor is the onlv one who can act as the student's advocate and help hmdher learn how to achieve surcess. Surcess at the "standards of chemistry" should be redefined as a movement towards meaningful learning. A student-centered class where the movement of the student along the continuum, defined by Ausubel, from rote learning to meaningful learning is the guiding principle, and the professor-the student advocateis the focal point of this symposium. The oaoers in this svmvosium cover manv different aspects i f the problem. irk and Foster (page 180) look a t the effect lecture. as currentlv vracticed. has on learning.. Their observations help mace'the case' for the need for change in our current lecture format. Bunce and Hutchinson (page 183) look a t the use of a paper-and-pencil test to predict success in three different chemistry courses-science majors, nursing students, and nonscience majors. The paper points out the differences among the populations and how student deficiencies can be used to counsel students about ways to improve their chance for success. Miller (page 187)documents one professor's story of how change toward a student-centered classroom has led to a more satisfying experience for both him and his students without compromising achievement. From Nahkleh and Mitchell (pace 190).we learn more about ways to investigate or, ake&atively, have students test the quality of their understanding (internation) of chemical concepts. Methods for teaching and-evaluating conceptual understanding of chemistry are presented. Gabel (page 193) presents the background for teaching chemical concepts on three levels, namely, phenomena (demonstratiodab), particulate (atomic, molecular level), and symbolic (the language of equations, symbols, mathematical relationships). Volume 70 Number 3 March 1993
179
This paper stresses the importance of all three levels for meaningful learning. Zoller (page 195) presents us with the challenge of moving away from teaching for rote memorization (lower order thinking skills) and towards meaningful learning (higher order thinking skills). This change in teaching necessitates a ,.hanee in our methods of evaluation as well, Strateeies for testkg higher order thinking skills are presented. war. and ~~d~~~ (page 198) provide insight into our students' motivation to learn. They provide ways we can help our students use deep-learning strategies by decreas-
-
180
Journal of Chemical Education
ing unnecessary competition among our students and thus foster in^ an atmos~herewhere learnine becomes its own reward. The symposium was not able to fully answer the question it posed, namely is learning possible a lecture format, but it is a start of the discussion, exploration, and application process of arriving a t a satisfactory answer. It is our belief that when people start talking, new ideas and solutions to seemingly impossible situations are bound to follow.
-
-
