In the Classroom edited by
Curricular Change Digests
Baird W. Lloyd Miami University Middletown Middletown, OH 45042
The MATCH Program: A Preparatory Chemistry and Intermediate Algebra Curriculum
W
Donald J. Wink* and Sharon Fetzer Gislason Department of Chemistry, University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, IL 60607-7061; *
[email protected] Sheila D. McNicholas Department of Mathematics, Statistics, and Computer Science, University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, IL 60607 Barbara J. Zusman Office of Data Resources and Institutional Analysis, University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, IL 60607 Robert C. Mebane Department of Chemistry, University of Tennessee at Chattanooga, Chattanooga, TN 37403
Many colleges and universities face important and controversial challenges posed by students with developmental or remedial needs in mathematics and chemistry (1, 2). With support from the Course and Curriculum Development program of the National Science Foundation and the Chicago Alliance for Minority Participation (ChAMP, a program with NSF as a partner), we set about developing a single curriculum to serve both requirements. This paper covers the logistics, development, and evaluation of the program, dubbed the MATCH program to indicate its roots in mathematics and chemistry. Several other programs of this sort exist (3–5) but the MATCH program is the only one to combine program and materials development. Course Design and Materials Development We began with a standard curriculum from both departments. The MATCH program keeps the same credit structure as the standard algebra and preparatory chemistry courses, including separate grades. Students register for sections of intermediate algebra and preparatory chemistry linked to one another. Between the two courses, the MATCH students have three 50-minute and two 75-minute “lectures” per week, three hours of discussion, and one 2-hour laboratory. Thus the program has more than nine hours of contact time between the students and instructors; more important, it includes nine hours of contact with the peer group. Changes in classroom pedagogy include peer teaching in a way that is also used in the CCNY Workshop Chemistry project (6 ). Assessment of student learning involves a combined exam format, with the number of questions (out of 10 total) reflecting the amount of time spent on that discipline in the previous two weeks. From the beginning we have included “point-recovery” exams the week after any major test. This involves students redoing exam questions that they did poorly on. They are given a similar but slightly more difficult question. If they do better on the point-recovery exam question, they can get half the point difference as their recovery. This process has been very successful at giving students assessment feedback they can use immediately.
The development of an integrated set of text and supporting materials was the largest challenge of this program. We custom-published the material during development and then used formative evaluation to adapt the material. In the final version of the integrated text eight chapters include the “core” material for standard preparatory chemistry material and key algebra topics. Mathematics topics unrelated to chemistry but important in the algebra curriculum follow, and then the text concludes with optional topics in chemistry and mathematics. Many of the mathematically aware features of the MATCH text are currently being incorporated in a commercial preparatory chemistry text. It, with accompanying special mathematics materials, will be available for those who wish to implement this program with or without a coordinated algebra course. The program provides several examples of the advantages of an integrated curriculum and text. One example involves the benefits of developing unit conversion or dimensional analysis methods by discussing their roots in direct variation. Direct variation means that we can relate two variables by the equation y = kx. The “k” is referred to by mathematicians as a constant of proportionality, but it is the same thing that chemist call a conversion factor. Such factors are commonly used in molar mass, Avogadro’s number, metric conversion, etc. Approaching such diverse problems from a simple basis in mathematics renders instruction more efficient and students more adept at transferring calculation skills. In this manner many of the calculations involved in stoichiometry problems are given a common conceptual basis, something we feel is important for students to transcend algorithmic problem-solving in such problems with a qualitative understanding of the method, as discussed by Pushkin (7 ). Our explicit link between math and chemistry is also similar to that discussed by Niaz (8) and the comparison of dimensional analysis strategies researched by Bunce and Heikkinen (9). Another important overlap involves the mathematics of logarithms and exponentials. In the final set of materials students are initially given the logarithm and the base-10 exponent functions as a chemistry application—the pH.
JChemEd.chem.wisc.edu • Vol. 77 No. 8 August 2000 • Journal of Chemical Education
999
In the Classroom
Logarithm becomes a very useful function, one that is now “just another way” of writing a molarity. Only after students have learned the reason why understanding logarithms is important in chemistry do we turn to the full presentation of exponent and logarithmic rules. Worksheets for individual and group work constitute another essential part of the materials. There are two types. The first type is used during “lecture” classes, where we commonly break after 10–20 minutes to have students work problems pertinent to the day’s topic. Each week of instruction has a discussion-class worksheet, also. This is constructed according to the principles of Uri Treisman; more difficult problems are assigned for group work to enhance, not merely reinforce, text- and lecture-based instruction. Treisman’s work was originally designed for residential campuses (10), but using the experience of our own mathematics department (11), we have made these part of the experience of commuter students also. Program Evaluation The major component of this formative evaluation was a quantitative instrument that permitted us to detect the impact of the MATCH program on student learning in chemistry and mathematics compared to the traditional program. It has been apparent throughout that students in the MATCH course perceive the material as more difficult than students in the normal sequence. This, it turns out, is largely confined to the mathematics part of the course. We also tracked student outcomes in terms of grades, as a quantitative summative evaluation. We have gathered data for the three years of the program and for one succeeding semester as it developed (Fall 1994–Fall 1997). We can analyze students’ performance in two ways: 1. Students in both the parts of the MATCH program received lower grades in the MATCH program than the controls did in the traditional courses. The difference is statistically significant. In mathematics, but not in chemistry, this was probably a cause of fewer students taking further math courses. 2. When MATCH students take later chemistry courses they do better than their colleagues who took the conventional preparatory chemistry and intermediate algebra courses simultaneously. Statistical significance is associated with only the first semester of general chemistry. To probe the question of how the MATCH students themselves felt about their experience, we designed an interview process to elicit their reflections. By far, the most positive experience shared by the participants was the group work. Nearly everyone agreed that group work provided a nurturing environment for learning and gave them a mechanism for gauging their learning relative to that of their classmates, which was important to them. This positive experience con-
1000
trasted with the recollection by some students that they did not like group work at first, since it was “foreign” to them and they had to be shown how to work in groups. The majority agreed that working together on problems was better than being lectured to. On a personal level, several students expressed appreciation to the course for making or allowing them to become more verbal in the classroom. Many said this increased their self-esteem and they now share their thoughts and observations more freely. The point-recovery examinations were also singled out for the positive esteem-building effect. Conclusion This digest and the accompanying online paperW present evidence that an intense, carefully structured program can benefit students in a significant way. This benefit can be assessed qualitatively as well. While these results are directly related to the particular issue of remedial and developmental work in chemistry and math, we feel they also have important implications for how chemistry is taught independently of a mathematics course. W
Supplemental Material
Supplemental material for this article is available in this issue of JCE Online. Literature Cited 1. The Institute for Higher Education Policy, College Remediation: What It Is, What It Costs, What’s at Stake; The Institute for Higher Education Policy: Washington, DC, 1998. U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. Remedial Education at Higher Education Institutions in Fall 1995; NCES 97-584; U.S. Government Printing Office: Washington, DC, 1996. 2. This is reflected in national studies: Adelman, C. The Truth About Remedial Work; Chronicle of Higher Education; Oct 4, 1996, A56. 3. O’Brien, M.; Chalif, D. CHEMATH: A Learning Community in Science and Math; ERIC Accession ED 336 157, 1991. 4. Nikles, D. E. Chemist 1996, 7. 5. Angel, S. A.; LaLonde, D. E. J. Chem. Educ. 1998, 75, 1437. 6. Gosser, D. K. Jr.; Roth, V. J. Chem. Educ. 1998, 75, 185. 7. Pushkin, D. P. J. Chem. Educ. 1998, 75, 809. 8. Niaz, M. J. Res. Sci. Teach. 1989, 26, 785. 9. Bunce, D. M.; Heikkinen, H. J. Res. Sci. Teach. 1986, 23, 11. 10. Treisman, P. U. Academic Perestroika: Teaching, Learning, and the Faculty’s Role in Turbulent Times; The FIPSE Lecture, presented at California State University, San Bernardino, Mar 8, 1990; http:// www.ed.gov/offices/OPE/FIPSE/Perestroika/ (accessed Mar 2000). 11. Baldwin, J.; Dees, R. L.; Foulser, D.; Tartakoff, D. PRIMUS III 1993, 198.
Journal of Chemical Education • Vol. 77 No. 8 August 2000 • JChemEd.chem.wisc.edu
