Promoting Nursing Students' Chemistry Success in a Collegiate Active

Article Cite This: J. Chem. Educ. XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX

pubs.acs.org/jchemeduc

Promoting Nursing Students’ Chemistry Success in a Collegiate Active Learning Environment: “If I Have Hope, I Will Try Harder” Andri L. Smith,† Jean R. Paddock,‡ Joel M. Vaughan,§ and David W. Parkin*,∥ †

Department of Chemistry and Physical Sciences, Quinnipiac University, Hamden, Connecticut 06518, United States Division of Foundational Education and Health Professions, Aultman College, Canton, Ohio 44710, United States § Department of Mathematics, Quinnipiac University, Hamden, Connecticut 06518, United States ∥ Department of Chemistry, Adelphi University, Garden City, New York 11530, United States Downloaded via RENSSELAER POLYTECHNIC INST on September 21, 2018 at 14:00:46 (UTC). See https://pubs.acs.org/sharingguidelines for options on how to legitimately share published articles.

‡

S Supporting Information *

ABSTRACT: The challenge in chemistry courses for nonscience majors (such as nursing majors) is not that the students cannot learn chemistry but that they think they cannot learn chemistry. With this in mind, the authors’ goal was to create a learning environment in which students would feel motivated to learn and would gain confidence in their ability to learn chemistry. In the one-semester chemistry courses for nursing majors described here, health-related scenarios (such as IV therapy, diabetes, blood chemistry, and brachytherapy) provide context, and POGIL activities provide process and content in a cooperative learning environment. In addition, strategic organization and alignment of learning outcomes helps students to focus on the concepts, principles, and theories that they are expected to learn in a meaningful way. Also essential for the success of this course is a caring yet rigorous instructor who effectively communicates that learning chemistry is difficult but doable. This combination of health-related scenarios, POGIL activities, clear learning outcomes, and a supportive instructor gives students hope that they will succeed in their introductory chemistry course and increases their self-concept in chemistry. Chemistry Self-Concept Inventory data collected during 10 semesters at two different universities show a significant positive increase in our students’ chemistry self-concept. Furthermore, Student Assessment of their Learning Gains data collected during the same time period show that students find this learning environment conducive to learning. KEYWORDS: First-Year Undergraduate/General, Curriculum, Collaborative/Cooperative Learning, Inquiry-Based/Discovery Learning, Applications of Chemistry, Nonmajor Courses, Student-Centered Learning

■

INTRODUCTION Our primary goal as chemistry educators is to help students not only learn and apply chemical concepts but also improve self-concept in chemistry. Self-concept is described in detail in the educational psychology literature, often in conjunction with self-efficacy, which is a different, but related, construct. In both constructs, students’ perceived competence in their ability plays a central role; however, academic self-concept relates to students’ perceptions about their academic ability in a given subject in comparison both to the abilities of others in that subject (external comparison) and to their own ability in other subjects (internal comparison), whereas academic self-efficacy focuses on students’ confidence in their own ability to perform academic tasks according to well-defined performance standards.1 In fact, many have suggested that self-efficacy is a component of self-concept.2,3 An example of a question related to chemistry self-efficacy might be, “How confident are you that you can get a grade of B or better in [chemistry]?”1 By contrast, a statement related to chemistry self-concept, from Bauer’s Chemistry Self-Concept Inventory (CSCI), is, “I have always done better in courses that involve chemistry than in most courses.”4 Self-efficacy tends to focus on students’ ability to achieve in the future and is believed to be more malleable, whereas self-concept tends to focus on students’ past accomplishments and tends to remain stable over time.1 Therefore, by improving students’ self-concept in chemistry, © XXXX American Chemical Society and Division of Chemical Education, Inc.

we have the potential to make a greater impact on our students’ attitudes toward learning chemistry. We accomplish our aforementioned primary goal by using evidence-based teaching and assessment methods to create a novel, positive learning environment. The general philosophy of this unique learning environment centers on the Unified Learning Model5 and is supported by concept maps6 and quality learning in higher education.7,8 The difference in the learning environment described in this paper is the presage, process, and product7 of a student who is not a science major. What occurs before learning takes place (presage), both in terms of students’ prior knowledge and motivation and in terms of course organization and structure? How will students learn the material (process)? What are the qualitative and quantitative learning outcomes (product)? The goal of this article is to combine empirically validated teaching methods in a novel way, resulting in a paradigm shift to create a studentcentered learning environment that not only motivates nonscience majors to learn chemistry but also helps them to develop self-concept in chemistry. Although some have argued that self-efficacy is a better predictor of intentions, motivation, and performance than self-concept, in part because selfReceived: March 16, 2018 Revised: August 23, 2018

A

DOI: 10.1021/acs.jchemed.8b00201 J. Chem. Educ. XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX

Journal of Chemical Education

Article

concept takes longer to develop1 (often longer than a semester), the results of this study demonstrate that students respond well to this learning environment and improve their chemistry self-concept even in this one-semester course, as measured by the CSCI.4 Many institutions of higher education offer single-semester chemistry courses that attract or are designed for nonscience majors. For these students, this experience with chemistry may well be the only interaction they have with the content, so it is essential for chemistry departments to create a memorable and effective learning experience. Typically, traditional teaching methods and classroom organization have provided a “majors experience” for a nonmajor and can result in the following: • Dislike for chemistry • Inactivity in the classroom learning environment • Underwhelming success rates • Superficial or lack of understanding of vital content An excellent counter-example for this traditional course model for nonscience majors is described by Carmel et al., who found that their interventions resulted in increased studentcenteredness, similar or better mastery of content by students who used the interventions than those who did not, and improved scientific reasoning skills in some students.9 Furthermore, Pienta makes a compelling case for making connections between chemistry and healthcare in chemistry courses taken by prehealth students.10

meaningful. This one-semester learning environment has both formative and summative assessments, which are described in essential learning environment factor 3 (active learning environment) below. Certainly, this improvement in learning does not occur without significant preparation and organization. In order to create a learning environment that encourages and motivates students, it is critical that students explicitly realize the link between the perception they bring to the classroom, the process of active learning they are experiencing, and the outcome or assessment of what they just learned. This presage, process, product focus7 relies on four essential factors in increasing order of importance: 1. The attitude of the instructor 2. The strategic organization and alignment of learning outcomes 3. A decidedly active learning environment 4. Health-related scenarios Attitude of the Instructor

The attitude of the instructor plays a critical role in student success. In staffing this course, we recommend finding faculty members who are rigorous in their study of chemistry and are willing to share with students that learning chemistry is difficult. This open sharing should be coupled with a genuine caring attitude for the students in their charge. Students must know that they are supported in the endeavor they are about to undertake. This support does not include answering of questions and spoon-feeding of information but instead comprises the provision of tools and the creation of a classroom and laboratory experience wherein students can practice using that information in preparation for assignments and assessments.5 As shown below, this requires a dedication to preplanning and organization on the part of the faculty. It is additionally of note that the faculty member must be willing to meet students where they are in their learning/ comprehension stage. Furthermore, concrete examples mean more to students than abstract thought; therefore, it is important to incorporate relevant and specific examples consistently. It is more meaningful to start with a concrete example and work up to a theory rather than the more traditional approach that works in reverse, in other words, to allow students to learn inductively rather than deductively.11 As discussed later, this use of concrete examples in the form of health-related scenarios is the fourth critical component of the one-semester nonscience major focused course.

■

FRAMEWORK FOR IMPROVING A NONMAJORS’ CHEMISTRY COURSE LEARNING ENVIRONMENT This article provides the framework for a successful and effective one-semester nonmajors’ chemistry course that not only dispels the negative experience that sometimes occurs in a traditional science course but also creates self-concept as a key component of interested, chemistry-competent students who have a positive and deeper understanding of basic chemistry concepts. This learning environment could be extended into other nonmajor science courses beyond chemistry, as well. It is notable that this does not rework an existing one-semester course but instead represents the creation of a completely new course. Philosophically, the learning environment in this new course is founded upon the idea that the primary course goal is to improve student self-concept, leading to improved learning and attitude toward the content. All students have the ability to learn, but it may take some students more time than others to master concepts.5 In order to allow all students the ability to achieve, the professor must provide hope to the students that mastery is possible. Therefore, improving motivation and selfconcept is the key component of the learning environment.5 Self-efficacy has been posited to provide part of the cognitive basis for developing self-concept; however, self-concept has been shown to be more stable over time.1 On the basis of the Unified Learning Model,5 the logical conclusion is that improving self-concept in chemistry will improve motivation to learn chemistry. The learning environment must also be coupled with a creative approach in making chemistry content relevant to nonscience majors. In this one-semester chemistry course, all students are nursing majors; therefore, content is built into a framework that emphasizes topics that are relevant to those students (e.g., IV therapy, diabetes, blood chemistry, and brachytherapy). As a result, chemistry content becomes more

Strategic Organization and Alignment of Learning Outcomes

The strategic organization and alignment of learning outcomes is another essential component of the presage of the course. While creating the overall outline of the course, it is critical that the course syllabus contain topic learning outcomes (TLOs) that are created by the faculty.7 The TLOs explicate in an active voice the concepts, principles, and theories that students are expected to learn in a meaningful way; students are expected to accomplish five TLOs on average per week. Examples of TLOs include the following. • Brachytherapy TLO (relates to Scenario I below): Balance a nuclear equation that includes all but one particle, and identify the missing part; also, be able to classify the nuclear reaction as α, β, or γ emission, or as electron capture. B



Article

• Blood Chemistry TLO (relates to Scenario II below): Identify whether a solution would be useful as a buffer or not (hint: look for combinations of (a) a weak acid and its conjugate base, perhaps in the form of a salt, or (b) a weak base and its conjugate acid, perhaps in the form of a salt). • Blood Chemistry TLO (relates to Scenario III below): When provided with a chemical equation, be able to apply Le Châtelier’s principle to predict qualitatively what will happen when stress is placed on a system at equilibrium and be able to explain your answer. (Note that stress may take a variety of forms, including a change in concentration of a reactant or product.)

tions, if necessary. Furthermore, the use of audience response systems allows students an anonymous, noncompetitive way to gauge their understanding in comparison to that of their peers. In addition to this classroom experience, the use of mastery exercises or mastery quizzes, in which students have multiple chances to answer questions correctly, helps to keep students focused on learning and mastering the material.5 Students may complete mastery quizzes on their own time using a learning management system or online homework system. These mastery quizzes reinforce key classroom content and provide practice in preparation for examinations. If mastery quizzes are being used, it is critical that students have the ability to attempt the quizzes multiple times with a minimum of 24 h between each attempt. Enforcing spaced practice with the material requires students to make an effort as they retrieve information; this effortful retrieval, as well as elapsed time and sleep, allows memories to become consolidated and thereby embedded into long-term memory.19 There are many examples in the literature describing the effectiveness of spaced practice in learning. A meta-analysis of hundreds of experiments involving distributed practice (which includes spacing effects in learning) over the past century and a quarter suggests that spacing learning events apart, rather than cramming them together, is beneficial to learning.20 In order to provide structure as to how this course is assessed, one example of grading structure (incorporating both formative and summative assessment) is provided in Table 1.

Behind the scenes, the faculty member can link those TLOs to course learning outcomes and college-level core abilities or competencies; however, the student does not necessarily need that academic organizational link. TLOs promote student focus on the day-to-day activity of learning relevant chemistry content. In addition, TLOs promote long-term study habits, and ideally, deep learning, because they are provided at the beginning of each scenario rather than as a review sheet or study guide at the end.7 Teaching and learning activities (e.g., in-class activities, laboratory experiments, and online homework assignments) may be created to support the TLOs. Additionally, students may accomplish some of the TLOs independently outside of class. All TLOs may be assessed (e.g., on a test or quiz). The faculty are solely responsible for creating the TLOs in the design of this learning environment; however, different faculty members may deliver the TLOs using different techniques. In the courses described herein, faculty organize TLOs within three or four scenarios that are built upon a content area particularly relevant to their students (e.g., IV therapy, diabetes, blood chemistry, and brachytherapy, as used for nursing students).

Table 1. Distribution of Grading Structure for Course Assessment Elements

Active Learning Environment

The decidedly active learning process provides a supportive environment that assists in motivating the students’ own selfmastery of TLOs, and as a result, overall chemistry content knowledge. The classroom learning environment is not founded on traditional lecture, but instead uses student group work, an audience response (i.e., clicker) system, and possibly mastery quizzes. Indeed, a recent meta-analysis by Freeman et al. indicated that students in STEM courses using active learning performed better on exams and were less likely to fail than those in classes using traditional lecturing.12 Furthermore, group work fosters cooperation instead of competition, contributing to the positive learning environment and making the course more appealing to nonscience majors,13 and the use of collaborative teams in the classroom improves the affective domain.6 Student group work is accomplished through the use of process-oriented, guided-inquiry learning (POGIL).14 POGIL workbooks provide a balance of both structure and freedom to the learning environment and are widely available.15 The authors used POGIL-based activities from the published workbooks by Garoutte and Mahoney,16 and by Frost.17 The use of audience response systems is an important part of the classroom environment and varies with instructor approach. Such technology is an excellent method of formative assessment,18 providing the faculty member a snapshot of students’ comprehension during class time and thereby giving the opportunity to reinforce concepts or correct misconcep-

Assessment Instrument

Assessment Type

% of Total Course Grade

Online mastery quizzes Exam I Exam II Group project Final exam Laboratory

Formative/summative Summative Summative Formative/summative Summative Formative/summative

15 10 15 15 25 20

Online mastery quizzes combine both a formative and summative component, and each week a new quiz is available and delivered via a learning management system as previously described. It is of note that there is no penalty for multiple attempts, and only the highest grade is recorded for that week. Additionally, there are ungraded online quizzes (formative assessment) available to students. The group project spans approximately 6 weeks with several graded weekly components and, though graded separately from the laboratory portion of the course, involves hands-on laboratory work. A vast majority of laboratory reports integrate the concept of review and resubmission, with students having the ability to change/improve the score on the assignment, promoting deeper learning. Students additionally experience ungraded formative assessment in the course in the form of practice exams. In this example, a key practice exam is given approximately 10 days prior to the final exam with an opportunity provided for students to improve grades on previous exams. Notably, many activities described as part of this active learning environment (small group work, in-class clicker questions, POGIL-based learning activities) have no summaC



Article

tive assessment. Instead, rewards are small, immediate, and tangible (e.g., stickers, free coffee, bonus points, etc.). Health-Related Scenarios

Health-related scenarios provide motivation for students to accomplish the TLOs by directly linking a health-related application to underlying chemical concepts. Health-related scenarios are one of the primary methods by which scientific concepts are presented to students. TLOs may be portioned off into units that rely on a specific example (e.g., related to IV therapy, diabetes, blood chemistry, or brachytherapy) to bring the underlying chemical concepts to a relevant and accessible point. A faculty member can create and use any overarching concrete example, and certainly they are not limited to those used by the authors. The authors have created the following scenarios, as well as questions for reflection; the reflection questions are provided to allow students to think about the scenario but are not assessed on exams. Many examples in the chemistry and science education literature attest to the benefits of demonstrating the relevance of chemistry and science through the use of case studies,21 including industrial case studies22 and industry-based videos.23

■

INCORPORATING HEALTH-RELATED SCENARIOS INTO THE COURSE The inspiration for our health-related scenarios principally comes from discussions with colleagues in the nursing profession24 or from personal experience. Here we describe three scenarios based on two topics: brachytherapy and blood chemistry. Scenario I: Brachytherapy

Scenario I is based on the story of a colleague of one of the authors. The colleague was diagnosed with prostate cancer and was told by his doctor that the treatment for his condition would involve brachytherapy. He was given an information sheet about the treatment (see Figure 1) and had some questions. In order to be able to provide meaningful explanations to the patient, students learn relevant chemical concepts, such as atomic structure, organization of the periodic table, and nuclear chemistry.

Figure 1. Brachytherapy activity context with fictional patient’s questions.

Scenario II: Blood ChemistryBicarbonate Buffer System and Le Châtelier’s Principle

The second health-related scenario, Scenario II (see Figure 2), involves blood chemistry and focuses on the effect of pH on a patient’s respiratory distress while providing motivation to learn the biochemical concepts related to the regulation of pH by the bicarbonate buffer system.24 Scenario III: Blood ChemistryOxygen Transport and Le Châtelier’s Principle

The third health-related scenario involves blood chemistry and uses principles of reversible reactions to explain a variety of physiological processes. In Scenario III, a couple has just learned that their child has a blood disorder (see Figure 3). This scenario helps to explain the process of oxygen delivery into the tissues by hemoglobin.25,26 In order to have a working understanding of Scenarios II and III (and be able to explain them to patients or parents), students are given the opportunity to link central chemical concepts such as reversible reactions and Le Châtelier’s principle, acid−base chemistry and buffers, gas laws, and oxygen saturation curves to these important health-related

Figure 2. Arterial blood gas activity context with fictional student nurse’s questions.

scenarios. Two complete health-related scenarios, brachytherapy and blood chemistry, including TLOs and supporting materials, are provided in the Supporting Information. It is of note that the creation of this learning environment (inclusive of the four essential factors described above) D



Article

This course, therefore, challenges the notion that students must learn all of the important central concepts of chemistry. Instead, faculty members help students to gain a deep understanding of chemical principles, but only as those principles relate to scenarios that they might encounter in their future careers as nurses. The career-relevant concepts of chemistry selected for this course agree with the chemistry concepts deemed relevant to the nursing clinical practice by Brown et al.30 By making the material relevant to students, we give them a reason to want to learn it, thereby providing motivation. In the authors’ estimation, the best outcomes from nonscience major students arise with this more focused approach. There is considerable support for decreasing course content and focusing on conceptual understanding of core concepts in the literature.31,32

■

METHODOLOGY

According to Joseph Novak’s theory of education, “Meaningful learning underlies the constructive integration of thinking, feeling, and acting leading to human empowerment for commitment and responsibility.”33 Novak further states:6 When students feel they cannot understand a subject, their best ego defense is to stay with strategies that have been successful for them in the past. Rote-mode learners get trapped into a cycle of memorizing whatever they can and hoping this will be sufficient to pass, thus failing to build the knowledge structures that could permit them more easily to learn meaningfully and gain in confidence and success in future learning and novel problem solving. In our experience with nonscience majors in a chemistry class, a majority of students use the learning strategy of rote memorization. With our approach, we strive to create a classroom environment that gives students the confidence, or hope, that they can learn, thereby motivating them to learn in a meaningful way, rather than resorting to rote memorization, and empowering them to become responsible nurses. There-

Figure 3. Blood chemistry and oxygen transport activity context with fictional parent’s questions. Text excerpted from ref 27 and used with permission.27

emphasizes only career-relevant concepts of chemistry rather than all concepts of chemistry. As Gardner has stated, “The greatest enemy of understanding is coverage.”28 Similarly, Dahlgren has argued against the inclusion of too much course material, citing the negative effects on student learning:29 In order to cope with overwhelming curricula, the students probably have to abandon their ambitions to understand what they read about and instead direct efforts toward passing the examinations... (which reflect) the view that knowledge is a quantity, and that the higher the level of the educational system, the more pieces of knowledge should be taught per time unit.

Figure 4. Presurvey and postsurvey results from the CSCI showed a statistically significant improvement in the chemistry self-concept subscale during our one-semester chemistry courses for nonmajors between 2013 and 2016 (p-value from Wilcoxon signed rank test = 2.104 × 10−11 ; n = 227, including both Adelphi and Quinnipiac students). There was a median change of 0.5, where 158 students (70%) showed improvement, 8 (3.5%) showed no change, and 61 (27%) showed a decrease (effect = 860.4). Similar tests on the other subscales, academic enjoyment, academic self-concept, creativity self-concept, and mathematics self-concept, did not show a significant change. E



Article

Figure 5. Presurvey and postsurvey results from the Chemistry Self-Concept Inventory showed an overall positive shift in chemistry self-concept after a change in the professor’s approach toward addressing student questions and misconceptions at Adelphi. Similar results were observed at Quinnipiac. The positive potential change was defined to be equal to {[net change/(total potential change − initial attitude score)] × 100}. The total potential change was defined to be 5.5, which was the average value for peer leaders in chemistry, as determined during the development and validation of the CSCI.4 The negative potential change was defined to be {[net change/(2.0* − initial attitude score)] × 100}. The lower value was arbitrarily set to 2. The basis for this choice was to approximate an equal potential change toward the negative end. The initial average of all sections in the study was 3.8. The authors acknowledge that these are ordinal data, so the difference between 3.8 and 5.5 might not be the same as 3.8−2.0. The Percentage Potential Change was binned into three categories: negative (≤−33% change), neutral (±32), positive (≥66% change). The nonparametric Wilcoxon signed rank test was used to test the null hypothesis that the median change would be zero if there is no effect of the learning environment on students’ chemistry self-concept. On the basis of the p-value (5.425 × 10−9), we reject the null hypothesis and note that there is an increased positive effect on students’ attitude toward chemistry. We observed a median change of 33.3% with an effect size of 1153.2.

Table 2. Subscale Reliability: Comparison of Cronbach’s α Values by Institution Subscale

Bauera

Adelphi 1, Initialb

Adelphi 1, Finalb

Adelphi 2, Initialc

Adelphi 2, Finalc

Quinnipiac, Initiald

Quinnipiac, Finald

Chemistry Mathematics Academic Academic Enjoyment Creativity

0.90 0.91 0.77 0.77 0.62

0.898 0.935 0.770 0.598 0.378

0.885 0.930 0.777 0.494 0.454

0.923 0.928 0.816 0.628 0.422

0.913 0.932 0.809 0.644 0.251

0.920 0.938 0.664 0.637 0.359

0.934 0.927 0.744 0.597 0.393

a

The data for Bauer were taken from the original CSCI paper; see ref 4. bAdelphi 1 represents Chem 109: Fall 2008, Spring 2009, Fall 2009, Spring 2010. cAdelphi 2 represents Chem 109: Spring 2013, Fall 2013, Spring 2014, Fall 2014, Fall 2015, Fall 2016. dQuinnipiac represents CHE 106: Spring 2013, Fall 2013, Spring 2014, Fall 2014.

fore, we decided to measure the “feeling”, or affective domain, of meaningful learning using the Chemistry Self-Concept Inventory (CSCI).4 We also used a second tool, Student Assessment of their Learning Gains (SALG),34,35 which provided us with students’ perspectives of how the various components of the learning environment facilitated their learning. Initial CSCI survey data were collected at Adelphi University between 2008 and 2010. Follow-up data collection occurred from 2013 to 2016 at both Adelphi and Quinnipiac Universities. CSCI data were collected during the first and last weeks of each semester. SALG data were collected during the last week of classes of each semester. At the time of the 2013−2016 data collection, the learning environment described above was fully implemented in the one-semester nonmajors’ chemistry course. At both universities, the nonscience majors represented in this data collection were nursing students. Furthermore, IRB approval was obtained from each university before the collection of any data used in this study (IRB exemption was granted for these surveys).

Results (or the product outcome of this teaching approach) may be found below.

■

RESULTS The results of the CSCI surveys are seen in Figures 4 and 5 and in Table 2. The CSCI contained 40 statements total, with 10 statements addressing chemistry self-concept. Students were asked to rate on a seven-point scale (1 = strongly disagree to 7 = strongly agree) how accurately each statement described them. A statistically significant improvement in the chemistry self-concept subscale (p-value from Wilcoxon signed rank test = 2.104 × 10−11) was found with both Adelphi and Quinnipiac students (n = 227, with class sizes ranging from 32 to 48 students) between 2013 and 2016. There was a median change of 0.5, where 158 students (70%) showed improvement, 8 (3.5%) showed no change, and 61 (27%) showed a decrease (effect = 860.4). Similar tests on the other subscales (academic self-concept, academic enjoyment self-concept, creativity selfconcept, and mathematics self-concept) did not show significant change. F



Article

Table 3. Distribution of SALG Resultsa for Selected Subcategories Focusing on the Overall Learning Environment Adelphi 2008−S2010 (4)

Questions for Student Response

N

Mean

SEM

Adelphi 2013−2016 (S) Wilcoxon Matched Paired (p)d

How Much Did the Following Aspects of the Class Help Your Learning?b The instructional approach taken in 140 3.3 0.10 0.0001 this class How the class topics, activities, 139 3.8 0.09 0.0001 mastery quizzes, and exams fit together Attending class 139 3.9 0.10 0.0001 The way the TLO helped me 139 3.9 0.09 0.0002 understand what I needed to study for the examinations In-class POGIL workbook 138 3.7 0.10 0.0450 Interacting with the instructor during 138 3.2 0.11 0.0001 class Working with peers during class 139 3.8 0.10 0.0004 What Gains Did You Make in Your Understanding of Each of the Following?c Working effectively with others in a 140 3.9 0.09 0.0180 small group The importance of self-motivation and 141 3.8 0.10 0.0001 learning How working in a small group makes 141 3.7 0.11 0.0001 learning difficult concepts easier

Quinnipiac 2013−2014

Adelphi and Quinnipiac 2013−2016

N

Mean

SEM

N

Mean

SEM

N

Mean

SD

SEM

171

4.0

0.08

66

3.54

0.12

237

3.78

1.07

0.07

171

4.3

0.04

66

3.79

0.12

237

4.13

0.66

0.05

171 171

4.0 4.4

0.08 0.07

66 66

4.54 4.02

0.09 0.14

237 237

4.51 4.28

0.77 1.00

0.05 0.07

129 169

4.0 4.0

0.09 0.08

66 66

4.32 3.82

0.10 0.13

195 235

4.13 3.94

0.95 1.01

0.07 0.07

171

4.3

0.08

65

3.77

0.14

236

4.13

1.13

0.08

171

4.2

0.08

66

4.02

0.13

237

4.14

1.03

0.07

171

4.3

0.07

66

4.14

0.12

237

4.25

0.91

0.06

171

4.1

0.08

66

3.98

0.14

237

4.06

1.03

0.07

a SALG data were collected from 2008 to 2010 and then from 2013 to 2016. bStudents were asked to rate how accurately each statement described them, using a five-point scale ranging from 1 = no help to 5 = great help. cStudents were asked to rate how accurately each statement described them, using a five-point scale ranging from 1 = no gains to 5 = great gains. dThe p-values from Adelphi University SALG data indicate statistically significant change, showing a positive shift in students’ assessment of learning gains toward the learning environment (see Adelphi 2008−S2010 as compared to Adelphi 2013−2016).

Cronbach’s α was used to measure the internal consistency of the relationship of the subscales to each other, as cited in the original CSCI paper.4 The results of Cronbach’s α analysis are seen in Table 2. The reliability of the chemistry subscale has the same Cronbach’s α as published in the original CSCI paper, suggesting that the results from the study described in this paper are reliable. Data in Figure 5 and Table 3 show there is a significant positive change to both students’ chemistry self-concept and SALG scores when comparing 2008−2010 and 2013−2016 for Adelphi University. The SALG data show that the instructional approach taken at Adelphi University improved from 3.3 to 4.0 (p = 0.0001) and that interacting with the instructor during class improved from 3.2 to 4.0 (p = 0.0001). In short, the SALG findings reinforce the pre/post-CSCI survey results. This course originated at Adelphi University in the fall of 2008 and incorporated the central teaching/learning components over the time frame of six course offerings (until 2010), allowing for reflection and further course modification. Between 2010 and 2013, the corresponding author was inspired by introduction to publications by Shell et al.5 and Tobias13 and experienced a renewed attitude toward students and the active learning experience. Instead of immediately challenging students’ responses, the professor spent more time listening and allowing students to interact with him. In this way, the student experience became central to the course, and the learning environments shifted from a traditional scientific confrontational approach (professor knowledge-centric) to that of mutual understanding and cooperation (student knowledge-centric). This change in faculty attitude and interactions with students was the only factor that changed in course delivery between 2010 and 2013 and proved to be

significant. Adelphi’s 2013 course thus evolved into the form described in this paper, and Quinnipiac University began offering a course that was similar structure and format. In addition to the measure of learning gains seen in the SALG data (Table 3), students were surveyed regarding the different components of the learning environment and their perception of the effect of each of these components on their learning (Figure 6). In general, from 2013 to 2016, students at both Adelphi and Quinnipiac Universities found the interventions in these courses (e.g., scenarios, group work, use of audience response technology, etc.) provided “much help” in learning and understanding chemistry (Table 3 and Figure 6). These SALG findings in Figure 6 reinforce the pre/postCSCI survey results in Figure 4. A statistically significant improvement in the chemistry self-concept subscale (p-value from Wilcoxon signed rank test = 2.104 × 10−11) was found with both Adelphi and Quinnipiac students (n = 227) between 2013 and 2016, with a median change of 0.5 on the chemistry subscale (effect = 860.4, Figure 4). These results demonstrate that the described learning environment (and the components found within that structure) provides relevance and motivation for nonscience majors, particularly combined with the use of in-class POGIL activities. As a result, students show improvement in chemistry self-concept. This work suggests that applying this learning environment in similar settings can improve the learning experience, in particular for nursing and/or prehealth students in a physiologically focused one-semester chemistry course. It is of note that Aultman College offers just such an environment and is in the process of offering this learning G



Article

Figure 6. In general, SALG data from 2013 to 2016 demonstrated that nursing students at both Adelphi and Quinnipiac (n = 195−237) found the interventions in these courses, the scenarios, POGIL workbook, group work, clickers, and online quizzes, to be “much help” in learning and understanding the material (1 = no help, 2 = little help, 3 = moderate help, 4 = much help, and 5 = great help).

where faculty can teach to their passion within an established framework. One limitation of this study is the absence of a measure of direct content learning. Although we would like to have a set of valid and reliable exam questions, at this time there does not exist a standardized exam that aligns with the topic learning outcomes of this course. In an attempt to create a final exam that would be a valid and reliable comprehensive assessment of learning, some questions were used from available concept inventories, including five concept inventory questions from the General, Organic, and Biological Chemistry Knowledge Assessment (GOB-CKA),36 with permission.37 Other questions were written specifically for this course and were vetted by external examiners, who validated the questions, determined the alignment of questions to the topic learning outcomes, and scored each question on its difficulty using a scale of A (analyze/evaluate) to C (declarative question). As a continuing part of this project, the authors would like to help, along with the ACS exam community, facilitate the formation of a set of topic learning outcomes, linked to vetted, reliable, and accurate final exam questions. This repository of TLO-linked final exam questions could then be used by the GOB faculty community to generate data to demonstrate learning in their classes. The approach described in this paper is innovative in the way it combines four essential factors, a supportive instructor, the strategic organization and alignment of learning outcomes, an active learning environment, and health-related scenarios, in a unique way. Our findings (CSCI and SALG data) and our

experience to students in a revised one-semester physiological chemistry course.

■

CONCLUSION In our experience, the one-semester chemistry course (particularly that populated by nursing students) has been taught merely as a compilation of the important central concepts of chemistry presented in a surface manner. Faculty are often reluctant to teach this course, and students are often frustrated by irrelevant content and a teaching method that is duplicated from courses for science majors. Furthermore, this traditional approach has the unfortunate effect of encouraging rote memorization and discouraging deep learning by students. As a result, students find themselves without hope and without self-directed critical thinking. This does not, and should not, have to be the inevitable outcome of the one-semester chemistry course. Instead, the creation of a new course that incorporates four essential learning environment factors (1, the attitude of the instructor; 2, the strategic organization and alignment of learning outcomes; 3, a decidedly active learning environment; and 4, health-related scenarios) leads to a vastly different experience for both faculty and students. The one-semester chemistry course can become a highlight for the nonscience major and can be particularly useful to future healthcare providers. It is an attractive course for faculty seeking to expand their pedagogical approach and those looking for a fresh experience in the classroom. It provides exceptional flexibility (particularly within the health-related scenarios) H



Article

(11) Prince, M. J.; Felder, R. M. Inductive Teaching and Learning Methods: Definitions, Comparisons, and Research Bases. J. Engr. Educ. 2006, 95 (2), 123−138. (12) Freeman, S.; Eddy, S. L.; McDonough, M.; Smith, M. K.; Okoroafor, N.; Jordt, H.; Wenderoth, M. P. Active Learning Increases Student Performance in Science, Engineering, and Mathematics. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 2014, 111 (23), 8410−8415. (13) Tobias, S. They’re Not Dumb, They’re Different; Research Corporation: Tucson, AZ, 1990. (14) Process-Oriented Guided Inquiry Learning; Moog, R. S.; Spencer, J. N., Eds.; ACS Symposium Series 994; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2008. (15) Curricular Materials. Process Oriented Guided Inquiry Learning. https://pogil.org/educators/become-a-pogil-practitioner/curricularmaterials (accessed Jul 2018). (16) Garoutte, M. P.; Mahoney, A. B. General, Organic, and Biological Chemistry: A Guided Inquiry, 2nd ed.; Wiley: Hoboken, NJ, 2014. (17) Frost, L. Guided Inquiry Activities for General, Organic, and Biological Chemistry, 2nd ed.; Pearson: Upper Saddle River, NJ, 2014. (18) Caldwell, J. E. Clickers in the Large Classroom: Current Research and Best-Practice Tips. CBE Life Sci. Educ. 2007, 6 (1), 9− 20. (19) Brown, P. C.; Roediger, H. L.; McDaniel, M. A. Make It Stick: The Science of Successful Learning; Belknap Press: Cambridge, MA, 2014. (20) Cepeda, N. J.; Pashler, H.; Vul, E.; Wixted, J. T.; Rohrer, D. Distributed Practice in Verbal Recall Tasks: A Review and Quantitative Synthesis. Psychol. Bull. 2006, 132 (3), 354−380. (21) Start with a Story: The Case Study Method of Teaching College Science; Herreid, C. F., Ed.; NSTA Press: Arlington, VA, 2007. (22) Chowdhury, M. A. Incorporating a Soap Industry Case Study To Motivate and Engage Students in the Chemistry of Daily Life. J. Chem. Educ. 2013, 90 (7), 866−872. (23) Urban, S.; Brkljača, R.; Cockman, R.; Rook, T. Contextualizing Learning Chemistry in First-Year Undergraduate Programs: Engaging Industry-Based Videos with Real-Time Quizzing. J. Chem. Educ. 2017, 94 (7), 873−878. (24) Halkyard, M. Personal communication, Jan 2012. (25) Jones, R. T.; Osgood, E. E.; Brimhall, B.; Koler, R. D. Hemoglobin Yakima: I. Clinical and Biochemical Studies. J. Clin. Invest. 1967, 46 (11), 1840−1847. (26) Novy, M. J.; Edwards, M. J.; Metcalfe, J. Hemoglobin Yakima: II. High Blood Oxygen Affinity Associated with Compensatory Erythrocytosis and Normal Hemodynamics. J. Clin. Invest. 1967, 46 (11), 1848−1854. (27) Benz, E. J. Disorders of Hemoglobin. In Harrison’s Principles of Internal Medicine, 17th ed.; Fauci, A. S., Braunwald, E., Kasper, D. L., Hauser, S. L., Longo, D. L., Jameson, J. L., Loscalzo, J., Eds.; McGraw Hill Medical: New York, 2008; Chapter 99. (28) Brandt, R. On Teaching for Understanding: A Conversation with Howard Gardner. Authentic Learning 1993, 50 (7) 4−7. http:// www.ascd.org/publications/educational-leadership/apr93/vol50/ num07/On-Teaching-for-Understanding@-A-Conversation-withHoward-Gardner.aspx (accessed Jul 2018). (29) Dahlgren, L. O. In Styles of Learning and Teaching: An Integrated Outline of Educational Psychology for Students, Teachers, and Lecturers; Entwistle, N., Ed.; Routledge: New York, 1998; Chapter 4, p 81. (30) Brown, C. E.; Henry, M. L. M.; Barbera, J.; Hyslop, R. M. A Bridge between Two Cultures: Uncovering the Chemistry Concepts Relevant to the Nursing Clinical Practice. J. Chem. Educ. 2012, 89 (9), 1114−1121. (31) Sundberg, M. D.; Dini, M. L.; Li, E. Decreasing Course Content Improves Student Comprehension of Science and Attitudes towards Science in Freshman Biology. J. Res. Sci. Teach. 1994, 31 (6), 679−693. (32) Talanquer, V.; Pollard, J. Reforming a Large Foundational Course: Successes and Challenges. J. Chem. Educ. 2017, 94 (12), 1844−1851.

experience with this new course demonstrate that the course became relevant and interesting to both students and faculty, ultimately resulting in improved satisfaction for both. The increase in chemistry self-concept during a single semester was particularly gratifying, especially because self-concept improvement can take longer than one semester to develop. In the end, achieving an interest in and understanding of chemistry, as well as improved chemistry self-concept, is no small feat.

■

ASSOCIATED CONTENT

S Supporting Information *

The Supporting Information is available on the ACS Publications website at DOI: 10.1021/acs.jchemed.8b00201. Concept maps for the entire one-semester course (PDF) Brachytherapy scenario (PDF) Brachytherapy handout (PDF) Blood chemistry scenario (PDF) Blood chemistry handout (PDF)

■

AUTHOR INFORMATION

Corresponding Author

*E-mail: [email protected]. ORCID

David W. Parkin: 0000-0003-4479-3164 Notes

The authors declare no competing financial interest.

■

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The authors would like to acknowledge Christopher Bauer for helpful advice about the use of the Chemistry Self-Concept Inventory, as well as the students in CHE 109 at Adelphi University and CHE 106 at Quinnipiac University for their participation in the study.

■

REFERENCES

(1) Bong, M.; Skaalvik, E. M. Academic Self-Concept and SelfEfficacy: How Different Are They Really? Educ. Psychol. Rev. 2003, 15 (1), 1−40. (2) Schunk, D. H. Self-Efficacy and Academic Motivation. Educ. Psychologist 1991, 26 (3-4), 207−231. (3) Bong, M.; Clark, R. E. Comparison between Self-Concept and Self-Efficacy in Academic Motivation Research. Educ. Psychologist 1999, 34 (3), 139−153. (4) Bauer, C. F. Beyond “Student Attitudes”: Chemistry SelfConcept Inventory for Assessment of the Affective Component of Student Learning. J. Chem. Educ. 2005, 82 (12), 1864−1870. (5) Shell, D. F.; Brooks, D. W.; Trainin, G.; Wilson, K. M.; Kauffman, D. F.; Herr, L. M. The Unified Learning Model: How Motivational, Cognitive, and Neurobiological Sciences Inform Best Teaching Practices; Springer: New York, 2010. (6) Novak, J. D. The Promise of New Ideas and New Technology for Improving Teaching and Learning. Cell Biol. Educ. 2003, 2, 122− 132. (7) Biggs, J.; Tang, C. Teaching for Quality Learning at University, 4th ed.; McGraw Hill: New York, 2011. (8) Ramsden, P. Learning to Teach in Higher Education, 2nd ed.; RoutledgeFalmer: New York, 2003. (9) Carmel, J. H.; Jessa, Y.; Yezierski, E. J. Targeting the Development of Content Knowledge and Scientific Reasoning: Reforming College-Level Chemistry for Nonscience Majors. J. Chem. Educ. 2015, 92, 46−51. (10) Pienta, N. J. Celebrating the Chemical Education Connections to Health and Medicine. J. Chem. Educ. 2011, 88 (10), 1343−1344. I



Article

(33) Novak, J. D. Learning, Creating, and Using Knowledge: Concept Maps as Facilitative Tools in Schools and Corporations, 2nd ed.; Lawrence Erlbaum Associates: Mahwah, NJ, 1998; p 13. (34) Seymour, E.; Wiese, D. J.; Hunter, A.-B.; Daffinrud, S. M. Creating a Better Mousetrap: On-Line Student Assessment of Their Learning Gains; Presented at the 219th National Meeting of the American Chemical Society, San Francisco, CA, March 2000. (35) Cooper, M. M. Drawing Meaningful Conclusions from Education Experiments. In Nuts and Bolts of Chemical Education Research; Bunce, D. M., Cole, R. S., Eds.; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2008; Chapter 11. (36) Brown, C. E.; Hyslop, R. M.; Barbera, J. Development and Analysis of an Instrument To Assess Student Understanding of GOB Chemistry Knowledge Relevant to Clinical Nursing Practice. Biochem. Mol. Biol. Educ. 2015, 43 (1), 13−19. (37) Barbera, J. Personal communication, May 2013.

J


Promoting Nursing Students' Chemistry Success in a Collegiate Active

Recommend Documents