Jack 1. Hedrick Elirobethtown College Elizobethtown,Pennsylvonia 17022
The Keller Plan and Student Evaluation
Recently, a number of the pages of this Journnl have been devoted to the Keller Plan as a teaching method in undergraduate chemistry courses.'-' I t is the purpose of this paper to briefly summarize a modified Keller Plan that we have used a t the introductory level for the past three years and to compare student scores on the ACS Standardized Examination Form 1967 for these three vears to student scores from previous years when a more conventional method was employed. As will he seen, there is apparently no significant difference in student ability to retain the material studied. We first need to summarize the method that we have used the past three years (1970-73). The student is given a complete list of educational objectives for each area to he studied. There are no lecture periods hut the student is scheduled for two discussion periods per week where his questions can be answered. Each Friday, a period is set aside for testing. The student is given a testing schedule so that he knows when an examination on a particular area will he offered. Within the limits of this schedule, he can write an examination on a particular area as often as he chooses with only the highest grade attained used as a measure of his competence. All questions in the examinations are taken directly from the list of educational ohjectives. The student does not have to earn a passing grade in one area before moving on to another. So much for our current modus operandi. Prior to 1970, the method employed was the standard three lectures per week with an examination scheduled every three or four weeks. Student response to the course over the past three years has been most positive. They seem to enjoy being able to work a t their own pace and competing with themselves Table 1. Ch 101 and Ch 102 Grade Distribution Percentage of Clam Receiving Grade
Academic Year
Clam Enrollment
Average Grade"
Ck 202 Gmde Dislribullon
Ck 102 Grode Distribution 1967-68 1968-69 1969-70 1970-71 1971-72 1972-73 a
14
24 18 23 30 32
34 31 29 47 29 37
40
26 37 21 28 24
~ v e r a g grade e based on A = 4.00, B = 3.00, ete.
Table 2.
Median Score on the ACS Standardized Examination Form 1967 Year
Median Score
19674
13
rather than their fellow students. Their biggest joy, as might he expected, is the prospect of writing an examination as often as they wish to earn the grade they desire. For a comparison of student grades over the past six years, see Table 1. The academic years 1967-70 represent grades from the "lecture" years. The academic years 1970-73 represent grades from the "Keller" years. One further word of clarification is needed. Ch 101 is the first semester course in which all chemistry students are.enrolled. This includes science as well as liberal arts majors. Ch 102 is the second semester of the sequence designed for those students who will go on to enroll in higher level chemistry courses. It is, in effect, a course for majors only. As can he seen from Table 1, with the exception of Ch 101 during the academic year 1972-73, student grades have been appreciably higher during the "Keller" years. This is not surprising since the student is allowed several opportunities to display his competence in a particular area with only the highest grade appearing in the record hook. The ability of this method to enable the student to retain the material studied for any period of time is somewhat in doubt, however. Each year for the past six years, the final examination in Ch 102 has been the ACS Standardized Examination Form 1967. The expectation is that since student grades have been appreciably higher during the "Keller" years, performance on the ACS examination should also he higher. The results for the past six years are summarized in Table 2. The results for the "Keller" years are not appreciably higher than those for the "lecture" years as indicated by the average median scores of 13 and 12. Considering the great deal of time that has been spent converting to the modified Keller plan, these scores are most discouraging. Both faculty and students are working harder but the result is seemingly no better. There are positive aspects, however. For example, both student and faculty morale are higher. The author is discouraged hut not to the point of abandoning the "Keller" method entirely. For the academic year 1973-74, discussion groups will he discontinued in favor of that time-honored servant, the lecture, in an effort to determine if this will improve student retention. Finally, i t seems to the author that he has merely proved to himself something he knew all the time. Different students have a "best way" of learning-for some it is the discussion group, for others the lecture, for still others self-study. The list is legion. What we need to do is to provide whatever method is best for the individual student. 'White, J. M., Close, J . S., and McAllister, J. W., J . CHEM. EDUC., 49,772 (1972). 2Eggleston,A,, and Brintzinger, H. H., J. CHEM. EDUC., 50, 6ll973). , - ~ ~, 3Kissling,R. L., J. CHEM. EDUC., 5 0 . 1 (1973). 4Leq M. W., J . CHEM. EDUC., 50,49 (1973). SLewis, D. K., and Wolf, W. A,, J. CHEM. EDUC., 50, 51 (1973). ~
Volume 52, Number I , January 1975
/
65
