Chemical Education Today
Book & Media Reviews OWL (Online Web-Based Learning) published by Cengage–Brooks/Cole, P.O. Box 6904, Florence, KY 41022-6904; http://www.cengage.com Price for single-user license: $33.49/semester, $53.49/two semesters; also available with e-books (1) reviewed by Jeffrey Evans
We have used Online Web-Based Learning (OWL) at the University of Southern Mississippi every semester since the fall of 2001, when it was first available. This translates to about 6,000 students having used it over the last 22 semesters. We use it in three courses: General Chemistry I, General Chemistry II, and a preparatory chemistry course. For general chemistry we use the program with the 7th edition of Kotz, Treichel, and Townsend’s Chemistry and Chemical Reactivity (2); we have used it with the two previous editions of this same textbook, as well as with an early edition of Masterton and Hurley’s text (3). For our preparatory course we use Seager and Slabaugh’s Introductory Chemistry for Today, 6th edition (4), and have also used Cracolice and Peters’ text Introductory Chemistry: An Active Learner’s Approach (5). OWL, developed at the University of Massachusetts, is available through Cengage Learning for other textbooks and courses (6). A number of attributes led us to choose the OWL system and continue using it. First we felt the homework was beneficial to the student in a number of ways. It provides a more than adequate number of homework problems that cover the material we expect students to learn. The problems are “parameterized” in that if students repeat a problem, they are given a new problem with similar concepts but with different values or chemicals. Students get a rapid response (within seconds) and feedback about how the problem should be worked. The feedback is given regardless of whether the student has answered the question correctly or incorrectly. Students are allowed to repeat problems until the deadline date set by the instructor, but can still work on problems after the deadline just not for credit. Once students have mastered a topic, their points do not decrease if they go back to review it. We set the homework questions/problems as required. The range of question types includes concept oriented, calculation based, or even particulate views of reactions or processes. Responses generally require the student to key in an answer, although some questions are multiple choice. OWL provides students additional online resources to learn chemistry (beyond the required homework above), including tutorials, chemical simulations, videos, and exercises. We have set these as optional, but they can be set as required. Some students make use of these if they do not understand the topic. Students also have end-of-chapter problems from the texbook available, which can either be optional or required. For faculty there are a number of attributes of OWL that are helpful. First-time faculty adopters can use the default setting for the homework, which makes it easy to set up assignments and due dates. With a couple of keystrokes faculty can view either how the whole class or one specific student is doing. These reports can be viewed in a Web browser or saved as an Excel
edited by
Cheryl Baldwin Frech University of Central Oklahoma Edmond, OK 73034
spreadsheet. The scores are color coded on the browser, making it easier to see which students are having difficulty as well as what topics are proving the most difficult. Besides student scores, the reports can include the amount of time the student spends on homework. Last semester, our general chemistry students who scored 80% or higher on OWL spent an average of 56.6 hours on homework. The maximum time for a student was 108 hours. Faculty can set up online exams by choosing topics in OWL to form tests. As with homework, students get different “parameterized” versions of the same question, so no two students get an identical test online. We have used this exam feature for some of our honors sections. Additionally, if faculty want a source of questions with correct answers, OWL questions can be copied and pasted into a Word document for quizzes or tests; very seldom have we found mistakes in the questions or answers. Cengage makes available various types of user training, as described on their main Web site for OWL (7). These include online written guides, a 24-hour online chat site, a phone helpline, and periodic webinars presented by OWL users that demonstrate its use. Some webinars are archived for view at any time. Cengage will also send faculty tutors to the institution of new OWL users to demonstrate the program or to help them get started. OWL is not currently integrated with WebCT or Blackboard (8), but external grades (such as test scores) can be uploaded into OWL for students to see online. Faculty can communicate online with students through OWL. The student view of OWL includes tallies with green check marks indicating their progress on homework. OWL is run on external servers, and it has seldom been down during our eight years of use. OWL is set up to be used only with Brooks/Cole textbooks (6) and is priced the same for any of these; it comes as 6-month or 12-month access. It can be bundled with new textbooks at large discount or purchased separately for use with used textbooks. In our bookstore, a commercially owned business, the stand-alone OWL access costs $39 for 6 months, $57 for 12 months. When bundled with a new textbook, the cost of OWL is about one-third of when purchased alone. For some textbooks, students can purchase OWL bundled with the e-book; this is significantly cheaper than purchasing OWL and the hardback version. When using OWL with an e-book, students will find links that lead them back to the specific pages in the e-book that cover the homework topic. In regard to student response to the system, we have both statistical analysis and anecdotal views. Each year we find a strong correlation between students’ OWL scores and course scores. A doctoral student in science education, Wassim ElLabban, did a more specific study of achievement of General Chemistry I students using OWL in 2001 and 2002 compared to the achievement of similar students using written homework in 1999 and 2000 (9). He found a good correlation between OWL scores and achievement on a First Term General Chemistry ACS standardized exam (10). There was no difference in final exam scores when comparing students using written homework with those who did OWL homework. It was good to see that OWL did no harm. In regard to attitude, El-Labban found that 82% of the students believed that OWL helped them
© Division of Chemical Education • www.JCE.DivCHED.org • Vol. 86 No. 6 June 2009 • Journal of Chemical Education
695
Chemical Education Today
Book & Media Reviews understand concepts in chemistry. Similarly 86% found that OWL’s feedback was beneficial. Among the same group, 71% found OWL stressful and frustrating, even though 85% found OWL easy to access and navigate. As faculty we have been pleased with OWL and have had very little frustration. We feel it provides a good learning environment for students while freeing faculty or teaching assistants from lengthy written homework grading and recording sessions. We really like the instant response and feedback it provides students compared to the “old” days of written homework. Literature Cited 1. Information about prices and licenses may be found on the Cengage Web site at http://owl.cengage.com (accessed Mar 2009). Information about using OWL with an ebook version of a text may be found at http://www.ichapters.com (accessed Mar 2009). 2. Kotz, John C.; Treichel, Paul. M.; Townsend, John. Chemistry and Chemical Reactivity, 7th ed.; Brooks/Cole: Florence, KY, 2009. 3. Masterton, William L.; Hurley, Cecile N. Chemistry: Principles and Reactions, 4th ed.; Brooks/Cole: Florence, KY, 2001. 4. Seager, Spencer L.; Slabaugh, Michael R. Introductory Chemistry for Today, 6th ed.; Brooks/Cole: Florence, KY, 2008. 5. Cracolice, Mark S.; Peters, Edward I. Introductory Chemistry: An Active Learning Approach, 3rd ed.; Brooks/Cole: Florence, KY, 2007.
696
6. OWL is available for eight Brooks/Cole general chemistry textbooks, five organic texts, two liberal arts texts, one preparatory text, and two allied health textbooks. The list of books supported by OWL may be found at http://owl.cengage.com (accessed Mar 2009). 7. Training opportunities are listed at the OWL Web site at http:// owl.cengage.com (accessed Mar 2009). 8. Information about Blackboard/WebCT may be found at http:// www.blackboard.com (accessed Feb 2009). WebCT, previously a separate course management provider, is now a part of Blackboard. 9. El-Labban, Wassim. Assessment of the Effect of Online Homework on the Achievement of Students in Chemistry; University of Southern Mississippi, 2003. 10. First-Term General Chemistry Test, Form 1995, ACS Standardized Exam, ACS DivCHED Examinations Institute; http://www. chem.iastate.edu/chemexams (accessed Mar 2009).
Supporting JCE Online Material
http://www.jce.divched.org/Journal/Issues/2009/Jun/abs695.html Keywords Full text (HTML and PDF) with links to cited URLs
Jeffrey Evans is in the Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry, University of Southern Mississippi, Hattiesburg, MS 39406;
[email protected].
Journal of Chemical Education • Vol. 86 No. 6 June 2009 • www.JCE.DivCHED.org • © Division of Chemical Education
