The Multi-Initiative Dissemination Project Workshops: Who Attends

Research: Science and Education

The Multi-Initiative Dissemination Project Workshops: Who Attends Them and How Effective Are They? K. A. Burke and Thomas J. Greenbowe* Department of Curriculum and Instruction and Department of Chemistry, Iowa State University of Science & Technology, Ames, IA 50011-3111; *[email protected] John I. Gelder Department of Chemistry, Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, OK 74078

The National Science Foundation funded the Multi-Initiative Dissemination (MID) Project in August 2000 to provide a mechanism by which four curriculum reform efforts, ChemConnections, Molecular Science, New Traditions, and Peer-Led Team Learning (1–9), could continue to disseminate information about their projects. A workshop, with presenters from each of the four individual projects, was developed to engage participants in hands-on activities and discussions about active-learning strategies. Dissemination sites were selected from across the country to reach the greatest possible number of college chemistry faculty. The sites and dates of the 2001–2002 workshops are shown in Table 1. An overview of the MID Project, outlining the goals, active-learning strategies, and curriculum, can be found in ref 10. Aspects of the MID Project are also featured on the MID Project Web site (11). Links to each individual project can be found at this same Web site. Briefly, the goals of the MID Project are: • To introduce chemistry faculty to a variety of innovative new models, approaches, materials, and tools for active learning, retention, and understanding in lecture and lab. • To present innovations in units individualized to meet the needs of students and faculty. • To provide chemistry faculty with opportunities for handson experiences to evaluate these new approaches and adapt them to their own teaching environment. • To facilitate the building of regional networks of chemistry faculty engaged in curricular reform.

Before attending a MID workshop, participants are encouraged to read the prerequisite material available at the Web site. Workshop Format A MID workshop lasts 1.5 days. The participants engage in active-learning activities and strategies associated with the four projects. Participants rotate through two-hour sessions that introduce each systemic initiative. In addition, there are sessions about learning theory, alternative methods of assessment, and local issues of interest to the group. A typical workshop agenda is posted on the MID Project Web site (11). Workshop Participant Demographics Although each workshop group is different, some general observations about the participants can be made. Participant responses to pre- and postworkshop surveys, as well www.JCE.DivCHED.org

•

as participant focus group comments were analyzed. Approximately 300 postsecondary educators have attended the workshops (12, 13), including a small number of secondary school instructors. Forty percent of attendees have been women and 60% have been men. Approximately 25% of attendees were from two-year institutions and 33% were from four-year undergraduate institutions. About 9% were from M.S.-granting institutions and 33% from Ph.D.-granting institutions. Attendees of MID workshops have on average five or more years of classroom experience. Half of the instructors are tenured, about one-quarter are not tenured, and the remainder are not on the tenure track. Those not on the tenure track are members of the professional and scientific staff at their institutions, are graduate students or postdoctoral associates, or work at an institution where tenure-track positions do not exist. At past workshops, there have been emeritus professors participating along with graduate students, representing the full spectrum of educators. Only 10% of those instructors attending are in their first year of teaching. Almost half have taught more than 10 years. The remaining 40% are relatively equally distributed between two groups—those who have taught between one and five years and those who have taught between six and ten years. Most instructors who attend a MID workshop can be characterized as being concerned about communicating effectively with their students. They are interested in gathering more information about active learning. They are willing to modify their classroom approach

Table 1. MID Project Workshops 2001–2002 Institution or Organization

Location

Dates

Florida Atlantic University

Boca Raton, FL

Feb 01

University of Massachusetts

Dartmouth, MA

Mar 01

University of Southern Colorado

Pueblo, CO

Apr 01

Project Kaleidoscope 2001

Snowbird, UT

Jul 01

Raritan Valley Community College

Somerville, NJ

Nov 01

TxCEPT

College Station, TX

Jan 02

University of South Florida

Tampa, FL

Feb 02

Ohio State University

Columbus, OH

Mar 02

University of Arizona

Tucson, AZ

Apr 02

Project Kaleidoscope 2002

Williamsburg, VA

Jun 02

Vol. 81 No. 6 June 2004

•

Journal of Chemical Education

897


if the changes promoted by the MID workshop promise to be beneficial to their students. Approximately one-quarter of the instructors teach classes that have few (< 25) or relatively few (25–50) students. Fifteen percent teach classes that have many (> 200) students. The remaining teach groups of 50 to 200 students. Almost 70% of the instructors teach a chemistry course for students pursuing science, engineering, or preprofessional majors. Approximately one-third of the instructors serve students in chemistry sequences for nursing, allied health, applied biology, and so forth, or chemistry for liberal arts courses. Twenty percent of the instructors teach preparatory chemistry classes and fifty percent teach upper-level undergraduate classes. Twenty percent direct other kinds of classes, including graduate classes in chemistry, undergraduate and graduate biology, biochemistry, physics, geology, and environmental chemistry courses.

Teaching Practices of Participants Prior to their arrival at the MID workshop, participants are asked to complete a preworkshop survey reflecting on their teaching practices, methods of assessment, instructional goals, challenges to those goals, and institutional influences on whether they can change their method of instruction. A copy

Table 2. Rank Order of Classroom Techniques Used by MID Workshop Attendees and Rank Order of Rating of Teaching Effectiveness of the Technique (Prior To Attending a Workshop) Classroom Techniques

Instructors Using This Technique (%)

Instructors Ranking the Effectiveness of the Technique (%)a

of this survey is posted on the MID Project Web site via links to each individually scheduled workshop (11). A ranking of the instructional techniques used by the instructors and a ranking of the techniques they believe are effective are shown in Table 2. In-class problem solving is rated as one of the three most effective student-learning strategies. Student discussions, collaborative learning exercises, and students working on worksheets or tutorials are other student-centered techniques favored by the participants. Over 75% of workshop participants report that they use the lecture method as a principal approach to formal instruction. They rated it to be the second most effective strategy to use with students. However, using the lecture method has been shown to be inconsistent with helping students acquire a conceptual understanding of chemistry (14–17). Many of the participants use some aspects of student-centered learning, such as conceptual questions, experiments or demonstrations, and visual aids.

Laboratory Techniques of Participants Instructors report using and valuing the effectiveness of traditional laboratory techniques. The most frequently used techniques (Table 3) include instructors presenting prelab instruction (60%) or students doing prelab assignments

Table 3. Rank Order of Laboratory Techniques Used by MID Workshop Attendees and Rank Order of the Teaching Effectiveness of the Technique (Prior to Attending a Workshop) Laboratory Techniques

Instructors Using This Technique (%)

Instructors Ranking the Effectiveness of the Technique (%)a

1. Instructor lecturing

78

33 (2)

2. Instructor using conceptual questions

69

25 (4)

3. Students doing in-class problem solving

67

40 (1)

1. Instructors doing prelab instruction

60

22 (5)

4. Students participating in discussion

64

23 (5)

2. Students doing prelab assignments

59

23 (4)

5. Instructor presenting an experiment or demo

59

13 (7)

3. Students preparing a lab notebook

53

27 (1)

6. Students doing collaborative learning

56

31 (3)

4. Students doing multiweek experiments

51

17 (6)

7. Students doing worksheets or tutorials

44

12 (8)

5. Students doing verification laboratories

41

14 (7)

8. Instructor using computer animations

40

6 (9)

6. Instructors presenting or students doing lessons on laboratory safety

40

2 (10)

9. Students writing

39

6 (9)

26 (2)

32

5 (10)

7. Students doing guided inquiry

36

10. Students working at the board or overhead projector

8. Students doing discovery lab work

33

23 (4)

11. Students doing an experiment or demo

30

16 (6)

9. Students designing an experiment

30

24 (3)

12. Students following guided inquiry

29

13 (7)

10. Students doing demonstrations

11

6 (8)

13. Other

10

4 (11)

11. Other

30

3 (9)

a

The numbers in parentheses indicate the ranking of the effectiveness of each of the techniques by respondents.

898


•

a

The numbers in parentheses indicate the ranking of the effectiveness of each of the techniques by respondents.

Vol. 81 No. 6 June 2004

•

www.JCE.DivCHED.org


(59%), students preparing a lab notebook (53%), students doing multiweek experiments (51%), and students doing verification laboratories (41%). In only about one-third of the institutions are instructors facilitating sessions where students are doing guided-inquiry or discovery work or designing an experiment. These methods have been shown to be effective for building student understanding (18–22). Instructors believe one of the most effective lab techniques is students preparing a lab notebook. Instructors report that they consider guided-inquiry lab work done by students to be the second-most effective technique. Students designing an experiment is ranked the third-most effective technique.

Discussion or Recitation Sections The majority of courses taught by the MID workshop participants do not include recitation or discussion sessions. Of those institutions that do have some formal discussion periods, about half are facilitated by teaching assistants and the other half by the instructors. A little over half of the institutions represented at the MID workshop have some kind of peer facilitators who work with students outside of formal instruction sessions, for example, in a peer-led or supplemental instruction format (2, 8, 9, 23, 24). Instructors’ Teaching Goals Instructors come to the workshops with a number of common teaching goals, both for their students and for themselves. Many of these goals are universal. Others are more discipline specific. The following lists were compiled from participants’ comments and have been substantially condensed and combined.

Course Goals for Students Instructors hope to engage students intellectually to help them to: • Develop a working knowledge of chemistry and to achieve a basic understanding of science concepts. • Develop an understanding of how chemistry is used in other fields (allied health, biology, mathematics, engineering, etc.). • Develop or improve problem-solving skills for conceptual and mathematical problems. • Learn to think critically and analytically on both the algorithmic and conceptual level. • Use logic and creativity and be able to make predictions rather than depending on rote memory when problem solving in all of their courses. • Realize how chemistry affects them personally and professionally and its importance in their daily lives and in real-life applications. • Overcome the misconceptions that chemistry is hard and boring. • Be actively engaged in hands-on experiences in the classroom or in the laboratory. • Learn the scientific method and understand scientific reasoning to realize that science is not equal to truth. • Enjoy learning about chemistry.

www.JCE.DivCHED.org

•

Laboratory Goals for Students Specifically in the laboratory, teachers hope to help students to: • Be able to interpret information, develop relationships, and correlate observation with theory. • Write quality lab reports, especially the discussion of results and implications section. • Be comfortable and confident in a laboratory setting, developing the skills necessary to operate independently (including how to use a manufacturer’s manual to run an instrument). • Learn to design their own experiments.

Teacher Challenges The roadblocks to incorporating active learning into the curriculum can be subdivided into two major factors: student-related challenges and the institutional environment.

Student-Related Challenges Students arrive at class with a variety of backgrounds, abilities, and learning styles (25–30). Therefore, instructors need to include a variety of teaching techniques in their presentations. The issue of including complex topics in a general chemistry course, that is, kinetics, quantum mechanics, or molecular orbital theory, needs to be addressed. Questions should be considered, such as, how much is enough; can it be simplified; and could too much simplification result in misconceptions. The student population is diverse in age, background, language skills, prior experiences with chemistry or science, learning disabilities, and physical disabilities. A summary of the student-related factors that may hinder implementation of active-learning strategies in the classroom is presented in List 1. Students • Are underprepared with respect to science, mathematics, reading, and writing skills and find the transition from high school to college to be traumatic. • Find themselves having to work hard in college, even if they were at the top in their high school class. • Expect “spoon-feeding” and want to know which equation(s) to memorize for exams. • May commute to their campus and hold down full-time or part-time jobs, which distracts them. • Lack the time and energy necessary to study and lack access to their peers. • Do not take responsibility for their own learning. • Do not devote appropriate time on tasks that present a challenge. • Often do not attend class. • Need help but cannot or will not try to get it. • Have difficulty solving problems that require the same type of calculation(s) presented in lecture but asked in a different manner on an exam. List 1. A summary of student-related factors that may hinder implementation of active-learning strategies in the classroom.

Vol. 81 No. 6 June 2004

•


899


Institutional Constraints It is difficult to implement major changes in the way a course is taught when colleagues and administrators do not support reform. Active learning is problematic, especially when the physical space does not suit group work. The lecture approach to teaching chemistry may be appropriate to accommodate time constraints. While many of the MID participants are aware that lecturing is not the most effective method to use (31–34) or have read at least one article on the subject, their administration insists on using the lecture setting as a means to reduce costs. When no recitation or discussion sections are scheduled, all instructional remediation is limited to the scheduled lecture sessions. Departmental support for instructional reform ranges from highly encouraging to overtly disapproving. Many MID participants feel that colleagues do not oppose their idea(s) for instructional change as long as those colleagues are not asked to become involved or to modify their own educational approach. Participant Evaluation of the Workshops Effectiveness of the MID workshops has been evaluated via postworkshop surveys (posted on the MID Project Web site via links to individually scheduled workshops), postworkshop focus groups, case study interviews, and email correspondence with past participants. Out of the approximately 300 attendees to date, 92% find the workshops to be useful (40%) or very useful (52%) because the experiences described by organizers and presenters were effective at demonstrating how to apply the active-learning strategies. These observations are cited directly from respondent feedback. The main responses of MID workshop participants are summarized in Lists 2 and 3.

• Preworkshop surveys enable the workshop leaders to adapt each workshop to fit the needs of the attendees.

The workshop participants actually experience-by-doing one or more project-specific active-learning exercises. For example, during a ChemConnections session, participants experience some aspect(s) of a learning module and Molecular Science session participants work through a Calibrated Peer Review exercise. Those attending a New Traditions session learn about ConcepTests; how they could “convert” an existing verification laboratory activity into more of a guided-inquiry approach, or how a “lectureless” format could be used in the classroom. Finally, experienced student facilitators who have guided peer learning sessions on their own campuses are able to lead participants in an active-learning exercise and help them to gain a better sense of the Peer-Led Team Learning approach. A portion of each project-specific workshop session is devoted to discussion of the kinds of challenges instructors expect to encounter with the implementation of these activelearning strategies. Challenges include student acceptance, administrators’ perspective, appraisal by teaching peers or colleagues, grade inflation issues, et cetera. The advantage of this portion of the workshop is that attendees are able to interact with principle investigators or presenters who have encountered implementation issues, worked through them, and effectively integrated the active-learning strategies into an existing curriculum. The MID workshops have been assessed as being an efficient and effective means of presentation. Participants are able to learn about each of the four projects via Web materials prior to the workshop and then experience each of the four projects more in-depth by working through active-learning strategies specific to those projects. Participants then discuss the implications of that active-learning approach to their curricula. The participants are provided with a binder of materials that includes a workshop agenda, information about each project, hands-on materials for the projects, data about

Participants are: • Able to ask questions.

• The workshops help build an understanding of the four projects.

• Provided with information about and examples of alternate methods of assessment.

• The workshops are well-organized. • The workshop agenda is flexible and participant oriented.

• Provided with information (e.g., copies of pertinent texts or other materials) about student retention and academic success.

• Sessions meet the needs of faculty from two-year, four-year, and Ph.D.-granting institutions.

• Comfortable talking with one another as well as with facilitators.

• The relaxed and open approach used by presenters creates an easygoing, nonthreatening environment.

• Able to form or revive local networks of individuals.

• Presenters are enthusiastic.

• Able to talk with the principal Investigators and presenters for the individual projects.

• Hands-on learning activities help attendees understand what it is like to be a student again.

• Able to meet with and hold meaningful discussions with like-minded individuals.

• Discussions are energetic and lively.

• Able to discuss local teaching issues.

• Project success data is provided.

• Able to implement one of the projects.

• Implementation issues are discussed. List 2. A summary of the participants’ responses with respect to the effectiveness of the MID workshops.

900


•

List 3. A summary of participants’ comments about positive experiences as a result of attending the MID workshops.

Vol. 81 No. 6 June 2004

•

www.JCE.DivCHED.org


success and student retention issues, and different paradigms for assessment.

A Beneficial Experience A number of participants report the MID workshop is a revitalizing experience. They would recommend participation in a MID workshop to their colleagues. Participants leave with a variety of ideas and return to their campuses thinking about curricular reform in a different way. For those already implementing active learning, the workshops suggest new techniques or an alternate means to refine existing techniques. Although those attending the MID workshop are predominantly chemistry instructors, there are instructors from other disciplines who attend. These instructors (many of whom are biologists) report that the workshops are beneficial to them as well. The workshops address active-learning paradigms. Participants are encouraged to think about how to modify their classroom practices to engender this approach. Even if workshop attendees do not incorporate any of the specific active-learning strategies they have learned about at a MID workshop, they leave the workshop sessions thinking in a different way about how effectively their students are currently learning and what modifications they might make to change that. Another Measure of Workshop Success One of the goals of the MID Project has been to encourage workshop participants to become facilitators for the active-learning strategies of the four individual projects. Several participants have conducted their own workshops about what they learned during the MID workshop and how they believed it could be incorporated into the classroom at their institution. Some have presented active-learning workshops to groups of peers, others have mentored colleagues one-onone. These mentoring relationships have been both inside and outside the area of chemistry. Peers who have attended “second-generation” workshops have gone on to implement aspects of these strategies in their classrooms or laboratories. There are also participants who, after attending MID workshop, have successfully actively engaged their students using project-specific strategies, and have, in turn, become presenters at a MID Project workshop. Nothing could speak more highly of the success of the MID Project than to have the novices become mentors for the “next generation”. Conclusions

can choose to adapt portions of one or more active-learning strategies to their own curricula. A MID Project workshop is an efficient and effective investment of a day and a half for an instructor to learn about and consider adapting and implementing active-learning strategies in the classroom and laboratory. The MID Project will continue through 2004. A list of locations for upcoming workshops can be found on the MID Web site (11). Acknowledgments The MID Project is sponsored by the National Science Foundation, DUE#019652. The authors gratefully acknowledge the contributions made by all MID Project workshop attendees and by principal investigators and workshop facilitators: ChemConnections—Eileen Lewis (University of California–Berkeley), Sandra Laursen (Colorado University– Boulder), and Brock Spencer (Beloit College); Molecular Science—Arlene Russell (University of California–Los Angeles) and Tim Su (City College of San Francisco); New Traditions—John Moore (University of Wisconsin–Madison) and G. Earl Peace (College of the Holy Cross); Peer-Led Team Learning—Pratibha Varma Nelson (Northeastern Illinois University). Literature Cited 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

7. 8.

9.

10.

Prior to their arrival and during early sessions at the MID workshop, participants articulate their teaching objectives and confront perceived challenges to those objectives. They are able to realize the match between their goals and those of the MID Project as well as the four individual projects. Participants are provided hands-on active experiences with new methods of teaching and learning. They are given the support needed to adapt the methods to meet the needs of their teaching environment. In the process, they are able to network with colleagues who are interested in curricular reform. The four projects are not a panacea to meet every individual’s teaching needs. However, the four individual projects strive to actively engage students in thinking critically and improving their problem-solving skills. Participants www.JCE.DivCHED.org

•

11. 12.

13.

14. 15. 16. 17. 18.

Russell, A. J. Chem. Educ. 1997, 74, 1268. Glenn, K. J. Chem. Educ. 1998, 75, 147. Gosser, D.; Roth, V. J. Chem. Educ. 1998, 75, 185. Anthony, S.; Mernitz, H.; Spencer, B.; Gutwill, J.; Kegley, S.; Molinaro, M. J. Chem. Educ. 1998, 75, 322. Russell, A.; Chapman, O.; Wegner, P. J. Chem. Educ. 1998, 75, 578. Landis, C.; Peace, G. E.; Scharberg, M.; Branz, S.; Spencer, J.; Ricci, R.; Zumdahl, S.; Shaw, D. J. Chem. Educ. 1998, 75, 741. Magner, J.; Barreto, J. J. Chem. Educ. 1998, 75, 956. Sarquis, J.; Dixon, L.; Gosser, D.; Kampmeier, J.; Roth, V.; Strozak, V.; Varma-Nelson, P. The Workshop Project: PeerLed Team Learning in Chemistry. In Student-Assisted Teaching: A Guide to Faculty Student Teamwork; Miller, J. E., Groccia, J. E., Miller, M. S., Eds.; Anker Publishing Company: Bolton, MA, 2001. Gosser, D. K.; Cracolice, M. S.; Kampmeier, J. A.; Roth, V.; Strozak, V. S.; Varma-Nelson, P. Peer-Led Team Learning: A Guidebook; Prentice Hall: Upper Saddle River, NJ, 2001. Burke, K. A.; Greenbowe, T.; Lewis, E.; Peace, G. E. J. Chem. Educ. 2002, 79, 699. Multi-Initiative Dissemination Project Home Page. http:// www.cchem.berkeley.edu/~midp (accessed Feb 2004). Burke, K. A.; Greenbowe, T. J. MID Project Evaluation for Year 1, a report submitted to the National Science Foundation, 2001. Burke, K. A.; Greenbowe, T. J. MID Project Evaluation for Year 2, a report submitted to the National Science Foundation, 2002. Brooks, D. J. Chem. Educ. 1984, 61, 858. Bodner, G. J. Chem. Educ. 1992, 69, 186. Crosby, G. J. Chem. Educ. 1992, 69, 433. Black, K. J. Chem. Educ. 1993, 70, 140. Pavelich, M. J.; Abraham, M. R. J. Chem. Educ. 1979, 56, 100.

Vol. 81 No. 6 June 2004

•


901

Research: Science and Education 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26.

Shiland, T. J. Chem. Educ. 1999, 76, 107. Domin, D. J. Chem. Educ. 1999, 76, 543. Farrell, J.; Moog, R; Spencer, J. J. Chem. Educ. 1999, 76, 570. Rudd, J.; Greenbowe, T.; Hand, B.; Legg, M. J. Chem. Educ. 2001, 78, 1680. Webster, T.; Hooper, L. J. Chem. Educ. 1998, 75, 328. Van Lanen, R.; Lockie, N.; McGannon, T. J. Chem. Educ. 2000, 77, 767. Pressley, M.; McCormick, C. Cognition, Teaching, and Assessment; Harper Collins College Publishers: New York, 1996. Francisco, J. S.; Nakhleh, M. B.; Nurrenburn, S. C.; Miller, M. L. J. Chem. Educ. 2002, 79, 248.

902


•

27. Spencer, J. N. J. Chem. Educ. 1999, 76, 566. 28. Felder, R. M. J. Coll. Sci. Teach. 1993, 21, 207. 29. Felder, R. M.; Leonard, R.; Porter, R. L. J. Coll. Sci. Teach. 1992, 21, 207. 30. Francisco, J. S.; Nicoll, G.; Trautmann, M. J. Chem. Educ. 1998, 75, 210. 31. Birk, J.; Kurtz, M. J. J. Chem. Educ. 1996, 73, 615. 32. Francisco, J. S.; Nicoll, G.; Trautmann, M. J. Chem. Educ. 1998, 75, 210. 33. Herron, J. D. J. Chem. Educ. 1984, 61, 850. 34. Orzechowski, R. F. J. Coll. Sci. Teach. 1995, 24, 347. 35. Eubanks, D.; Eubanks, L. J. Chem. Educ. 1998, 75, 1539.

Vol. 81 No. 6 June 2004

•

www.JCE.DivCHED.org

The Multi-Initiative Dissemination Project Workshops: Who Attends

Recommend Documents