Activity pubs.acs.org/jchemeduc
Organic Mastery: An Activity for the Undergraduate Classroom Michael D. Mosher,*,† Melvyn W. Mosher,‡ and Michael P. Garoutte‡ †
Department of Chemistry, University of Northern Colorado, Greeley, Colorado 80639, United States Physical Sciences Department, Missouri Southern State University, Joplin, Missouri 64801, United States
‡
S Supporting Information *
ABSTRACT: A group activity for use in the classroom or recitation section of an organic chemistry course is described. This activity, a board game using trivia and concepts from the course material, can be used periodically throughout the semester to introduce or reinforce content knowledge. Alternate versions can be easily constructed for other courses.
KEYWORDS: Second-Year Undergraduate, Organic Chemistry, Collaborative/Cooperative Learning, Hands-On Learning/Manipulatives, Humor/Puzzles/Games, Nomenclature/Units/Symbols, Reactions, Spectroscopy, Student-Centered Learning
I
n recent years, much research has focused on how students learn.1,2 Whereas students have been shown to exhibit various strengths in learning styles, one common conclusion is that all learning past a certain introductory level involves transfer of knowledge from previous experiences of the student. Utilization of various instructional methods in multiple contexts is most likely to maximize student learning. This research has led to new paradigms in the education of students, many of which take advantage of the finding that learning is an inherently social process.3−5 Some instructors have attempted to use a variety of teaching styles and methods to improve student enjoyment, interest, and ultimately, retention and mastery of the material. In addition to supplementing the traditional “chalk-talk” with PowerPoint lectures6,7 or movies and slideshows,8−10 many instructors are regularly engaging students with the use of classroom response systems,11−13 in-class worksheets,14 and small-group work such as that offered in the techniques of Process Oriented Guided Inquiry Learning (POGIL).15−17 Although many of these nontraditional modes of instruction have been found to enhance student performance, there is often a significant preparation-time component that hinders the implementation of alternative instructional modes. A board game that requires knowledge of the subject matter to successfully complete is described. This alternative instruction tool requires little additional preparation time, as the required materials have been prepared and are included in the Supporting Information. Moreover, this instruction tool relies on small-group work to accomplish an activity. As a study aid, the board game may be played numerous times through the © 2012 American Chemical Society and Division of Chemical Education, Inc.
semester in recitation sections, as a classroom activity, or by students on their own. Student enjoyment of the game and their interest in using it as a study aid have been overwhelming. The original board game was created by Melvyn Mosher for use in the majors’ organic chemistry courses. Given the success of the game as a study aid in organic chemistry, versions of the game have been developed for use in general chemistry and in the GOB course often taken by nursing majors. Simply by creation of additional sets of cards, this activity can be tailored to any course and made specific to any textbook.
■
THE ACTIVITY The board game can be played in groups of three to six students in the classroom setting. Each group is given a game board, a four-sided die, a pad of paper and pencil for each student, and a set of colored question-and-answer cards. The game can easily be played within a 20−30 min time frame depending on the size of the group playing the game, which allows for additional instruction at the start of the class or recitation period. Alternatively, instruction at the end of the game allows the instructor to follow up on questions that are not answered during game play. The game is best played while the instructor moves about the room, monitoring group discussions, and providing secondary instruction on questions that arise during play. The rules of the game are typical of a standard board game. Players use a four-sided die to move their markers along the board. The die can be purchased inexpensively online or at Published: January 19, 2012 646
dx.doi.org/10.1021/ed200015v | J. Chem. Educ. 2012, 89, 646−648
Journal of Chemical Education
Activity
questions will be answered incorrectly. But there is no need to selectively remove or add questions from the decks of cards based on the coverage of material in the course. In essence, those questions serve as a “teaching point” during the game and as a point of reference during class discussions when the material is covered. Many of the question cards involve application of concepts developed in the course. To maximize learning in the smallgroup setting, the instructor may encourage students to discuss incorrect answers for these questions, looking at the provided answer with the goal of understanding why it is correct. Any students in the group who have greater understanding can explain their thought process to the others. In some cases, the provided cards express answers that demand further understanding on the part of the students. These cards provide an additional teaching point for the instructor, or the level of complexity of the answer can be modified based on the level of the student. Student retention of the information in the class has been noted based on examination of the average scores on hour examinations and student evaluation data given at the end of the semester. Questions on those evaluations specifically queried the topics that were included in the game cards and covered in the lecture material within the classes. The average grades on hour exams during the semesters that the activity has been offered have been higher than in those courses where the standard question-and-answer review sessions were held. The statistical significance of the improvement was not calculated due to the small sample size and other differences (instructor, time, semester, student composition of the course, etc.) in the courses of this initial assessment. It should be noted, however, that student and faculty enjoyment of the activity was a common comment on each semester-ending evaluation of the courses. Typical student responses indicated that this method of review for an exam was preferred over the typical question-and-answer or group worksheet style review session.
local gaming stores. Alternatively, in the absence of a four-sided die, a standard six-sided die can be used and if the result is a “5” or “6” the player rolls the die again. In such cases, rolling a “5” or “6” a second time is equivalent to rolling a “1”. The game board is designed to represent a reaction profile diagram of a reactant proceeding through an intermediate to a product, with specific thermodynamic quantities marked on the board. The board in Figure 1 illustrates an exothermic reaction;
Figure 1. The board showing an exothermic reaction. Specific moves for the labeled spaces are described in the blue box.
■
alternative designs for the board (illustrating an endothermic reaction, a single-step reaction, or a multiple-step reaction) can be used. Modification of the board and rules to demonstrate a separate “catalyzed” reaction profile could be made. Specific spaces on the board (Figure 1) denote the reactant (R; the starting space), the transition state of each step in the reaction (TS), the intermediate (I), and the product (P; the finish line). Rules for each of these spaces differ from rules for the normal spaces on the board. For normal spaces, a player is asked a question from the similarly colored deck of cards and follows the rules of the game to either advance or retreat his or her marker. The winner of the game is not necessarily the player to finish the game first. Instead, the game runs until all players have moved past the finish line. The winner is then determined by counting the number of correctly answered questions plus a bonus for finishing first determined on the basis of the rules (see the Supporting Information). If time is short, the game can be stopped at any time; if more time is available, a second game may be started.
CONCLUSION Students enjoy playing this game as an alternative to other review activities during recitation or class time. It serves as a supplementary mode of instruction and as a great way to reinforce understanding of specific topics in the course. Because information relayed in the game can be adjusted for a given course curriculum, this activity is portable across the curriculum. As noted, this has been accomplished with success in many of the courses at the first-year and second-year levels.
■
ASSOCIATED CONTENT
S Supporting Information *
The rules of the game; a game board; a sample set of cards. This material is available via the Internet at http://pubs.acs.org.
■
AUTHOR INFORMATION
Corresponding Author
*E-mail:
[email protected].
■
■
DISCUSSION As an alternative to a board game, the existing questions could be played simply as a “trivia” or “Jeopardy”-style game, with players given a specific time limit to provide an answer. In this case, if the game is played near the beginning of the term, many
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This article, and dissemination of the game he invented, is dedicated to the memory of Melvyn W. Mosher, who died in 2010. Acknowledgment is made to the authors’ respective departments for financial support of this work. 647
dx.doi.org/10.1021/ed200015v | J. Chem. Educ. 2012, 89, 646−648
Journal of Chemical Education
■
Activity
REFERENCES
(1) Bransford, J. D.; Brown, A. L.; Cocking, R. R. How People Learn; National Academy Press: Washington, DC, 1999. (2) Donovan, M. S.; Branford, J. D. How Students Learn: Science in the Classroom; National Academies Press: Washington, DC, 2005. (3) Bruffee, K. A. Collaborative Learning; Johns Hopkins University Press: Baltimore, MD, 1993. (4) Johnson, D. W.; Johnson, R. T.; Smith, K. A. Active Learning: Cooperation in the College Classroom; Interaction Book Company: Edina, MN, 1991. (5) Lawson, A. E. What Should Students Learn About the Nature of Science and How Should We Teach It? J. Coll. Sci. Teach. 1999, 28, 401−411. (6) Szabo, A.; Hastings, N. Using IT in the undergraduate classroom: should we replace the blackboard with PowerPoint? Comput. Educ. 2000, 35, 175−187. (7) Bartsch, R. A.; Cobern, K. M. Effectiveness of PowerPoint Presentations in Lectures. Comput. Educ. 2003, 41, 77−86. (8) Griep, M. A.; Mikasen, M. L. Based on a True Story: Using Movies as Source Material for General Chemistry Reports. J. Chem. Educ. 2005, 82, 1501−1503. (9) Wink, D. J. “Almost Like Weighing Someone’s Soul”: Chemistry in Contemporary Film. J. Chem. Educ. 2001, 78, 481−483. (10) Goll, J. G.; Woods, B. J. Teaching Chemistry Using the Movie Apollo 13. J. Chem. Educ. 1999, 76, 506−508. (11) Wagner, B. D. A Variation on the Use of Interactive Anonymous Quizzes in the Chemistry Classroom. J. Chem. Educ. 2009, 86, 1300− 1303. (12) Woelk, K. Optimizing the Use of Personal Response Devices (Clickers) in Large-Enrollment Introductory Courses. J. Chem. Educ. 2008, 85, 1400−1405. (13) Fies, C.; Marshall, J. Classroom Response Systems: a review of the literature. J. Sci. Educ. Technol. 2006, 15, 101−109. (14) Ostercamp, D. L. Inclass Interactive Worksheets for Organic Chemistry. J. Chem. Educ. 1992, 69, 318. (15) Farrell, J. J.; Moog, R. S.; Spencer, J. N. A Guided-Inquiry General Chemistry Course. J. Chem. Educ. 1999, 76, 570−574. (16) Process Oriented Guided Inquiry Learning (POGIL); Moog, R., Ed.; ACS Symposium Series: Washington, DC, 2008. (17) Hurley, C. N. Study Groups in General Chemistry. J. Chem. Educ. 1993, 70, 651−652.
648
dx.doi.org/10.1021/ed200015v | J. Chem. Educ. 2012, 89, 646−648
