Symposium on Individualized Instruction Rapporteur: R. H. Garner, University of Alabama
Bassam Shakhashiri (University of Wisconsin, Madison) reported on the application of CHEM TIPS (Chemistry Teaching Information Processing System) in an introductory chemistry course. CHEM TIPS is basically a management system for improving student-instructor communication. Specifically it attacks the problem of providing feedback to the student on his progress in learning and feedback to the instructor on the effectiveness of his teaching within a time period short enough to allow for remedies and adjustments before new material is introduced. Students complete weekly surveys which inventory their comprehension of subject material. The surveys are optional and are not included in the grading scheme. The responses are processed within an hour by computer to generate three types of reports. The student receives a report tabulating his responses in absolute and relative terms, specific messages analyzing the competencies and deficiencies or extending competencies. Teaching assistants receive section reports including item analyses, and course instructors are provided with course and section summaries. The importance of each course instructor designing his own survey questions and report messages was emphasized. An initial cost of $0.50 per student per survey has been reduced to $0.27. However, 90% of the costs are for computer time and services and thus often do not constitute real costs to individual departments. One advantage of the program is that instructors may use the feedback to continually adjust allocation of time to topics according to the extent of student learning revealed in the surveys. J a c k Leonard (State University of New York a t Purchose) reported on results of the use in introductory chemistry of the student self-rating evaluation method developed by J. B. Gilmore (see J. Coll. Sci. Teaching, 3, 54 (1973)). In this method the student's self-rating of his achievement of individual course objectives is corrected statistically by his performance on an examination covering the objectives. Prior to periodic examinations the student rates his achievement of each item as "not learned," "adequate comprehension," or "superior comprehension." The average score based on these responses is corrected by a factor derived from the student's perfor-
mance od an examination. The corrected score is used in grade assignments. The method reduces student anxiety about examinations and received an overall favorable student response. However, students also found the method excessivelv comolex and a substantial Dercentaae expressed r&ctanEe to take another course by this method. The instructors felt that the method achieved the desired goal of increasing student self-awareness of course objectives. However, the parallel goal of increasing student self-awareness of his educational performance was not fully met as evidenced by an increase rather than a decrease in the magnitude of correction factors as the course progressed. Marvin Kemp (University of Tulsa) reported that experience in self-paced instruction had led to a tailoring of the content of a physical chemistry course to meet the diverse educational needs of students enrolled in the course. The self-paced format of the course has been refined to provide different sets of objectives, etc., for each of four categories of students: chemistry majors, chemical engineers, geologists, and life science-petroleum engineering students. Examples of the differentiation of objectives are: chemistry majors are given a greater emphasis on spectroscopy and theory of bonding; geology students are given an emphasis on solid state chemistry; life science majors are assigned more objectives in the thermodynamics of solutions and colloid and surface chemistry. The program is well received by students and in some cases has led to students selecting additional electives in chemistry. Lawrence Friedman (Wellesley College) reported on two efforts in self-paced instruction in the liberal arts curriculum. In an introductory chemistry course, self-paced instruction of a selected (good performance potential) group of volunteers and a randomly chosen group of volunteers was compared with a group receiving traditional instruction. Results on a final examination indicated higher scores in both the self-paced groups, but the results were subiect to varvine" interoretations. A second effort was an advanced laboratory course entitled "Foundations of Chemical Research." The course consisted of a series of faculty-presented lecture-demonstrations of research-related techniques, a series of short exercises providing stud
Volume 52. Number 1, January 1975 /
17
dents with experience in a variety of techniques, and student projects chosen to illustrate particular areas of chemical research. Student progress through the exercises and projects was self-paced, and students had considerable choice in the selection of exercises and projects. The course was well received by students, but the faculty has elected to discontinue the course as offered because of the excessive demands on faculty time and the observation that a significant number of students floundered in the unstructured format of the course. In the subsequent discussion period a mild debate arose concerning whether or not self-paced instruction and open laboratories really work. Some with experience in the methods are abandoning their efforts, citing difficulties in maintaining student achievement levels and coping with cheating problems. Others, also on the basis of experience,
18
/ Journal of Chernicai Education
maintain that these problems are manageable and are more than offset by the advantages of the methods. Several individuals emphasized that all innovations in individualizing instruction are, in essence, changing the role of the instructor to that of a more efficient manager of the learning process. There was discussion of the prospects and pros versus cons of a national data bank of questions for use in projects such as those discussed in the presented papers. It was pointed out that such a resource could be used in a variety of ways, including the routing of students through course material, diagnostic evaluations of individual student progress, and evaluations of the effectiveness of courses as a whole. The ~ossibilitvof the ACS Committee on Examinations undertaking s i c h a project was given related to this ~ossihilitv support and further su~pestions -. were invited.
