The Journal Approach in the Teaching of Organic Chemistry Alfred viola' and Pamela (Davis) ~ c ~ u i n n e s s ~
Department of Chemistry, Northeastern University, Boston, MA 02115 Timothy R. ~onovan'
Department of English, Northeastern University, Boston, MA02115 The journal technique is a wonderful teaching vise.
Such is a student's verbatim testimonial on the exit questionnaire in Organic Chemistry 1for Chemical Engineers and Chemistry Majors, at Northeastern University. Ironically, of course, this response also evidences the lack of adequate writing ability, in particular, and communicari amone manv colleee tion skills.. in eeneral. ., .. aaduates. .. matter ofgreat concern for some time in education (1,. interest in this oroblem has become sienificant in the field of Chemistry, go, as illustrated by numerous letters to the editor of C. & E. News (21, various symposia (31, deliberations within the ACS Committee on Professional Training (41, and numerous books and reviews (5-8).Witness as well the annotated bibliography of relevant sources covering the period of 1980-1990 (9) and the steady stream of articles on this issue published recently in this Journal (10-12). At Northeastern our concerns initially were addressed through a series of three-day faculty workshops held on retreat at a rustic Vermont inn. During these sessions we ranged broadly over a variety of composition theories and classroom practices. Among the latter we became particularly intrigued by the description of a 'Sournal approach" that had been successfully utilized in a course on Western Civilization at the University of Vermont (13).Although it was not then clear to us that this approach, designed for a humanities subject, could be adapted readily for science teaching, we were impressed enough to try an experiment in Organic Chemistry 1during the next term. As soon as they arrived in class, students were paired up r their own choosine. or. if thev ~refemed, with a ~ a r t n e of of similar academic background! with an assigned Thev were then rcauircd to obtain a hardbound notebook thatwas to accomp&y them to every class. Periodically, at the beeinnine of a lecture. they were asked to write a short essay on a p&.inent topic taken from material covered in previous lectures. Neither topics nor occasions for writing
-
'Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed. ZNortheasternUniversity undergraduate who participated in the original trial of this approach. Present address: Eisai Research Institute. 4 Comorate Dr.. Andover. MA 01810. ?AS tne ;~mmaton of ex t qLest onna res (see the table)and cates. stuoents are somewhat more comfollabe w th partners of thelr own choosmg, as opposea to those asslgneo on tne basts of slm anty of academic history.
544
Journal of Chemical Education
the journal entries were announced ahead of time. In order to broaden this approach even more and to create a dialogue about the topics among students, we further asked that they exchange notebooks with their partners. Before the next class meeting they would write a *critique" of their partner's journal entry, as well as a comment on their partner's writing style. Also, since the critique could be prepared at home, suitable reference materials, such as the text or class notes, could be used as long as appropriate citations were included. At the next class period the journals were returned to their owners, along with an oRrepeated admonition: "Don't get mad!" As an added incentive to participate in this approach, the students were told that the journals would be collected-without prior warning-on two occasions, once at about midterm and again near the end of the course. At these checkpoints the journals would be read to ascertain whether students were actively participating in both the in-class and overnight assignments. There was no formal grading, and normally only nonthreatening, explanatory remarks were made on the journal contents. As a further incentive, however, each student's degree of participation was recorded, with the understanding that his or her full participation would boost any borderline course grade into the higher category. (Since Northeastern operates on a +/grading system, t h e students knew t h a t virtually everyone's grade would be borderline.) At the end of the course, students anonymously filled out an "exit questionnaire" to indicate their views on the whole experiment. For our own evaluation of the journal approach, we compared these students' average performance in Organic Chemistry 1 with that of the students in the preceding term, when there had been no journal approach. To our surprise, the average grade in the "journal group" was 0.5 grade points higher than could be expected on the basis of the average of the QPA's of these two p u p s in all of their previous science-related courses. The number of comparable students involved in the two groups (about 20 students in each) was, unfortunately, too small to permit a meaningful statistical analysis. The positive class performance, however, as well as the enthusiastic exit evaluations (see the table) convinced us to forsake any further attempts at a controlled experiment. We have utilized the journal approach with every group of Organic Chemistry 1students since and have enthusiastically expanded the use of this approach to include Organic Chemistry 2 as well.
(4) specifictopics intended to force a review of poorly handled
Summation of Student Exit Surveys on "Journal" Desirability (in %) (102 Respondents) yes
neutral1 no opinion
questions on a past exam, such as Curved Arrows in Describing Rraction Mechanisms The Effect of Structure Variation in the .Merharusm of no
(5) study hints for an impending exam, such as
Did writing the "Journal"entries help you to improve your writing skills?
The Stereochemistry of the Nucleophilic Displacement Reaction Summary of Carbon-Carbon Band Forming Reactions
Did writing the "Critiques"help you to improve your writing skills? If the use of the "Journal"technique as aoolied in this wurse - - were to be ncorporated on a regJ ar basis in a n~rnber01 c o n e s , oo yo^ lh nk it woula enhance you wrtlng sd s? ~
7
~
7
~
~~~
~
the Lucas Test Carbanions in Carban-Carbon Bond Formation
~~
Was writing the "Journal"entries of any help as a learning aid? Was writing the "critiques"of any help as
a learning aid? Was reading your partner's critiques of your "Journar entries of any help as a learning aid? If you knew tnat yo^ haa "StrJck o~l'on a g ven west on. aid lhat fact tend lo made yo^ lood ~p that topc to galn a better understanding?
Did you originally choose your own partner? If 1h1stecnnlqJe were to oe JSW agaln. wodd YOJ want to work w th the same partner?
60
22
Those who chose their own parfners answered:
68
23
Those who did not choose their own partners answered:
47
18
AS an overall evaluation, is this "Journal" 73 techniaue a aood idea?
22
19
The assigned journal entries fall into several categories: (1) review of material covered in prior Freshman courses, such as
Electronegativity Formal Charge Prediction of Bronsted AddityIBasicity as a fundion of structure (2) narrowly focused topics intended to reinforce specific
points from a prior lecture, such as The Connection Between Electronegativity and Chemi-
cal Reactivity Structural Equivalence The Effect of Structure on the Stability, Reactivity, and Rate of Formation ofA1kyl Free Radicals The Pi-Electron Distribution in Isobutylene Carbocation Reactivity and Stability Mechanism of Enolate Condensations (3) broad topics requiring substantial review of prior mate-
rial, such as Resonance Electrophilic Aromatic Substitution Chirality Nucleophilic Substitution Factors Affecting the Basicity of Nitrogen Compounds
I t surely would be simplistic to expect that these brief in-class writing tasks, even when followed up with more thorough essays, in a single course could remedy all the communication problems of our students. Nevertheless, fullv a third of the students who have Darticioated i n the journal approach felt that some improvement' had indeed occurred; and two-thirds felt that if a similar approach were utilized in their other courses, then truly significant advances would be likely (see the table). Especially encouraging to us is the summation of final entries on the exit auestionnaires. which indicates that three-fourths of all students felt the journal approach should be continued, while a mere 5% felt it was not worthwhile. Yet even one of those 5% insisted that we should "definitely make the shmoos behind u s do it!" Perhaps most importantly, a substantial majority of all students reported that the journal approach had proven to be a valuable learning tool. Their conclusion matched our primary intent, for we wanted most of all to make each student think about the particular topic a t hand. Many students, in fact, oRen acknowledged when they had not yet understood a specific principle, a s indicated by some of their journal entries: "Have no idea. Sorry, hut I'm out to lunch today." Well, you've got me on this. So I11 try to b.s." and by statements in their critiques: "Ha, Ha, nice try. Like me, however, we both had absolutely no clue about what was meant." 'lsn't it funny how we both had the same answer and were both wrong?" "And you thought Chem Lab was useless." and, finally, by comments from the exit questionnaires: "It helped me fmd out where my weaknesses were." "The journal entries did in fact encourage me ta look up topics I struck out on." "Journal entries during class time were catalysts for topic curiosib." "Pmt one must know sornethmg about a top^ before one can actually put i t m comprehensive words." -Journal m t ~ n g was gand in that you got to know how well you did on a givensubject." "After writing assignments, I would look up the subject to get a better understanding." The benefits derived from writing the critiques varied, depending greatly on the amount of time and effort students were willing to devote. A few students would issue scholarly mini-treatises replete with voluminous references; they actually had to be cautioned about spending excessive amounts of time a t it. Others had to be advised against signing off with minimal, non-instructive phrases such a s "meat iob." 0veralC theie are numerous pedagogic advantages inherent in the iournal a~oroach.anv one of which a teacher of chemistry Light fmi;aluable. it's a technique that (1) makes students think in terms of the subject, and, by vir-
tue of the wn'tten component required, demands their active inteUectual engagement; :
Volume 70 Number 7 July 1993
545
(2) sends the message, if a student cannot initially think of
anything to write, that further study of the particular topic is needed; (3) encourages peer discussion of the subject matter; (4) fosters review of desired course material by judicious choice ofjournal topics; ( 5 ) counteracts the initial fear of oreanic chemistrv so manv afthe ~tudentrbrmg inw the course; r6, and, if nnrh~ngelse, meourages students w get to class on time so as not to miss the initial journal entry Most students. i n f a d . have certainlv been in aereement with our positiGe assessment of the journal approach in Organic Chemistry. It i s indeed a wonderful "vise" t h a t stabilizes their sometimes erratic study habits a n d forces them to secure both form and content in their understanding of Chemistry Here a r e a few final comments of support from them on t h e exit questionnaires: "The journal is a good idea. It requires the student to pay attention in class and come prepared for class." "I do think it helps as a learning aid to Organic Chemistry. Kind of shocks you into working." "I thought the major benefit of the joumal to me was in foreing me to review mncepts that I had little knowledge of. Even if the journal does not improve writing skills it is a great study aid." ".lournal entries during class hme were catalysts for topic curiosity. The critiques, on theothcr hand, were very helpful as a learning taal because time was taken to prepare a summary
546
Journal of Chemical Education
of the day's topic for your partner. Failure to do so might hinder their understandine leadine to nwr class nerformance. Social morals as well as 'mendship k n d w make a person help rather than hinder the performance uf hisher classmates. In conclusion the mtiquea were far more significant in the learning process than one might want to admit."
Acknowledgment We thank Michael J. H e a m for providing the facilities a t Welleslev Colleee. where the draft of this manuseriot was p e p a r e i during sabbatical leave (AV).
a
Literature Cited ~~~
~
1. McMillen, L. Chmn. High.Edue. Jan. 22,1986, p 19. 2. (a)Schillm, G.R.Chem Engr News lW, 66 (401, IW. 31.86:(bl Gllbsrt,R. L,Jr. Chom. E w News 1988,66 @8),(July 111,62:(el David, C. W. C h Engr New8 1988.66 (201, (May 16). 3. 3. Chem. EngNews 1986,61(33l,(Sept.231,3253. 4. ACS CommitLee mnPmfe%&md Trning Newlettar,Spriag 1986, p 8. 5. Schoenfeld, R. llro Chemist's English; VCR Publishem: Dedeld Beach, FL,1985. Rwierved by Reed,G. Chom. En@ N e w 1WM (331. (Aug 161. -0. 6. Zinaser, W Writing fo Learn;Harper 81 Row:New York, 1988. 7. C s h , B. E. T k Bmies of Teehnied Communicuting;ACS: Washington, DC,1988. Reneaedby Andre-, D. C. Chem Engr News 1588.66 (401, (W.3),71-72. 8. Woolston, D. C.; Robinam,P.A.;Kutzbach, G . E f f e c t t Writing Sfmtogirrfw Engi-
1988. Reviewed by An-
m r s and Scientists;LePubljehers: St. Chelaes, MI, h w a . D. Chem.Engr News 1988, 66 (401, (Oct 31.71-72.
C.
9. Shire9,N.P. J C h . Educ 1981.68,4%496. 10. Rasenthal, L. J Chem Edue. 1987,64,996998 (eonteinaliatingof ISsrtisrtilcs in J. Chon Educ. between 197619871. 11. Bea1l.H. J. Chem.Edue. lVB1,66,148-149. 12. Beiley, R. b; Geissler, C.J Chem. Educ. 1991,68,15&152. 13. Steffena,H.; Dicker-, M. J. W r i t a h Guide, Hietory;HeaUI: lerdngtrm, MA, 1987.
