In-Class Writing in General Chemistry A Tool for Increasing Comprehension and Communication H. Beall Worcester Polytechnic Institute. Worcester, MA 01609 There are a number of well-recognized problems related to the teachine of eeneral chemistry t o large lecture sections. Included among-these are: student disinterest and feeling of irrelevance of the subiect matter, student perception of lack of involvement in a iarge lecture course: a n d t h e student tendency to look for equations to memorize rather than concepts t o learn. Writing by the students in the chemistry lecture represents a significant response t o all of these problems. Writing across the curriculum has been used in a number of disciplines for two principal purposes? These are to increase the comprehension of the material by the students (writing to learn) and teaching writing, particularly, as it is done in the specific discipline. In this study, in-class writing was used t o increase thinking and comprehension and for the additional purpose of improving the communication between the teacher and students in the large lecture class. Thus the students were given a mechanism by which they could communicate to the teacher and to each other what their interests were and how they comprehended the concepts presented. Chemistry 1010 and 1020 a t WPI together make up a 14week general chemistry sequence that is taken by virtually all science and engineering majors here. The topics covered --
' Bizzell, P.; Herzberg, B. The Territofy of Language: Llhguistics.
Stylistics, and the Teaching of Composition; McQuade, D. A,. Ed.: Sornhern Illinois University: Carbondale IL, 1986; pp 340-352.
148
Journal of Chemical Educatlon
in these 14 weeks include stoichiometry, nuclear chemistry, gases, fundamental inorganic reactions, solids, liquids and phase transformations, chemical equilibrium, and chemical thermodynamics. Eleven in-class writing assignments were included as part of the 40 lectures. These were announced a t natural breaks in the lecture, generally about in the middle of the class. At that time the students were asked to take out a sheet of paper and put their names thereon, and the writing assignment was given. Five minutes were allowed to write, and then the naDers were collected. After class. the writines were read, and good examples were transferred to transp&encies to the class later. Writine.. assienments were for . nroiection . .. not graded but were required of all present. Responses to the assienments indicated that almost all of the studenta took them seriously. Some of the writing assignments were: Write down one property of matter or one process involving matter that you would like to understand better. Summarize the results of Rutherford's experiment with alpha particles aimed at metal foils. How did this lead to the theory of the nuclear atom? Kinetic theory of gases assumes particles have totally elastic collisions. Is this completely reasonable? Why or why not? What does in-class writing in chemistry mean to you? The first assignment was given in the second lecture. I t had been preceded by a lecture on the macroscopic properties of two forms of matter, specifically, a paper clip and a rubber band. The purpose of this assignment was to be able
to produce transparencies that could be shown when the narticular topic was covered in the course. This was a way to hemonstratethat topics that interested thestudents were, in fact. beine taught. - A few examples of student responses that were shown in the course were:
-
"What allows a flat piece of metal to bend when it is struck with a hammer?" "Why does ice float in water?" "Why does dry ice sublime?" The assignments on chemical principles were generally eiven one or two lectures after the topic was introduced in elass. They were considered to be "thbught questions" and were designed to stimulate the thinking of the students on the subject. These assignments provided a self-test for the students so that they could see whether more study on the subject was necess&y. They also provided information to the lecturer about how the understanding of the material was progressing. The best papers for each assignment were projected for the students the next day with an explanation of why they were good in terms of chemistry. The quality of the writing was not addressed, although samples with poor writing were not displayed. I t was intended t o encourage students by seeing good work, and so only goodanswers were shown. Some of the answers given were exceptional and served to explain the concepts to the class in the words of students. For example, an answer given for the assignment on the Rutherford experiment was: The majority of alpha particles simply pawed right through the metal foil. A very minute few changed direction and even fewer bounced straieht back. This led Rutherford to believe that there were great expanses of empty space and that the majority of mass of each atom was clustered about the center and positively charged. This is the only explanation for the particle bouncing straight back. An answer given for the assignment on the elasticity of gas particles was: It is completely reaaonahle to assume that gas particle collisions are completely elastic. If they were not, the particles would eventually stop which is contradictory to known fact. In the macroscopic world, collisions are not elastic and generate heat. Heat is simply energy in motion in the microscopic realm. When two particles collide, the collisions could be thought of as "inelastie." The particles would thus "heat up" in which case they would speed up. The net result becomes identical to the result of an elastic collision. The last assignment was an opportunity for the students to eive their o ~ i n i o n on s in-class wiitine as a teaching tool. hi ~ e s ~ o n s e s v a r i considerably ed in f&r major categories: (1) . . resistant responses stating .a fundamental dislike of inclass writing or the inappropriateness of using it in a chemistrvcourse (13%of total), (2) statementsofhumiliation based perceived poor performance in the in-class writing (10%
of total). .. (3) . . clearlv favorable IeSDOnSeS viewine in-class writing as a valuable teaching and thinking tooi (63% of total). (4) essentially neutral (14% of total). An example of a response in the "resistant" category is: It doesn't mean a lot to me. 1 think it's just a wasce of time. I absolutely don't see the logic behind these writings. 1 realize it forces me and others to think a little dee~erthan usual but I still think it's unnecessary. Comments such as this can be viewed as mixed or contradictow. The students were doine somethine in a lecture that w& not consistent with their kpectation; Some stated that it wasn't rieht to be eiven writine assienments in chemistrv. whereas thky w o u l l be perfec$y happy to have them ri English. Furthermore, they were forced to evaluate their part in the learning process, and this revealed some new feelings. In general, the "resistant" responses did acknowledge that deeper thinking was the result even if they did not like it. An example of a response in the "humiliation" category is: In-classwriting means five minutes of hell. I find it to be extremely agonizing especially when I work hard to write and it doesn't make vaur overhead. I feel like I have failed and this is not benefic& tawards my attitude of learning. However, it is also good because it tests the knowledge of those who are writing. An example of the "clearly favorable" category is: In-class writing forces me to think more about what I am writing about, thus creating a better understanding of it. Also, when you read some of the writings on the next day, it helps with comprehension of the material. The 5 min allowed for writine were judged t o be about the maximum time that student c¢iati& would be maintained under the circumstances. Since the writings were time-restricted, they were short enough that reading the responses and preparing the overhead transparencies could be accomplished in about 90 min for a class of about 250. The principal benefit of this program was to increase the students' level of thinkine on chemical nrinci~les.Anv i m ~ r o v e -~ ment in writing that was effected was incidental: he class time taken was. in the author's opinion. iustified. The maiority of student responses was positive. Student discontent with in-class writing seemed largely related to their lack of writing experience, particularly in science courses. Presumablv. if writing in .. " . manv of the com~laintswould disappear science classes were to become more common. ~
~
~
Acknowledgment The author is indebted to John Trimbur of the Department of Humanities. Worcester Polvtechnic Institute. for help and inspiration'and to ~ e n e r a l ~ l e c t r~i oc n i p a &for support of writing across the curriculum a t WPI.
Volume 68
Number 2
February 1991
149
