Research: Science and Education
Incorporation of a Cooperative Learning Technique in Organic Chemistry Suzanne R. Carpenter* Department of Chemistry and Physics, Armstrong Atlantic State University, Savannah, GA 31419; *
[email protected] Tim McMillan Department of Mathematics, Armstrong Atlantic State University, Savannah, GA 31419
The chemical education literature abounds with references to cooperative learning methods (1) including recent articles in this Journal (2–6). In the broadest sense, cooperative learning is defined as students working together in groups small enough that everyone can participate in a collective task that has been clearly assigned (7). Among the wide variety of cooperative learning methods, a modified Student Team Learning method (Student Teams Achievement Divisions or STAD) was used in an organic chemistry class at Armstrong Atlantic State University (AASU). All Student Team Learning methods have three common features: team rewards, individual accountability, and equal opportunities for success (8). The team rewards provide recognition for success in accomplishing a specified group goal. The activities are structured such that the team’s success is dependent upon the participation of each team member; that is, each member is accountable. Thus, successful team interactions require contributions from all members (positive resource interdependence) and reward all members (positive goal interdependence). This combination has been studied and shown to result in better student performance on group tasks (9). Team members have equal opportunity since individual success requires only that a student improve on his or her own past performance. The STAD method was used in this study because it is well suited for science instruction and it is one of the simplest methods to implement (7, 8). The experiences of many educators who have used cooperative learning techniques are similar to those recently cited by Kreke and Towns (10) who reported a warmer classroom climate, the development of interpersonal and communication skills, and the diversification of problem-solving skills. Others have noted, in addition, that cooperative learning leads to academic achievement (11). The preponderance of data on this effect has been collected in pre-college classes (7, 8, 12). Although these data support the notion that academic achievement in college classes will also be enhanced through the use of STAD, they do not ensure that. Widespread incorporation of these methods in college science classes will require published data that clearly demonstrates a positive impact of such methods on the achievement of post-secondary learners. Organic chemistry classes are a unique environment in which to explore cooperative learning methods. In organic chemistry, students must have or develop the ability to think about the abstract, visualize three-dimensional objects, and think analytically. Second-year college students do not typically have all of these abilities (13). This increases the likelihood that positive resource interdependence will exist in these classes. Secondly, organic chemistry has a bad reputation 330
among students (13), which means that many students begin the course with a negative attitude. This poor attitude can be compounded by the isolation often felt at commuter colleges like AASU. Any activity that creates a positive environment and has the potential to also improve academic achievement is well worth the effort. Finally, the success rate in organic chemistry has historically been low compared to other courses. Over the last two years at AASU, the average combined failure and withdrawal rate for organic chemistry has been 31% compared to 23% for the department. The incorporation of a cooperative learning method in organic chemistry classes thus addresses a variety of issues. Learning Teams
Assignments On the first day of class, the students were given a General Chemistry Review Sheet (Figure 1) to complete. This sheet included questions on topics taught in general chemistry, which are reviewed early in most organic chemistry texts (14). The score on the Review Sheet and the student’s grades in the two quarters of general chemistry (which are prerequisites for organic chemistry) were used to assign a numerical base score for each student. Base scores were computed by averaging the grades in the first two quarters of general chemistry (9 points for an A, 8 points for a B, 7 points for a C, and 6 points for a D) and the score (out of 10 points possible) on the General Chemistry Review Sheet. The class was then divided into groups, called Learning Teams, of three or four students according to their base scores as described (8). Such heterogeneous groups have been shown to provide beneficial effects for low-achieving and high-achieving students (15).
• Give an example of a metal. • What is the complete electron configuration of a carbon atom? • Acid A has a pKa of 2.5 and Acid B has a pKa of 8.7. Which is the stronger acid? • How many protons, neutrons, and electrons are in a Ca2+ ion? Figure 1. Examples of questions from the General Chemistry Review Sheet.
Journal of Chemical Education • Vol. 80 No. 3 March 2003 • JChemEd.chem.wisc.edu
Research: Science and Education
Functioning During the traditional lectures in organic chemistry, homework problems were assigned from the text as each chapter was covered. The Learning Teams were then instructed to meet outside of class to work on the assigned problems in order to master the corresponding lecture topics. Cohen states that if the assignment can be done by an individual, it is not a true group task (7). In the case of the organic chemistry assignments, since the subject requires diverse skills (mathematics skills, abstract reasoning, visualization in three dimensions, and analytical thinking), which are not well developed in any single individual (13), it can be argued that these assignments qualify as group tasks. This characteristic also increases the likelihood that positive resource interdependence will exist (7).
Table 1. Assignment of Individual Improvement Points Individual Improvement Points
Quiz Score (10 points per quiz) More than one point less than the base score
0
One point below, up to the base score
1
Base score, to one point above the base score
3
More than one point above the base score
5
Perfect score
5
Team results from one quiz:
Team Members
Base Score
Quiz Score
Improvement Points
Individual Accountability, Equal Opportunity, and Assignment of Rewards
A
9
9.5
3
B
8
7.0
1
Weekly quizzes generated by the course instructor based on the assigned text problems were given to assess mastery of the topics presented. Student quiz scores were used to assign individual improvement points according to a sliding scale (Table 1). Each student’s quiz score was compared to his or her own base score for assignment of improvement points. In this way, students contribute to their teams by improving on their own past performance; that is, there is equal opportunity for success (8). The individual improvement points were averaged for each learning team and awarded to all members of the team as extra credit points applied to the next exam. See Figure 2 for a sample calculation of extra credit points from one quiz. An improvement of more than one point (out of a maximum of 10 points per quiz) above the student’s base score or a perfect score earns five improvement points. If all team members demonstrate similar mastery, each member earns five extra credit points. Prior to most exams, two quizzes were given meaning the maximum amount of extra credit that could be earned by each student was ten points—enough to get the attention of most students. Thus, students can only achieve their individual goal of earning maximum extra credit if the other team members also achieve their goals—a characteristic of positive goal interdependence (7).
C
7
5.5
0
D
6
7.5
5
Discussion and Conclusion In order to gather qualitative information regarding the functioning of the Learning Teams, brief surveys that allowed students to express their opinions were distributed. Some common problems were identified. Difficulty scheduling team meetings, student apathy, and personality conflicts were noted. The first two of these are attributed to the fact that, at a commuter college, students are frequently only on campus during scheduled class times. Use of chat rooms or electronic mail lists on the Internet may address these problems for some students. On the other hand, the students who participated in the study indicated overwhelmingly that the use of Learning Teams should be continued (96%). This is consistent with the findings of Clouston and Kleinman (2) that students enjoy cooperative learning experiences. Several times during the
Calculations: Total improvement points for team: 9 points Team average: 9/4 = 2.25, rounded to 2 points Every member of the team earns 2 points of extra credit. Figure 2. Example of assignment of extra credit points from one quiz.
term, the Learning Teams were assembled during class time and the interactions of the team members were informally observed. Most team members appeared to be comfortable with one another and their interactions quite productive (the extent and volume of conversations among the team members frequently required reminders to work more quietly). Students frequently commented on the value of new friendships made, relief of stress, reinforcement of concepts through peer instruction, and the security of knowing others were struggling to understand organic chemistry. These results may warrant the implementation of cooperative learning methods in future classes. Literature Cited 1. For examples, see: Nurrenbern, S. C.; Robinson, W. R.; Cooperative Learning: A Bibliography. J. Chem. Educ. 1997, 74, 623; Nurrenbern, S. C.; Krupp, A. Experiences in Cooperative Learning: A Collection for Chemistry Teachers; Publication 95001, Institute for Chemical Education, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI, 1995. 2. Clouston, L. L.; Kleinman, M. H. The Design and Synthesis of a Large Interactive Classroom. J. Chem. Educ. 1999, 76, 60. 3. Paulson, D. R. Active Learning and Cooperative Learning in the Organic Chemistry Lecture Class. J. Chem. Educ. 1999, 76, 1136. 4. Towns, M. H. How Do I Get My Students to Work Together? Getting Cooperative Learning Started. J. Chem. Educ. 1998, 75, 67.
JChemEd.chem.wisc.edu • Vol. 80 No. 3 March 2003 • Journal of Chemical Education
331
Research: Science and Education 5. Francisco, J. S.; Nicoll, G.; Trautmann, M. Integrating Multiple Teaching Methods into a General Chemistry Classroom. J. Chem. Educ. 1998, 75, 210. 6. Hagen, J. P. Cooperative Learning in Organic II. Increased Retention on a Commuter Campus. J. Chem. Educ. 2000, 77, 1441. 7. Cohen, E. G. Restructuring the Classroom: Conditions for Productive Small Groups. Review of Educational Research 1994, 64, 1. 8. Slavin, R. E. Cooperative Learning Theory, Research and Practice; Prentice-Hall, Inc.: Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1990. 9. Johnson, D.; Johnson, R.; Stanne, M. Impact of Goal and Resource Interdependence on Problem-Solving Success. Journal of Social Psychology 1990, 129, 507. 10. Kreke, K.; Towns, M. H. Student Perspectives of Small-Group
332
Learning Activities. Chem. Educator 1998, 3 (4), 1. 11. Blosser, P. E. Using Cooperative Learning in Science Education; Educational Resources Information Center (ERIC) Clearinghouse for Science, Mathematics, and Environmental Education: Columbus, OH, 1992. 12. Zhining, Q.; Johnson, D. W.; Johnson, R. T. Cooperative Versus Competitive Efforts and Problem Solving. Review of Educational Research 1995, 65, 129. 13. Katz, Marlene. Teaching Organic Chemistry via Student-Directed Learning. J. Chem. Educ. 1996, 73, 440. 14. McMurry, J. Organic Chemistry, 4th ed; Brooks/Cole Publishing Company: New York, 1996. 15. Peterson, P.; Swing, S. Students’ Cognitions as Mediators of the Effectiveness of Small-Group Learning. Journal of Education Psychology 1985, 77, 299.
Journal of Chemical Education • Vol. 80 No. 3 March 2003 • JChemEd.chem.wisc.edu
