edited by
SUSAN H. HIXSON National Science Foundation Washington, DC 20550 CURTIS T. SEARS. JR. Geogia State University Atlanta, GA 30303
Projects supported by the NSF Division of Undergraduate Education Problem Solving Workshops in General Chemistry
Study Groups In General Chemistry
Arthur E. Woodward, Michael Weiner and David Gosser City College of New York
Cecile N. Hurley University of Connecticut
A pilot program to restructure the conveutional two semester general chemistry lecture course for science and engineering majors was started in September 1991 a t the City College of New York. Our main goals were:
Many students do not perform well in general chemistry. A variety of reasons is offered to explain their lack of success. However, despite all the rhetoric about their hopelessly inadequate mathematical skills, unwillingness to engage in hard work, and inability to concentrate on anything.. longer .. than a few minutes. most students devote cousiderahle study time to their general chemistry course. Yet often that investment ofrimc does not vield the return students expect, because it is spent un~roductively,Study conducted in isolation becomes frustrating when an obstacle arises that the student can't surmount. Consequently, students often become discouraged. It doesn't take many such episodes for the initial discouragement to worsen and grow to overwhelming proportions. The success Uri Treisman ( I ) achieved with a studym o u ~framework for minoritv calculus students led us to dcveiop a similar structure for our general chemistry course. Plloied first in a sinde 16-student quiz section conducted by the course coord&tor, the study-group concept was expanded to a ZOO-student large-lecture section in the Fall, 1992. Roughly one-quarter of all general chemistry students were randomly assigned to that large-lecture section. The lecture section was divided into twelve quiz sections of 15-18 students each. Each quiz section was further subdivided into study groups of 4-8 students. Meeting outside the formal class hours, the study groups provide structure and some guidance for a small portion of the students' outof-class study time. At regularly scheduled times, the study groups met weekly in the presence of an undergraduate student monitor to confer about each week's assigned homework problems. The monitor's role was to observe the discussion of the homework problems, guide explanation towards accuracy, and rewrd attendance. (The latter was done for project evaluation purposes only, and was not used in any way for grading purposes.) All students in each group were instructed to attempt to solve all the assigned problems. However, each member of the study group assumed responsibility for a particular problem and agreed to come to the weekly pmblem-discussion session prepared to explain its solution in detail. These designated "experts" were encouraged to seek any needed assistance from the instructor or the Chemistry Help Center which is open to students on a wak-in basis. At the formal quiz section meeting, each study group split into two "action teams" of 3-4 students. Since the homework had already been discussed at the study-group meetings, it was not considered during the quiz section. Instead, worksheets with challenging problems and thought questions were given to each team for them to col-
1)to improve student performance in this course, and 2 ) to increase student interest in chemistry.
A weekly two-hour problem-solving workshop was intmduced and the amount of lecture time reduced. Each semester we have made changes in the workshop or lecture, based on our increasing experience. During the workshop period the class of about 100 students meeting in a single lecture hall is divided into 15 groups of 6-8. An undergraduate student leader is in charge of each group. The students are encouraged to work together to solve a mixture of conventional and unconventional chemistry problems. For example, the workshop on molecular structure includes both a series of questions involving Lewis dot structures and a cooperative effort a t molecular model building. Five optional computer workshops are offered; students are instructed in computer operation and the use of the interactive program MathCad for m a ~ h i n eeauations.. dottine data. and solvine uumeri. c a &&~emi. ~ ' The worksho~sare lively: althoueh a sinele lecture hall is used, the sense of eveGbody w&king seems to have a positive effect, despite the noise level. An advantage is that only one faculty member need be present to oversee the whole section. Student surveys show strong approval of the workshops with the workshop leaders receiving excellent evaluations. Often the students within a group form smaller study groups that meet outside of class. The performance on examinations is directly related to workshop attendance and the passing rate has been increased substantially. Student surveys show increased interest in chemistG as a possible major. The class itself is a good place to recruit a diverse group of workshop leaders by selectine students receivine a hieh made and showine a hieh degree of workshop p a r t k p a c o L The leaders arepaid& assist in the computer and problem-solving workshops, to be involved with course development, and to help with record keeping. Chemistry workshops, following the City College model, are scheduled to be intmduced a t Brooklyn, Bronx Community, Borough of Manhattan Community and Medgar Evers Colleges.
-
-
Acknowledgement This work has been partially supported under the National Science Foundation Grant No. DUE-9150842.
Volume 70 Number 8 August 1993
651
laborate on under conditions that, except for allowing team work, replicated those of examinations and quizzes, that is, no books, no notes, and time limits. The teaching assistant in charge of the quiz section circulated among the action teams, monitoring student interaction and asking leading questions when work stalled. The assistants were explicitly directed not to explain how to set up problems or analyze thought questions. Separate weekly staff meetings were held for the teaching assistants and the study-group monitors. The monitors talked over the solutions to the homework problems, while the course instructor discussed common pitfalls and errors that might arise in the explanations the student experts presented to their study-group mates. During the teaching assistant meetings, the instructor led a discussion of effective strategies for helping the action teams reach correct solutions to the problems and for successfully analyzing multiple-choice questions. Both students and teaching staff have responded very positively to this restructuring. Teaching assistants feel that students in the study-group based version of the course have a more positive attitude about chemistry, and tend to transfer the teamwork they use on the assigned
652
Journal of Chemical Education
problems to the laboratory sessions as well. Students like the group activity for several reasons. It helps them organize their study time, and keeps them up to date with the homework. They feel that becoming an expert on one or two homework problems is more feasible than trying to master all the assigned problems alone. The team approach to the worksheets exposes the students to alternative ways of thinking about a concept, and verbalizing a problem-solving strategy crystallizes it i n their own minds. Finally, doing the worksheets under examination conditions lessens the anxiety they experience when working on the actual examinations, and being able to work out "difficult"problems boosts their self-confidence. Acknowledgement
This work has been partially supported under the National Science Foundation Grant No. DUE-9155980. Literature Cited 1, *Dana sward winners innovatbns in educating mrnority 8t"dentp ul math and snm e attract nationwide interest," charlea A. ~ a n ~oundation a ~ e y r 3, t NO. I, Spring, 1988,1-5.
