Online Chemistry Modules: Interaction and Effective Faculty

Research: Science and Education edited by

Chemical Education Research

Diane M. Bunce

Online Chemistry Modules: Interaction and Effective Faculty Facilitation

The Catholic University of America Washington, D.C. 20064

Amy J. Phelps Middle Tennessee State University Murfreesboro, TN 37132

Laura E. Slocum University High School of Indiana, Carmel, IN 46032 Marcy Hamby Towns* Department of Chemistry, Ball State University, Muncie, IN 47306-0445; *[email protected] Theresa Julia Zielinski Department of Chemistry, Medical Technology, and Physics, Monmouth University, West Long Branch, NJ 07764-1898

In college chemistry courses, educators are using computer-mediated communication and computer-supported collaborative learning in a variety of different ways (1–10). In some of these endeavors faculty use electronic communication technologies such as WebCT, Blackboard, or discussion boards at their own institutions (4). In other cases, faculty combine cooperative learning techniques and electronic communication to form computer-supported collaborative learning projects (2, 6–10). Physical Chemistry OnLine (PCOL) modules have been developed and implemented by a consortium of faculty at geographically dispersed universities to help students learn physical chemistry (6–8,11). The modules use a guided-inquiry approach and rely on collaboration between students in their own class, as well as computer-supported collaboration across institutions. To date, the PCOL consortium has produced 13 modules dealing with subjects such as the thermodynamics of inclusion complexes, iodine spectroscopy, ozone kinetics, and molecular modeling (11). Initially, evaluation of the modules focused on student computer usage and the student perspective of the modules, but over time it shifted to understanding how students collaborated in the online environment and the role of the faculty facilitator. To perform this evaluation we needed to develop analysis tools that would allow us to describe and analyze the types of student collaboration taking place via computer-mediated communication. Simultaneously, we sought to develop guidelines or recommendations for faculty facilitation in an online environment. Thus, the work presented here focused on 1. Describing how students and faculty interact during an online module. 2. Developing research based guidelines for effective faculty facilitation in an online environment.

Research Methods The PCOL module investigated during the study was “How Hot Is That Flame?” (11). The goal of the module was to reach consensus on a method of calculating a flame temperature of a particular fuel by applying mathematics and physics to chemistry. The participants included 101 students from seven different colleges and universities and three faculty facilitators—one experienced online facilitator and two novices. The students and faculty were divided into 10 co1058

Journal of Chemical Education

•

hort groups that were composed of a faculty facilitator and three student groups from different institutions. The experienced faculty facilitator functioned as a “project facilitator” who welcomed students to the project and substituted for cohort facilitators if they requested assistance during an absence. Each cohort communicated via a discussion board during the five weeks in which the module took place. The archived discussion boards were analyzed using two methods. First, using transcripts of the discussion boards, each posting was analyzed and coded by message type: original, first follow-up, second follow-up, or third and higher follow-up. Posts were also categorized by author—student group, cohort facilitator, or project facilitator—and whether or not the posting contained a question. Each discussion board was then diagrammed using Inspiration software.1 These diagrams allowed for better visualization and subsequent description of the student–student and facilitator–student interactions. The second method of analyzing the discussion boards focused on coding each posting using a scheme that identified behaviors associated with collaboration, such as giving feedback or challenging one’s reasoning, from the work of Johnson and Johnson (12, 13). The coding scheme used was similar to that developed by Curtis and Lawson (14), who included codes identifying social interaction and organization of group work along with Johnson and Johnson’s scheme. Two additional codes were generated in this study to distinguish contributions that dealt with assigned academic tasks and those regarding technology issues. The codes associated with collaboration were grouped into higher-level categories of planning, contributing, seeking input, reflection and monitoring, and social interaction as Curtis and Lawson (14) described. This higher-level analysis in conjunction with the codes that were not associated with collaboration allowed for description of more general aspects of the discussion board interactions. A detailed explanation of the scheme is given in Table A1 in the Appendix, including examples from the discussion board transcripts. Findings and Discussion Cohorts 1, 2, and 3 were chosen to exemplify the conversation that occurred on the discussion boards during this project. These cohorts represent a continuum of interaction from a case of sustained discussion and collaboration to a case of little discussion and collaboration. Figure 1 compares the percentage of total messages by message type (original,

Vol. 81 No. 7 July 2004

•

www.JCE.DivCHED.org

Research: Science and Education

first follow-up, second follow-up, and third and higher follow-up) that appeared within each cohort. If effective collaboration and discussions occurred within a cohort during the project, then original postings would generate follow-up postings, which one might assume would produce a balanced ratio between original postings and third or higher follow-up postings. Thus, by looking at each cohort in Figure 1 we can begin to form an impression of the type of interactions that occurred. For example, in cohort 3 which had a novice faculty facilitator, over 60% of the messages were original postings, but only 15% third or higher follow-up postings. This preponderance of original postings (nearly a 4 to 1 ratio), likely indicates that few of the messages generated more than one or two responses. However, in cohort 2 which had an experienced online faculty facilitator, 42% of the postings were original messages and 31% were third and higher follow-up messages, nearly a 4 to 3 ratio. This better balance of original and third or higher follow-up postings indicates that discussion did take place, that in fact quite a number of the third or higher follow-up postings were generated in response to some of the original postings. Cohort 1, which had a novice faculty facilitator, had nearly a 2:1 ratio of original postings to third and higher follow-ups, with 50% original postings and 28% third and higher follow-up postings. It initially appears that only cohort 2, the cohort that had an experienced online facilitator, engaged in a pattern of sustained discussion and collaboration. Discussion Board Diagrams Figures 2, 3, and 4 are the discussion board diagrams for cohorts 1–3. The legend identifies the level of the posting (original, first follow-up, and so forth) and who generated the posting. In each figure, the discussion begins at the lower left corner, with an original message labeled with the date and author. Time runs vertically from bottom to top on these diagrams, thus the conversation flows up. Postings on the same day are placed horizontally in the order that they were posted to the discussion board. The arrows that link follow-up messages back to the posting that inspired a response indicate a conversation thread. The project began on 10/06 and ended 11/17. Cohort 1, depicted in Figure 2, had two distinct conversation threads; however, group C had no postings after 10/25. In cohort 2, shown in Figure 3, there were also two

distinct conversation threads and the second conversation continued for 22 days from 10/26 to 11/17. The diagram for cohort 3, displayed in Figure 4, contains one conversation thread; the facilitator makes no postings after 10/26. From the discussion board diagrams shown in Figures 2–4, it is evident that the facilitator must maintain an active presence in order for conversation to develop. When the facilitator did not maintain an active presence, students merely completed the various assignments as noted by the many original postings. They simply posted their results without reading, reflecting, or generating responses to previous postings. The large number of original postings was conspicuous in cohort 3 (Figure 4), where the cohort facilitator made an initial introduction to the group on 10/09 and then did not post again until 10/18. The messages between these two dates were primarily original messages. It was only when group G asked a question on 10/16 that the first follow-up message from group H was posted on 10/17. The project facilitator’s message posted on 10/17 addressed both groups H and G, and initiated a conversation between the student groups that the

CF = Cohort Facilitator PF = Project Facilitator PA = University A PB = University B PC = University C P * = Posting contains question

= Original posting = 1st follow-up = 2nd follow-up = 3rd follow-up

11/20

CF* A 11/15

A*

B A

B*

CF*

B

B*

B

B A* 10/30

CF* CF* CF* 10/25

C

Percentage of Total Messages

PF

C

A*

70 10/20

CF*

60 50

Cohort 1 Cohort 2 Cohort 3

40

B* A* 10/15

30

CF*

20 10

A

10/10

A

0 Original

1st follow-up

A

B

CF

B

C

CF

2nd follow-up 3rd+ follow-up

Message Type

PF

Figure 1. Percentage of total messages versus message type for cohort 1, 2, and 3 for the module “How Hot Is That Flame?”.

www.JCE.DivCHED.org

•

Figure 2. Discussion board diagram for cohort 1.

Vol. 81 No. 7 July 2004

•


1059


cohort facilitator reinforced on 10/18 and 10/19, but then the conversation dwindled again. After the cohort facilitator’s last message on 10/26, there were only original postings and the cohort never did reach consensus on a flame temperature nor on how to calculate a flame temperature. However, the facilitator’s presence alone is not enough to maintain conversations, as revealed by the comparison of cohort 1 and 2. In cohort 1, the cohort facilitator initiated the first conversation (first follow-up message, 10/13). The facilitator asked specific questions related to three of the four questions in the students’ postings for assignment four and encouraged the students to elaborate further. This facilitator’s posting generated further conversation among the student groups. The facilitator posted a fourth follow-up response on 10/20, again encouraging the students and once more ask-

F = Cohort Facilitator D = University D E = University E J = University J * = Posting contains question

= Original posting = 1st follow-up = 2nd follow-up

ing further questions. Following this, the facilitator posted three messages asking for responses from the other groups, but only one of them (10/26) was answered. Another conversation began on 10/31 via a student group question; however, in the middle of this conversation, there was a twelve-day gap where no one posted a message. Cohort 1’s discussion ended with two original postings from different student groups (11/14 and 11/16); the third student group had not posted a message since 10/25. The final posting was a question from the cohort facilitator that went unanswered. This cohort also did not come to consensus on a flame temperature or a method for calculating a flame temperature. In cohort 2, a student group initiated the first conversation on 10/11. Within this conversation another original posting also generated a separate short conversation. The conversation begun on 10/26 illustrates the role the facilitator played in promoting and nurturing conversation and provides insight into the importance of the facilitator’s role. Numerous original student group postings were made in cohort 2 on 10/26; half of these contained questions. One of

= 3rd follow-up

12/05

CF = Cohort Facilitator PF = Project Facilitator PG = University G PH = University H PI = University I P * = Posting contains question

E

F* E

F*

11/15

E*

= 2nd follow-up = 3rd follow-up

H

F D

= 1st follow-up

11/15

J

11/10

= Original posting

E* 11/10

J

J E*

I

E

J E 11/5

11/5

F* E

D

H* 10/30

I*

J 10/30

F D

D*

J*

J*

E

F* E

E

G* PF* I

10/25

H

J*

10/25

H

H

CF*

G G*

10/20

J E

F* E* 10/20

J

J

G

10/15

CF* F* D

E

E

10/15

D*

H

H

PF*

G

G

F*

10/10

J

J

10/10

F


1060

H G* G

G


•

H I H PF

I CF

G


Vol. 81 No. 7 July 2004

•

www.JCE.DivCHED.org

I

CF*


these original questions generated a student response that same day. The following day, the facilitator replied, first with an encouraging word to the entire cohort, then comments to individual groups, and concluded the posting in this manner: Third, I need some help on deciding two things. 1) Dan’s group said that Cp was parabolic “as expected” but later someone said that Cp is directly proportional to T. I don’t think those statements are consistent. Which is correct? (Anybody can help out here!) 2) Zanne’s groups said they got “close” to the same result as Dori, Hannah, Kim, but you all talked about LOTS of different heat capacities-CO2, propane, N2-which heat capacities did you use and what was the final temperature that each group determined? We need to know a temperature we agree on for propane, so that we can expand our calculations next week! Please help me here!

The cohort 2 facilitator posted a message or response no more than eight days apart and once a conversation began, the facilitator both encouraged the students to work together and continued to ask questions to keep all the groups engaged in the conversation. The facilitator’s comments on 11/3 addressed each group specifically and asked them ques-

tions that pointed out discrepancies in the approach each group developed to calculate the flame temperature and encouraged the student groups to resolve these differences. However, as with cohort 1 and 3, this cohort did not come to consensus on the flame temperature for a specific fuel and discrepancies in the calculation method persisted. These findings point toward the need for effective faculty facilitation within each cohort. Just as a classroom instructor provides additional understanding to students during question and answer sessions or office hours, the online faculty facilitator provides additional support to students on the discussion board and guides the students to gain a greater understanding of the concepts under investigation. Coding Scheme Analysis of Discussion Boards Table 1 presents the data obtained by using a coding scheme that identified behaviors, collaborative and otherwise, within the postings for cohorts 1–3. In order to distinguish student behaviors from the conversation taking place across the entire discussion board, the category percentages were recalculated without the facilitator contribution in the “without facilitator posts” column.

Table 1. Analysis of Postings for Cohorts 1, 2, and 3 Where n Is the Number of Coded Discussion Board Posts and n’ Is the Total Number without Facilitator Coded Discussion Board Posts

Cohort 1 (n = 84; n’ = 59) Behavior Categories Planning

Contributing

Seeking Input

Reflection or Monitoring

Codes

Code (%)

Category (%)

Cohort 2 (n = 108; n’ = 75)

Without Facilitator Posts (%)

Code (%)

Category (%)

Cohort 3 (n = 83; n’ = 63)


4.6

Code (%)

GS

5.9

OW

1.2

HeG

3.6

3.7

1.2

FBG

8.3

8.3

6.0

SKR

1.2

0.0

1.2

Ch

8.3

5.5

4.8

Ex

14.3

7.1

35.7

1.7

37.3

1.8

21.1

Category (%)


9.6 6.4

4.0

38.6

40.0

2.4

19.3

12.0

9.5

32.5

31.8

HeS

4.8

2.8

4.8

FBS

7.1

8.3

7.2

Ef

5.9

17.8

17.0

6.4

17.4

16.0

4.8

16.9

15.9

ME

4.8

4.8

0.0

8.3

8.3

4.0

2.4

2.4

0.0

Social Interaction

SI

15.5

15.5

18.6

10.1

10.1

8.0

19.3

19.3

20.6

Assignment

A

13.1

13.1

18.6

17.4

17.4

25.3

16.9

16.9

22.2

Technology

T

5.9

5.9

6.8

1.8

1.8

2. 7

0.0

0.0

0.0

99.9

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

Total

Code identities: GS = Group skills; OW = Organizing work; IA = Initiating activities; HeG = Help given; FBG = Feedback given; SKR = Sharing knowledge and resources; Ch = challenging reasoning; Ex = Explain, elaborate, or summarize; HeS = Help sought; FBS = Feedback sought; Ef = Advocating effort; ME = monitoring group effort; SI = Social interaction; A= Assignment; T = Technology

www.JCE.DivCHED.org

•

Vol. 81 No. 7 July 2004

•


1061


In each cohort the largest percentage of behaviors were contributing behaviors: statements or utterances that contributed to the completion of the task at hand by either giving feedback (FBG) or help (HeG), sharing knowledge or resources (SKR), challenging each other’s reasoning (Ch), or explaining a previously posted position (Ex). For example, the statement: “We looked at your MathCad document, and we don’t think you can estimate the final temperature of the flame from a Cp graph for propene. Do you guys think you should account for the nitrogen present in air?” was coded as challenging (Ch) another’s reasoning. A statement such as “We observed that as the number of bonds increased, the higher the temperature of the flame was for that fuel. Also the carbon–oxygen bond is stronger than carbon–hydrogen bonds making it harder to break the bonds in propanol. Therefore, propanol has a higher flame temperature.” was coded as explaining, elaborating, or summarizing (Ex) a previous position. Other prominent categories of behaviors and codes included seeking input, social interaction (SI), and posting academic assignments (A). In cohorts 1 and 2 the combination of contributing behaviors and seeking input behaviors accounted for over 50% of the utterances in the entire discussion board. If the postings belonging to the cohort facilitators and project facilitators were removed from the analysis, then in cohort 1 and 2 the percentage of contributing behaviors increased slightly while in cohort 3 it decreased slightly. In cohorts 1 and 3, contributing behaviors such as challenging reasoning (Ch), explaining, elaborating, or summarizing (Ex), and giving feedback (FBG) were common, as were behaviors associated with seeking input and social interaction (SI). However, we noted that in neither cohort did the students engage in reflection or monitoring behaviors. In cohort 2, contributing behaviors such as challenging reasoning (Ch), explaining, elaborating, or summarizing (Ex), giving feedback (FBG), and giving help (HeG) occurred frequently. One student group posted messages that are examples of monitoring the cohort’s efforts and achievements (ME): After reading all of our postings, it is obvious that the cohort as a whole has come to similar conclusions... It’s nice to see that [group H] posted their final answers. However, we believe the point of assignment 10 was to come to a consensus on how to determine the flame temperature. We would appreciate it very much if we could get some input as to how we (as a cohort!!) should determine the flame temperature. We have all gotten extremely different answers, so it only makes sense that we all need to discuss what we should do.

This online monitoring action is akin to the group processing activities described by Johnson and Johnson (13). The purposes of these activities are to recognize progress and achievements, and to consider what actions the group needs to continue doing, stop doing, and start doing in order to sustain and increase their efforts to reach a certain goal. The absence of monitoring activity by students in cohorts 1 and 3 suggests one possible reason why the students did not come to consensus on either the flame temperatures for a particular fuel or the methodology for calculating a flame temperature—the students themselves did not monitor their cohort’s progress and did not recognize the importance of monitoring their cohort’s progress. 1062


•

Combining the Coding Scheme and Discussion Board Diagram Analysis The coding scheme was also combined with the discussion board diagrams to produce a more detailed view of student–student and student–facilitator interactions. It was interesting to look at the collaboration that took place in the longest discussion thread in each cohort. For example, in cohort 2, the longest thread was 17 messages long beginning on 10/26 and ending 11/17. A tabulation of the codes for this set of messages, including only the codes feedback sought (FBS), feedback given (FBG), challenging reasoning (Ch), explaining, elaborating, or summarizing (Ex), help sought (HeS), and help given (HeG), is shown in Table 2. Within these 17 messages, 16 include utterances identified with a feedback, help, or challenge–explain code. Thus, the discussion thread illustrated here can be described as having “feedback sought–feedback given” or “challenge–explain” cycles of interaction among cohort members. These types of interaction patterns are documented in the cooperative learning literature and promote a number of beneficial results, including greater insight into the problem under consideration (14). In this particular set of exchanges in cohort 2, the students struggled to come to consensus as a cohort on how to calculate a flame temperature for propane and propene, the compounds used in assignment 8 and 9, respectively. The excerpts from this thread focus on the details of calculating a flame temperature for combustion of propane and propene. The discrepancy centers on whether nitrogen that is present in the reaction mixture should be included in the calculation.

Excerpts of Messages to Groups in Cohort 2 Facilitator Posting to Group E (11/3) I thought it was very perceptive of you to include the N2, since it is part of the air! Good job! But there is a disagreement in your document as to whether the H2O should be liquid or gas. Which is it?...I also wonder if the inclusion of the N2 is enough to account for the difference in flame temp for propane btw [between] you and Group J? Remember they said the final T was 4837 K [Group E reported 2378 K]. Can you all check that out and let me know? Thanks!

Facilitator Posting to Group E (11/8) We have read through everyone’s postings and we have a few things we want to discuss... Group J, We looked at your MathCad document, and we don’t think you can estimate the final temperature of the flame from a Cp graph for propene. Do you guys think you should account for the nitrogen present in air? We re-read the scenario, and it said it was combusted in a box filled with plain air. (i.e., 20% O2 and 80% N2). Please comment on our procedure as soon as possible.

Facilitator Posting to Group J (11/9) Also in response to Group E’s question about including nitrogen in our calculations [for the flame temperature of propene], we were wondering exactly how you did this. Our computer is unable to open your posted document. Due to time constraints we have decided to follow our model which only considers oxygen.

Vol. 81 No. 7 July 2004

•

www.JCE.DivCHED.org


Group E Posting to Cohort 2 (11/10) After group J posts their final flame temperatures, group E writes: We believe the point of assignment 10 was to come to a consensus on how to determine the flame temperature. We would appreciate it very much if we could get some input as to how we (as a cohort!!) should determine the flame temperature. We have all gotten extremely different answers, so it only makes sense that we all need to discuss what we should do.

temperature by citing discrepancies. The facilitator also supported collaboration among cohort members by weaving together previous postings, pointing out inconsistencies, challenging the student’s reasoning, and requesting feedback. One way of visualizing this exchange of messages is shown in Figure 5. The challenge–explain cycles of interaction that developed in this thread also provided opportunities to generate feedback or help cycles as shown by the dotted lines in Figure 5. The overall impact of the generation of these cycles

Facilitator Posting to Cohort 2 (11/13) We suggest our cohort look at the trends between our data in order to form a consensus. Nitrogen is an important factor to take into account. However, the trends should be the same whether or not nitrogen is used in the calculations. I hope that everyone can reach a consensus based on observable trends and agree that there is more than one way to calculate the temperature of a flame.

Facilitator Posting to Cohort 2 (11/15) Since you are having trouble...why don’t you just post some info here? Group E: your group reported... 2462K [for propene after recalculation]. Group J: reported... propene 5207 K. Those are pretty BIG differences on the propene. Let’s assume that you both did the calculations correctly–there must be something significantly different in the models you used. Can you each outline your model in a few sentences and see if you can identify the difference? Then you can decide which model you like better, OK?

Group E Response to Facilitator (11/15) Group E responded with a summary of its approach to calculating the flame temperature of propane. Students in this group explained the inclusion of nitrogen in the calculation by stating: We noticed that the reaction took place in air. It [the vessel] had not been evacuated and filled with oxygen. Therefore there is nitrogen present. Air is composed of approximately 80% nitrogen and 20% oxygen. Because of this factor, there is at least 20 moles of nitrogen present at the beginning and end of the reaction... We accounted for this in our calculations since the nitrogen would absorb some of the heat and change the final temperature.

Additional Group E Response to Facilitator (11/15) We think nitrogen needs to be used in the calculations because it has such a huge effect on the final flame temperature this is due to the fact that there is 20 moles of nitrogen present. This is a large amount that absorbs a HUGE amount of heat. Therefore, this cannot be excluded from the calculations. We cannot agree with the models used by the other groups in our cohort.

Facilitators Foster Effective Online Discussion Threads Within these excerpts there is evidence that the cohort members explained and elaborated on their approach while challenging each other’s reasoning. They also were able to supply feedback by considering each other’s approaches and analyses. The facilitator was skillful in focusing student attention on their differing approaches to calculating the flame www.JCE.DivCHED.org

•

feedback given

help given challenge

feedback sought

help sought

explain, elaborate, summarize

Figure 5. Challenge–explain cycles of interaction can also stimulate feedback sought–given cycles and help sought–given cycles.

Table 2. Tabulation of Codes for Messages from Cohort 2 Involved in the Thread of 10/26 to 11/17 Message Author

Message Date

Coded as FBS or FBG

Coded as Ch or Ex

Coded as HeS or HeG

D

26 Oct

J

26 Oct

X

E

26 Oct

X

X

F

27 Oct

X

X

J

30 Oct

E

02 Nov

D

02 Nov

X

X

F

03 Nov

X

X

E

06 Nov

X

J

07 Nov

E

08 Nov

X

X

J

09 Nov

X

X

E

10 Nov

X

J

13 Nov

X

F

15 Nov

X

X

E

15 Nov

X

X

E

15 Nov

F

17 Nov

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X X

The “Message Author” column identifies a student group D, E, J, or F, the facilitator, as the author of the posting. An “X” means an utterance was present in the message that corresponds to that particular code.

Vol. 81 No. 7 July 2004

•


1063


within the discussion was to support and to extend the thread of discussion. We found similar discussion–interaction patterns in the longest threads for cohorts 1 and 3 as well. Based upon the analysis of these longest threads, it appears that facilitators in each cohort responded similarly. Thus, it appears that effective online facilitation involves monitoring student postings so that responses summarize or weave together previous postings, challenging the student’s reasoning by pointing out discrepancies, and requesting feedback. Implications of Research for Practice Given this data and analysis what can we say to chemical education researchers and to chemists interested in conducting research on or implementing projects which require student collaboration via computer-mediated communication? For chemical education researchers, the methods developed in this project of analyzing discussion boards may help them examine electronic interactions in a more meaningful manner. The discussion board diagrams may help researchers (and practitioners) visualize interactions that have taken place over the duration of a project. The diagrams reveal interactions that go undetected in the usual analysis of a discussion board transcript. This method of diagramming could also be extended to other means of electronic communication such as chat rooms and listservs. The coding scheme can help researchers identify and describe the presence or absence of collaboration over the time of the project. It can also be used to highlight specific behaviors observed during an online collaboration. For chemistry faculty implementing online activities that require collaboration, the coding scheme may allow them to identify behaviors for students that encourage and sustain collaboration. The most important finding emerging from this study is the clear example of effective online faculty facilitation. It is one thing to say that faculty should facilitate student learning, it is entirely another to document successful implementation of those words in a classroom be it a conventional or online environment. Within the longest thread of each discussion board we found challenge–explain cycles of interaction among the students and facilitator. From our findings we present the following recommendations to foster effective online facilitation by faculty. • Maintain an active online presence by regularly posting messages. • Monitor students’ progress and acknowledge their achievements. Encourage students to generate postings tracking their progress through the module. • Summarize previous posts, weave them together, and point out discrepancies. • Challenge the students’ reasoning. Ask questions that require the students to resolve discrepancies or address differences of position or approach. • Request responses from students and provide students with feedback. • Offer students support and encouragement.

Based upon our research findings, we believe that these recommendations will help faculty and students to collaborate 1064


•

more effectively in an online environment. We do recognize, however, that previous work in cooperative learning shows students need to be prepared to work in groups (13, 16–19). Even in the face of our research-based recommendations, students may not collaborate effectively if they have not been prepared to do so. Thus, we also recommend that faculty engaging in projects requiring collaboration use the recommendations in the literature to help their students know what to expect when they are asked to work in groups (13, 16–19). Acknowledgments Partial support for this work was provided by the National Science Foundation’s Division of Undergraduate Education through grant DUE #9950809. Note 1. The Inspiration program we used is produced by Inspiration Software, Inc., 7412 SW Beaverton Hillsdale Highway, Suite 102, Portland, OR 97225-2167; (800) 877-4292.

Literature Cited 1. Anthony, S.; Mernitz, H.; Spencer, B.; Gutwill, J.; Kegley, S.; Molinaro, M. J. Chem. Educ. 1998, 75, 322–324. 2. Glaser, R. E.; Poole, M. J. J. Chem. Educ. 1999, 76, 699– 703. 3. Holmes, C.; Warden, J. J. Chem. Educ. 1996, 73, 325–331. 4. Paulissee, K. W.; Polik, W. F. J. Chem. Educ. 1999, 76, 704– 708. 5. Pence, L. E. J. Chem. Educ. 1999, 76, 697–699. 6. Sauder, D.; Towns, M.; Stout, R.; Long, G.; Zielinski, T. J. Chem. Educ. 1997, 74, 269–270. 7. Sauder, D. G.; Towns, M. H.; Derrick, B.; Grushow, A.; Kahlow, M.; Long, G.; Miles, D.; Shalhoub, G.; Stout, R.; Vaksman, M.; Pfeiffer, W. F. ; Weaver, G. C.; Zielinski, T. J. The Chemical Educator [Online] 2000, 5 (2), 77–82. 8. Towns, M.; Sauder, D.; Whisnant, D.; Zielinski, T. J. J. Chem. Educ. 2001, 78, 414–415. 9. Whisnant, D.; Lever, L. S.; Howe, J. J. J. Chem. Educ. 2000, 77, 199–201. 10. Whisnant, D.; Lever, L. S.; Howe, J. J. J. Chem. Educ. 2000, 77, 1648–1649. 11. Long, G. The PCOL Web site. http://pcol.ch.iup.edu/ (accessed Apr 2004). 12. Johnson, D. W.; Johnson, R. T.; Smith, K. A. Active Learning: Cooperation in the College Classroom; Interaction Book Company: Edina, MN, 1991. 13. Johnson, D. W.; Johnson, R. T. In Handbook of Research for Educational Communications and Technology; Jonassen, D. H., Ed.; Simon and Schuster Macmillan: New York, 1996; pp 1017–1044. 14. Curtis, D. D.; Lawson, J. J. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks [Online] 2001, 5 (1), 21–34. 15. Felder, R. M.; Brent, R. Cooperative Learning in Technical Courses: Procedures, Pitfalls, and Payoffs; Report ED377038, ERIC Document Reproduction Service, U.S. Department of Education’s Institute of Education Sciences, 1994. 16. Felder, R. M.; Brent, R. College Teaching 1996, 44 (2), 43–47. 17. Millis, B. J.; Cottel, P. G. Cooperative Learning for Higher Education Faculty; American Council on Education and Oryx Press: Phoenix, AZ,1998.

Vol. 81 No. 7 July 2004

•

www.JCE.DivCHED.org

Research: Science and Education 18. Nurrenbern, S. C. Experiences in Cooperative Learning: A Collection for Chemistry Teachers; Institute for Chemical Education,

University of Wisconsin-Madison: Madison, WI, 1995. 19. Towns, M. H. J. Chem. Educ. 1998, 75, 67–69.

Appendix Table A1. Coding Scheme Used To Describe Utterances on the Discussion Boards, Based on Curtis and Lawson (14) Behavior Categories Planning

Codes

Description

Example

GS

Group skills: A generic code applied to expressions that encourage group activity and cohesiveness.

Good job, guys!!

OW

Organizing work: Planning group work, setting shared tasks and deadlines.

There is a new discussion section on the board called “Shared Flame Temperatures.” When you get through assignment 9, and agree within this cohort on the results, post your answers there, ok?

HeG

Help giving: Responding to questions and requests from others.

Instructions for posting Mathcad and Excel documents are available under the “formatting” section on the left-hand panel.

FBG

Feedback giving: Providing feedback on proposals from others.

I think that your suggestions that ions or radicals might be produced in flames is really interestingand it makes sense to me because I have an astronomer friend who studies radicals in stars and planets—I assume they are really hot!

SKR

Sharing knowledge and resources to assist other group members.

NIST has a Web site that has the gold standard in various thermodynamic quantities, including heat capacities. Try navigating to (URL given).

Ch

Challenging others: Challenging the contributions of other members and seeking to engage in debate.

We looked at your MathCad document, and we don’t think you can estimate the final temperature of the flame from a Cp graph for propene. Do you guys think you should account for the nitrogen present in air?

Ex

Explaining or elaborating: Supporting one’s own position (possibly following a challenge).

We observed that as the number of bonds increased, the higher the temperature of the flame was for that fuel. Also the carbon-oxygen bond is stronger than carbon-hydrogen bonds making it harder to break the bonds in propanol. Therefore, propanol has a higher flame temperature.

HeS

Help seeking: Seeking assistance from others.

Can someone please help us?

FBS

Feedback seeking: Seeking feedback to a position advanced.

Our group decided on using the above method for finding the temperature of the flame; we would like your input on this and any other method that the other groups have investigated.

Ef

Advocating effort: Urging others to contribute to the group effort.

We are waiting for everyone else’s input!

Reflection/ Monitoring

ME

Monitoring group effort: Comments about the group’s processes and achievements.

After reading all of our postings, it is obvious that the cohort as a whole has come to similar conclusions.

Social Interaction

SI

Social interaction: Friendly social patter.

My partner, (name), would much rather be in Florida as it is freezing in Maryland right now.

Assignment

A

Assigned academic task.

Student responses to assigned academic tasks such as “to experimentally measure the temperature of a flame produced by a fuel, one could use either a thermocouple or a multimeter.”

Technology Issue

T

Server or software issue.

Our computer is still unable to launch Acrobat in order to read the document by Zanne’s group.

Contributing

Seeking Input

www.JCE.DivCHED.org

•

Vol. 81 No. 7 July 2004

•


1065

Online Chemistry Modules: Interaction and Effective Faculty

Recommend Documents