In the Classroom
Using Cooperative Learning To Enhance Performance in General Chemistry Leonard S. Kogut Department of Chemistry, Penn State Beaver Campus, Brodhead Road, Monaca, PA 15061 All first-year students at Penn State Beaver Campus participate in discussion groups during orientation for new students. One consistent observation during the past five years is that focus groups indicate that almost 90% of fulltime students expect to earn grades of A or B while spending an average of only 6 or 7 total hours per week at their studies. I have corroborated this dubious expectation recently by asking 65 students in General Chemistry how many hours they spent studying chemistry during the week before a major examination. The range of study hours was 1 to 7, with the average study time of 3.5 hours per week. I also validated my assumption that these students studied more just before an exam than during a normal week. An instructor in a pre-calculus course in which many of my students were also enrolled found similar discouraging results. I have tried various methods during the past few years to motivate students to be more actively engaged in their learning, to spend more time in their studies, and to process information at a deeper level than merely at the surface (memory). I had not, however, directly addressed how to get students to spend more time on task. After attending a Chautauqua workshop I decided to consider using cooperative learning in my General Chemistry classes. There is growing interest in cooperative learning techniques in college courses, some in science and engineering. Treisman, for example, has described the positive impact of peer groups in improving the success of minority students in calculus (1). Johnson and Johnson, both in surveys of the literature and in their own studies, determined that under most conditions groups are more productive than individuals (2–5). Dougherty et al. reported that cooperative learning had a positive impact on student retention and student performance in General Chemistry (6).
tests. The profiles indicate that Chemistry 12 students were somewhat better prepared for General Chemistry than students in Chemistry 17. Math SAT scores have been demonstrated as predictors of chemistry performance, and my experience with Chemistry 12 and 17 in the past indicates that the chemistry placement test is also a rough but generally reliable predictor of student performance (8, 9). Description of Cooperative Learning Chemistry 17 is designed to intervene—that is, it attempts to reach out to underprepared students to help them overcome deficiencies. During the fall semester of 1994 I carried this intervention to the extreme that I required every student in this course to belong to a learning team, formation and operation of which followed the guidelines below. 1. Teams should have 4 to 6 members. 2. Teams should meet a minimum of one hour per week outside of class. 3. Teams should discuss homework problems, course readings, and other assignments and submit individual homework as well as a corrected team copy with recorded discussion. 4. Before each exam, teams should submit three or more problems that they anticipated could be on that exam. 5. Team assignments counted for 10% of the course grade. 6. Teams were formed primarily on the basis of availability of meeting times in individual students’ schedules. 7. Teams were expected to meet at a regular time and place each week. They were encouraged to meet in the chemistry resource room near my office as often as possible, in order to have access to course notes, molecular models, old examinations, and other reference materials. 8. Teams were required to submit a cover sheet for each meeting, which included attendance.
Profile of the Students During the fall semester each year I teach two sections of General Chemistry from the same text with the same assignments. One section, Chemistry 17, is a 5-credit course that includes 100 minutes of additional instructional time per week and therefore goes more slowly than Chemistry 12, the parallel 3-credit course. I have described these courses in a earlier paper (7). Chemistry 17 generally contains students with less chemistry background and preparation than Chemistry 12. Table 1 presents profiles for the Fall 1994 courses including scores for SAT math, verbal, and reading tests and Penn State Chemistry placement Table 1. Average Test Scores Penn State Chemistry Placementa
Course Chemistry 12 (n = 44)
9.8
Chemistry 17 (n = 38)
5.9
aMaximum
720
SAT Verbal
Math
Reading
465
572
43.8
443
530
43.3
Because I found Chemistry 12 students to be better prepared for General Chemistry than students in Chemistry 17, I did not require them to form teams. In fact, I never mentioned such teams within the course context, and I attempted to compare performance of Chemistry 12 and 17 students on the second in-term exam and the final exam to assess the impact of learning teams. Because the two courses were three hours apart I used a common exam only once during the semester. The final exams, although different for the two courses, were as similar as I could make them, with each question being a match for its counterpart on the other exam. Of the 33 questions on the final, 9 were identical; all others were quite similar. For example:
score = 20.
Journal of Chemical Education • Vol. 74 No. 6 June 1997
Chem 17, Question 27: If 400 mL of 0.100 M KMnO4 aqueous is diluted to 600 mL with H20, the final molarity of the solution becomes ____ Chem 12, Question 27: If 200 mL of 0.0500 M KMnO4 aqueous is diluted to 600 mL with water, the final molarity of the solution becomes ____
In the Classroom Positive Comments
Table 2. Median Scores on Common Exams Course
Exam #2
Final Exam
Chemistry 12
56% (n = 58)
55% (n = 56)
Chemistry 17
66% (n = 47)
58% (n = 44)
• Students were able to “make friends” and learn in a supportive environment. • Many students prepared for the team meetings to avoid embarrassment (censure?) by their peers.
Table 2 summarizes the performances on the midsemester and final exams. Two students dropped the Chem 12 course and 3 dropped Chemistry 17 between the second exam and the final. Exam 2 was 60% multiple choice and 40% problem or discussion; the final was completely multiple choice. That the Chemistry 17 students performed so well on Exam 2 relative to Chemistry 12 students cannot be attributed to communication between the two classes because the Chemistry 17 exam took place 3 hours before the Chemistry 12 exam. While it is tempting to ascribe the success of the Chemistry 17 students to learning-team enhancement, it is not completely possible to divorce another very important variable here. That is, more time was spent on instruction in Chemistry 17 than in Chemistry 12. Nonetheless, during the past 10 years the Chemistry 12 students have typically scored better than students in Chemistry 17 on identical or similar exams when instructional methodology has been the same. In a previous paper, I did report that Chemistry 17 students performed comparably to Chemistry 12 students only during a semester in which I used a different instructional method. When both courses were taught with the time in lecture as the principal variable, Chemistry 12 students outperformed those in Chemistry 17.
• Students were able to see different viewpoints from their own. • Teams almost always completed extra-credit projects assigned as group exercises. • Team use of the resource room grew as the semester progressed. • Teams created a culture in which cooperative learning was nurtured and encouraged, spreading to other courses. • No apparent resentment of the mandatory nature of team membership manifested itself. Negative Comments • Some students do prefer individual learning. • Whether by level of maturity or motivation, some students were derelict in team duties (missing meetings, failing to have homework prepared).
Evaluation of Cooperative Learning
• Peers were reluctant to confront the derelicts and, especially during the earlier part of the semester, routinely reported absent members as present.
To further assess the impact of cooperative learning alone on exam performance in Chemistry 17 and explore the reasons for the success of students in Chemistry 17, I enlisted a Quality Circle comprising 5 students and me. The circle met each week to assess Chemistry 17 and to design a brief survey to test student perceptions of cooperative (team) learning in Chemistry 17 (10). Thirty-five students completed the survey. The survey and its results are presented in the box, the numbers representing numbers of students who selected that response. Students’ responses to the last two questions form the basis of the list of advantages (positive comments) and disadvantages (negative comments) of Cooperative Learning summarized in the following sections.
In addition, because each QC member was a member of a separate learning team, these students provided additional first-hand qualitative evaluation of team performance. Their feedback and the results of the survey are encouraging and informative. In question 2, 91% of the students indicate they spent more study time than they would have as a result of cooperative learning. In question 1, 83% found this experience as effective in helping them to learn chemistry. And when asked in question 3 if they would form a study team in the future, 80% responded affirmatively. Most students (74%) also believed that study teams precipitate study at a deeper level than perhaps would occur in individual study alone.
Student Perception of Cooperative Learning: Survey and Distribution of Responses (n = 35) 1. How would you characterize the effectiveness of the study team on your ability to learn chemistry? 0 extremely 1 very 5 somewhat 16 somewhat 10 very 3 extremely ineffective ineffective ineffective effective effective effective 2. How did the study-team influence the overall amount of study you devoted to this course compared to a similar course without a study-team? 0 greatly 0 somewhat 3 slightly 12 slightly 16 somewhat 4 greatly decreased decreased decreased increased increased increased 3. Given the opportunity in some future chemistry course, how likely would you be to join a study-team if study-team membership were optional instead of required? 1 extremely 2 very 4 somewhat 9 somewhat 14 very 5 extremely unlikely unlikely unlikely likely likely likely 4. How would you characterize the impact of the study-team on your ability to think about chemical concepts in a deeper manner? 1 extremely 1 very 7 somewhat 12 somewhat 10 very 4 extremely ineffective ineffective ineffective effective effective effective 5. List any positive comments about your study-team experience. 6. List any negative comments about your study-team experience.
Vol. 74 No. 6 June 1997 • Journal of Chemical Education
721
In the Classroom Conclusion Cooperative learning in chemistry is feasible and desirable. At the least it increases the time students spend studying and encourages students to help each other to learn. Several of the teams worked exceedingly well together and met two to three times per week. Except for movement of 2 students to different teams and a few withdrawals from the course, team membership remained remarkably stable throughout the course. One procedural aspect that I was unable to put into practice was my expressed desire to meet with each team at least once, not to intervene so much as to encourage. I was delighted to find that of the 24 students from Chemistry 17 going into the next course in the sequence (Chemistry 13), 12 participated in learning teams of their own formation and impetus. Before this experience, students at Beaver Campus were unlikely to work together to this extent. The use of cooperative learning has spread to other courses. Constant vigilance, clear communication, and instructor guidance are critical to success of cooperative learning, especially in establishing procedures for teams to follow early in the semester. I am still redesigning the report form I collect from each group after group meetings. I am also still exploring ways to improve interaction among students. However, the results of this experiment are very positive in light of the mandatory nature of student participation. One aspect of the results that does seem linked to the success of the performance of students in Chem 17 is the increased time on
722
task and the apparent effectiveness of this time in helping them to learn better in General Chemistry. Acknowledgment I wish to thank Craig E. Nelson, Indiana University at Bloomington. It was his description of instruction in one of his biology courses during a 1993 Chautauqua program “Changing Science Courses to Promote Critical Thinking” that caused me to consider cooperative learning in general chemistry. Literature Cited 1. Treisman, U. Coll. Math. J. 1992, 23(5), 363–372. 2. Johnson, D. W.; Johnson, R. T. Cooperation and Competition: A MetaAnalysis of the Research; Lawrence Erlbaum: Hillsdale, NJ, 1989. 3. Johnson, D. W.; Johnson R. T.; Naruyama, G.; Nelson, D.; Skon, L. Psychol. Bull. 1981, 89, 47–62. 4. Johnson, D. W.; Johnson, R. T.; Smith, K. A. Cooperative Learning: Increasing College Faculty Instructional Productivity; ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report No. 4; The George Washington School of Education and Human Development: Washington, DC, 1991. 5. Johnson, D. W.; Johnson R. T.; Garibaldi, A.; Stanne, M. J. Soc. Psychol. 1990, 130, 507–516. 6. Dougherty, R. C.; Bowen, C. W.; Berger, W. R.; Mellon, E. K.; Pulliam, E. J. Chem. Educ. 1995, 72, 793–797. 7. Kogut, L. S. J. Chem. Educ. 1993, 70, 565–567. 8. Pickering, M. J. Chem. Educ. 1975, 52, 512. 9. Ozsogomonyan, A.; Loftus, D. J. Chem. Educ. 1979, 56, 173. 10. Kogut, L. S. Improving College and University Teaching 1984, 32, 123–127.
Journal of Chemical Education • Vol. 74 No. 6 June 1997
