Article pubs.acs.org/jchemeduc
Cooperative and Inquiry-Based Learning Utilizing Art-Related Topics: Teaching Chemistry to Community College Nonscience Majors Tirandai Hemraj-Benny*,† and Ian Beckford‡ †
Department of Chemistry and ‡Office of Strategic Planning, Assessment and Institutional Effectiveness, Queensborough Community College, Bayside, New York 11364, United States S Supporting Information *
ABSTRACT: It is an established fact that in the United States there is a great need to improve the scientific literacy of undergraduate students, especially those who are nonscience majors. Data presented herein suggest that using simple art concepts can assist nonscience majors in better appreciating scientific facts related to chemistry. However, it is essential to engage these students in cooperative, active, and inquiry-based learning in order to further strengthen their scientific literacy and improve their self-confidence in learning scientific facts and, thus, diminish their fear of taking other science classes over the course of their college careers. The teaching method students most engaged with is a combination of instructor-based lectures and hands-on experiments. KEYWORDS: First-Year Undergraduate/General, Student-Centered Learning, Collaborative/Cooperative Learning, Hands-On Learning/Manipulatives, Inquiry-Based/Discovery Learning, Covalent Bonding, Ionic Bonding, Nonmajor Courses, Periodicity/Periodic Table, General Public
■
reports in the literature7,9,11,12 concerning utilizing one specific art-related topic to engage nonscience majors. Herein, the effect of incorporating active, cooperative, and inquiry-based learning utilizing several art-related topics at the community college level is presented. Inexpensive materials were used in miniexperiments to engage and educate the students. Indeed, student knowledge of the chemical concepts improved, and there was a significant decrease in their fear of taking another science course. It is believed that this method of teaching can be adapted for use at other teaching institutions, at the high school, community college, and senior college level.
BACKGROUND Among science educators, it is common knowledge that there is a great lack of interest in learning and/or understanding basic scientific concepts among nonscience majors.1−4 With the preconception that the subject matter does not relate to their everyday lives, students are often not motivated to learn math and science, especially when exclusively being lectured to for an entire course.3,5,6 It has been shown that students generally have a better appreciation for material that is being taught if they are actively involved in the process of learning.5,7,8 Moreover, it has been argued that an effective way to engage nonscience students in the sciences is by using interdisciplinary themes.9 The chemical education community is increasingly convinced that chemistry and art are intriguingly related and can be used to the chemists’ advantage in capturing nonscience majors’ attention.9,10 Queensborough Community College (QCC), a large urban campus with an incredibly diverse student body, currently offers a chemistry course that teaches the relationship between chemistry and art to nonscience majors. Based on previous studies,3,7,11 this course is ideal for improving nonscience majors’ appreciation for scientific concepts and increasing their scientific literacy in that it blends scientific concepts with more “real-world” material. However, in past years, this course was taught using an instructor-centered method of lecturing, whereupon at least half of the students showed a continued lack of interest in and respect for the scientific material. Students often complained that artists like to “do things” and not just “listen”. Thus, it was proposed that student performance in, participation in, and appreciation of the course could be enhanced by incorporating active and cooperative learning methods into the classroom. There have been a few © XXXX American Chemical Society and Division of Chemical Education, Inc.
■
METHOD Two sections of the Chemistry and the Arts, lecture course were taught by the same instructor in each of three semesters (spring 2012, fall 2012, and spring 2013) for 3 h per week per class. In all sections, the theory of light and its interaction with matter,13 subtractive and additive color mixing,13 and the periodic table of elements13 were covered, and student learning was evaluated with respect to specific learning outcomes (Table 1). Each semester, one section was taught utilizing a traditional instructor-centered lecture method (Control group), and the other section was taught using a combination of instructor-led lecture and hands-on activities performed in groups by the students (Experimental group). The Experimental group section experienced these instructional approaches: • Group activity to promote cooperative learning: Students worked in groups of 3−4 to complete assignments.
A
dx.doi.org/10.1021/ed400533r | J. Chem. Educ. XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX
Journal of Chemical Education
Article
Table 1. Topics, Learning Outcomes, and Activities Covered in Each Semestera
a
Similar topics and learning outcomes were covered in both the Control and Experimental groups in the same time frame.
Students were allowed to switch groups each week, if desired. • Activity sheets to promote active and inquiry learning: During each class, instructor-generated activity sheets consisting of background material, questions, and miniexperiments related to specific topics (Table 1) were completed by the groups. Two activity sheet examples can be found in the Supporting Information, Figures 1 and 2. A single completed activity sheet for each topic was collected from each group. • Student presentation of data to promote communication skills: Each group reported their findings to the entire class. Following the presentations, students were encouraged to participate in a class discussion of the scientific topic, and misconceptions were corrected by the instructor. • Instructor’s summary lecture: Either during or after some of the activities (Table 1), the instructor briefly reviewed
a set of PowerPoint slides on the topic, primarily to reinforce the conclusions that students reached during the activities and discussion period. All slides and activity sheets were published on the class Blackboard site for students to access at any time during the semester. The Control group section experienced these instructional approaches: • Group activities and active-learning activities/experiments/demonstrations: None were performed by students in this group. • Instructor lecture: The same PowerPoint slides reviewed with the Experimental group were presented to the Control group by the instructor in much greater detail. For example, Newton’s experiment on light and color (Table 1, Topic 2) was explained in detail to the Control group. (In contrast, the Experimental group was given the opportunity to actually perform the experiment. The B
dx.doi.org/10.1021/ed400533r | J. Chem. Educ. XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX
Journal of Chemical Education
Article
Table 2. Comparison of Students’ Grades for Exam 1 and 2 over Three Semesters Number of Students Receiving Failing grades
Number of Students Receiving Passing Grades Group
A (100−90)
B (89−80)
C (79−70)
D (69−64)
Total Passing, %
D− (63−60)
F (59−0)
Total Failing, %
Overall Grade Average, %
1
10
16
3
53.6
7
19
46.4
62.7 (D−)
3
16
12
7
80.9
2
7
19.1
73.5 (C)
3
6
11
5
44.6
3
28
55.4
60.6 (D−)
5
14
11
5
74.5
3
9
25.5
72.6 (C−)
Exam 1 Control (n = 56) Experimental (n = 47) Exam 2 Control (n = 56) Experimental (n = 47)
■
slides were briefly reviewed with the Experimental group to confirm the conclusions of the experiment, but it was not necessary to cover the details of how the experiment was performed.) To summarize, the Experimental group experienced 3 days of hands-on activities only (weeks 2, 3, and 5), 3 days of hands-on activities plus summary lectures (weeks 1, 4, and 6), and 8 days of full lectures (weeks 7−14). The Control group experienced 14 days (weeks 1−14) of full lectures. During weeks 7−14, students in both sections used their knowledge of matter, light interactions with matter, the periodic table of elements, and bonding to better understand the scientific aspect of dyes and fibers, artists’ pigments, paints, art conservation, photography, ceramics, and the hazards of artists’ materials. These topics were taught using an instructor centered method in both sections. Since there were no hands-on activities or miniexperiments performed, student performance was not evaluated after exam 2 for this study.
ASSESSMENT RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
The data discussed herein were compiled over three semesters: spring 2012, fall 2012, and spring 2013. Since similar exam and survey questions were asked during all three semesters, data were combined for analysis (Control group, n = 56; Experimental group, n = 47). Student Learning of Concepts: Overall Exam Grades
Student learning of scientific concepts was assessed via two inclass exams. As noted in Table 1, Exam 1 assessed student understanding of the theory of light and color, as well as the interaction of with matter. Exam 2 assessed student understanding of atoms, elements, bonding, and chemical reaction. A comparison of Experimental vs Control students’ grades is shown in Table 2 (and also in Tables 3 and 4 of the Supporting Information). Across the three semesters, the Experimental group had significantly higher scores (t(101) = 3.39, p = 0.001) on Exam 1 (M = 73.47, SD = 11.95) than the Control group (M = 62.71, SD = 19.83). The Experimental group had an overall average grade of C on Exam 1, while the Control group had an overall average grade of D−. Across the three semesters, the Experimental group also had significantly higher scores (t(101) = 3.46, p = 0.001) on Exam 2 (M = 72.61, SD = 15.24) vs the Control group (M = 60.59, SD = 19.34). The Experimental group had an overall average grade of C− on Exam 2, while the Control group had an overall average grade of D−. In addition, the number of students who received a passing grade of D or above was greater in the Experimental group as compared to the Control group. In particular, the number of Experimental students passing Exam 1 exceeded the Control by 27.3%, and for Exam 2 by 29.9%. Alternatively, the number of students receiving a failing grade (D− or below) was lower in the Experimental group vs the Control group (Table 2). Based on the improved overall averages on the exams and also the increase in the number of students earning a passing grade, there is a clear indication that students who were exposed to cooperative, active, and/or inquiry-based learning understood the scientific concepts better than those students who were not exposed to these teaching methods.
■
ASSESSMENT TOOLS Two assessment tools were used in this study. Tool 1: In-Class Exams
Each semester, two exams were utilized to assess student knowledge of scientific concepts. Exam 1 was short answer format and consisted of 14 multipart questions. All exams were graded using a single standard rubric. Exam 2 was multiple choice format. Examples of the questions asked on each exam are available in Table 1 of the Supporting Information. Similar exams questions were used across all three semesters, with variation in the ordering of questions and answers on the multiple choice exam, and in some of the examples provided on the short answer exam. These in-class exams were evaluated in two ways: (1) The number of students who achieved a passing or better letter grade was noted; and (2) student ability to solve two specific scientific problems was evaluated. Tool 2: End-of-Semester Survey
At the end of each semester, a course evaluation survey was employed to gauge student reaction to different aspects of the course as well as the general attitude toward learning scientific facts. Specifically, students’ preferred method of teaching, change in appreciation for the scientific world, change in confidence in learning scientific concepts, and any reduction in fear of taking another science-related class were evaluated. The questions asked are listed in Table 2 of the Supporting Information.
Student Learning of Concepts: Problem-Solving Skills
In order to quantify student problem-solving ability, student responses to two questions on the given exams were analyzed. A Chi-square test of independence was performed on the three semesters of data to examine the relationship between learnercentered (Experimental group) or instructor-centered (Control group) instruction and whether students answered the C
dx.doi.org/10.1021/ed400533r | J. Chem. Educ. XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX
Journal of Chemical Education
Article
following question correctly: What is the atomic number of an atom that contains 9 protons, 9 electrons, and 10 neutrons? The relationship between the variables was significant: χ2 = (1,N=103) = 10.435, P < 0.01. A strong majority of students in the Experimental group (74.5%) correctly answered the question, as opposed to the Control group (43.0%). The second exam question analyzed was the following: You are helping the drama department create a green backdrop for a play. You can mix any combination of cyan, magenta, and yellow paints. Complete the reflection and absorption spectra of the resulting green paint mixture. Two rectangular boxes with regions marked blue, green, and red were provided (Supporting Information, Table 1). A rubric was used to grade this question (Table 3). Again, the relationship between the
variables was significant: χ2 = (3,N=103) = 20.46, P < 0.001. A majority of students in the Experimental group (68.1%), all of whom had hands-on experience in lecture, obtaining spectral plots of various combinations of cyan, magenta, and yellow dyes, were able to complete this exercise correctly as opposed to the students in the Control group (34.0%). In addition, more students in the Experimental group had the confidence to at least attempt this question (Table 3).
Supporting Information. A majority of the students exposed to lectures as well as hands-on activities generally preferred the combination method of teaching (∼78.7%) over lecturing only (∼8.5%) or activities only (∼12.8%). Although the majority of the Experimental group students (∼55.3%) perceived that the combination method of summary-lecturing and activities assisted them in improving their appreciation for the scientific world at the end of the class, a significant quantity of students (∼38.3%) attributed their increased appreciation to the handson activities only. A Chi-square test of independence was performed on the three semesters of data to examine the relationship between learner-centered (Experimental group) or instructor-centered (Control group) instruction and confidence in learning scientific concepts. The relationship between the variables was significant: χ2 = (1,N=103) = 14.007, P < 0.01. Remarkably, there was a 32.5% average increase in the number of students from the Experimental group who had a greater level of confidence in learning scientific facts at the end of the class as compared to a Control group. A majority of students reported that they had a fear of taking a chemistry class at the beginning of the semester (71.4% from the Control groups and 85.1% from the Experimental groups). When asked the same question at the end of the semester (if they had less fear of taking a science class), a greater number of students from the Experimental group (70.2%) reported they had less fear as opposed to 28.6% from the Control group. Another Chi-square test of independence was performed on the three semesters of data to examine the relationship between learner-centered (Experimental group) or instructor-centered (Control group) instruction and having less fear at the end of the class. The relationship between the variables was again significant: χ2 = (1,N=103) = 17.77, P < 0.01. One student from the Experimental group went so far as to write “I am actually seriously considering a career in science and chemistry.”
Student Perception of Active and Cooperative Learning
Student Perception of Interdisciplinary Teaching
Student responses to questions asked on an end-of-semester survey also revealed the importance of hands-on activities, not only in helping them understand concepts but also in helping them diminish their fear of taking another science class (Table 4). The specific questions asked are listed in Table 2 of the
The fact that 76.8% of students from the Control group liked the teaching-only method and that 91.1% indicated that their appreciation for the scientific world improved after taking this class (Table 4) strongly indicates that the content of the class was appealing to them. This reinforces the fact that students appreciate interdisciplinary teaching.9,10 While these students were never exposed to any other method of teaching (e.g., active learning), a majority (78.5%) strongly believed that hands-on activities could have assisted them in better understanding and appreciating the material.
Table 3. Rubric Used and Results Obtained for Analysis of a Problem-Solving Question Related to Graphical Interpretation of Subtractive Color Mixing Rubric Evaluation 3: Both graphs were correct: one peak placed correctly in the reflection plot, and two peaks placed correctly in the absorption plot. 2: Attempted question but only one graph was correct. 1: Attempted question but neither graph was correct. 0: Did not attempt question.
Experimental, N = 47
Control, N = 56
32
19
7
5
8
21
0
11
Table 4. End-of-Semester Survey Questions and Answers Asked of Both the Control and Experimental Groupsa Survey Questions Teaching method preferred Improved appreciation for scientific world Confidence in learning scientific concepts after taking the course Fear of taking another science class
a
Lecture only Activities only Activities and lecture Lecture only Activities only Activities and lecture Feel capable of understanding and learning scientific concepts Had fear at beginning of class Had less fear at end of the class
Control, n = 56
Experimental, n = 47
76.8% NA NA 91.1% NA NA 59.0%
8.5% 12.8% 78.7% 6.4% 38.3% 55.3% 91.5%
71.4%
85.1%
28.6%
70.2%
Challenges
Although it was encouraging that inexpensive materials and simple art-related activities improved undergraduate student attitudes toward chemistry class, as well as their understanding of basic scientific concepts, one of the major challenges was to effectively balance hands-on activities with summary lectures in a class period of only 3 h. In some cases, if too many hands-on activities were planned for 1 day (e.g., weeks 2 and 3, Table 1), there was no time remaining in which to summarize the conclusions of the day. For the Experimental group, although there is no clear evidence indicating that postactivity lectures led to improved exam grades, a majority of these students (78.7%) did prefer to have these summary lectures along with the activities.
NA: Not Applicable. D
dx.doi.org/10.1021/ed400533r | J. Chem. Educ. XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX
Journal of Chemical Education
■
Article
CONCLUSIONS Hands-on group activities, based on simple art-related topics, along with instructor summary lectures were used to teach fundamental chemistry concepts to nonscience major undergraduate students at a community college. In general, regardless of the teaching method employed (activities vs no activities), student appreciation for the scientific world increased. This is attributed to the use of simple, everyday art concepts such as light and color, in order to grab the attention of the students and foster the realization that their daily lives depend heavily on scientific theory and concepts. The majority of students who were exposed to a combination of activities and lecturing: • In general, preferred the combination method of activities and summary-lecturing • Strongly believed that hands-on activities improved their appreciation for the scientific world • Developed better self-confidence in learning scientific facts • Had less fear, at the end of the semester, of taking another science class • Earned higher overall averages on their chemistry exams, indicating that they understood the fundamental facts better The results of this study are very promising, especially since consistently positive data were obtained over three semesters (Supporting Information, Tables 3 and 4). In this case study, students worked well in their groups and often studied together out of the classroom. This may be attributed to the diverse cultural population on the QCC campus. As an instructor, although it was more active work to incorporate and efficiently direct hands-on activities in the classroom, it was far more motivational to teach such a class. In the future, a study will be conducted to assess student critical thinking and understanding of more specific art-related topics (e.g., dyes, photography, art conservation) as a result of active and cooperative learning. It is strongly believed that, due to its simplicity, this active interdisciplinary method of teaching science can easily be adapted to any high school or four year institution.
■
QCC, and Jane Hindman and Kevin Kolack for their insightful feedback and support.
■
REFERENCES
(1) Walczak, M. M.; Walczak, D. E. Do Student Attitudes toward Science Change during a General Education Chemistry Course. J. Chem. Educ. 2009, 86, 985−91. (2) Schultz, E. A Chemistry Course with a Laboratory for NonScience Majors. J. Chem. Educ. 2000, 77 (8), 1001−6. (3) Duncan, K.; Johnson, C.; Mc Elhinny, K.; Ng, S.; Cadwell, K. D.; Petersen, G.; Johnson, A.; et al. Art as an Avenue to Science Literacy: Teaching Nanotechnology through Stained Glass. J. Chem. Educ. 2010, 87 (10), 1031−8. (4) Hanson, D.; Wolfskill, T. POGIL. J. Chem. Educ. 2000, 77, 120− 9. (5) Bunce, D. M. Teaching Is More Than Lecturing and Learning Is More Than Memorizing. J. Chem. Educ. 2009, 86 (6), 674−80. (6) Trammell, G.; Koehler, P. F. M.; Pratt, D. W.; Garkov, V. N.; Gotwals, R. R. J.; Wang, M. R.; Bishop, A. Meeting the Challenges of Teaching Chemistry for General Education Students. J. Chem. Educ. 2010, 87 (12), 1455−7. (7) Nivens, D. A.; Padgett, C. W.; Chase, J. M.; Verges, K. J.; Jamieson, D. S. Art, Meet Chemistry; Chemistry, Meet Art: Case Studies, Current Literature, and Instrumental Methods Combined To Create a Hands-On Experience for Nonmajors and Instrumental Analysis Students. J. Chem. Educ. 2010, 10, 1089−93. (8) Harmon, K. J.; Miller, L. M.; Millard, J. T. Crime Scene Investigation in the Art World: The Case of the Missing Masterpiece. J. Chem. Educ. 2009, 86, 817. (9) Bopegedera, A. M. R. P. The Art and Science of light. J. Chem. Educ. 2005, 82 (1), 55−9. (10) Moore, J. J. Chem. Educ. 2001, 78, 1295. (11) Uffelman, E. S. Teaching Science in Art. J. Chem. Educ. 2007, 84, 1617−24. (12) Duncan, K. A.; Johnson, C.; McElhinny, K.; Ng, S.; Cadwell, K. D.; Petersen, G. M. Z.; Johnson, A.; et al. Art as an Avenue to Science Literacy: Teaching Nanotechnologhy through Stained Glass. J. Chem. Educ. 2010, 87 (10), 1031−8. (13) Orna, M. V.; Goodstein, M. P. Chemistry and Artists’ Colors, 3rd ed.; 2013: ChemSource, Inc.
ASSOCIATED CONTENT
* Supporting Information S
Table 1 providing questions asked on exams; Table 2 showing questions asked on the end-of-semester survey; Tables 3 and 4 providing information regarding student exam grades each semester; Figures 1 and 2 providing examples of the activity sheets used during hands-on exercises. This material is available via the Internet at http://pubs.acs.org.
■
AUTHOR INFORMATION
Corresponding Author
*E-mail:
[email protected]. Notes
The authors declare no competing financial interest.
■
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The authors gratefully acknowledge support for this project from a Queensborough Community College Center for Excellence in Teaching and Learning (CETL) Pedagogical Award, 2011. In addition, the author acknowledges Sasan Karimi, who initially designed the Chemistry and Art course at E
dx.doi.org/10.1021/ed400533r | J. Chem. Educ. XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX
