Much has been written recently about the application of Piaaet's learning theories to chemical education.' Piaget's

Richard P. Steiner University of Utah

Salt Lake City. UT 841 12

emphasis on "experience" and "social interaction" c& be interpreted as an emphasis on active participation in the learning process. The Piagetian terms "experience" and "social interaction" involve student participation in formu-

Encouraging Active Student in the Learning Process

lating theories, applying the theories, and iolving problems rather than sitting passively, listening t u explnnntions. Un- fortunatelv the oredominant means of teaching chemistrv. the lecture, entwlmyes the latter type of student experience. 'I'herefure. the most efficient wav of adn~t in r Piwet's theories . - - to the teaching of chemistry i; to develop ways to increase active student thinkina in the lecture hall. This paper suggests methods for encourag:mg active student thin!& in the Or- ganic Chemistrv lecture hall.

Karplus has brevious~y suggested the use of the lecture demonstration method to simulate a laboratory experience in the lecture haL2 I believe that this simulation can be an - - ~ ~ - - - - - ~~~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~

effective technique for generating "experimental" data with which the instructor can develop a new topic. For example, instead of listing radical stabilities for the class to memorize, one can let the class deduce the proper order from experi- mental data. A lecture demonstration based on experiment 5.2 in Robert's text3 serves to generate the necessary data. Similarly, experiment 6-B in Helkamp and Johnson4 can be used to aenerate the necessary information for determining carbonic& ion stability. As the experimental data are obl tained, a chart is made on the blackboard. The students are asked to examine the results and to propose a general rule for stability of the species being examined. It is a gwd idea to have severaiother samples available to test the hypotheses pre- sented by students.

Brooks has noted that lecture demonstrations are generally falling out of favor by chemistry educator^.^ In light of the value of such demonstrations in encouraging Piagetian self- regulations and their value in demonstrating the experimental nature of cbemistrv this trend is most unfortunate.

The technique df letting students discover the principles of chemistrv hvexamining experimental data can he utilized even if suigbl; demonstraiioni are unavailable. Experimental results can be tabulated and generalizations drawn from these observations. I have used thiseffectively in discussing addition reactions to olefins. I never liked the idea of students memo- rizing "Markovnikov's rule" without ever thinking about the basis for the rule or understanding that certain "exceptions" are not reallv exceotions if one extraoolates the rule. Without mentioning~arkknikov, I write a series of reactions on the hoard and ask students to derive an empirical rule for such

1 Good, Ran, Kromhout, Robert, and Mellon, E. K., J. CHEM. EDUC., 56.426 (1979).

Karplus, Robert, et. al., "Science Teaching and the Development of Reasoning," 2nd Printing, Univeristy of California, Berkeley, Berkeley, CA (1978).

3 Roberts, R. M., Gilbert, J. C., Rodewald, L. B., Wingrove, A. S., "An Introduction to Modern Experimental Organic Chemistry," 2nd Ed., Holt, Reinhart and Winston, New York, 1974, pp. 110-111.

"elkamp, G. K., and Johnson, H. W. Jr., "Selected Experiments in Organic Chemistry," W. H. Freeman and Co., San Francisco, 1964, pp. 48-51.

Brooks, D. W., J. CHEM. EDUC.,55,18 (1978).

Participation

additions. After some discussion we can formulate an ex- tended "Markovnikov Rule" and move on to formulating a reason for the observed trend.

The above discussion suggests ways of simulating the "ex- perience" aspect of Piaget's theory in the lecture hall. Equally important is finding a way to generate "social interactions" in a lecture setting. In order to accomplish this I set aside time to solve prohlems in small groups. These group prohlems are given every two weeks. They were graded and returned so they did affectthe course gradehut wire not administered in rig-. urnus auir fashion. The groups usually consisted nf 3-4 stu- dents a i d were generallycou&nt through the term although this was not required. Problems were chosen from advanced texts, upper division courses and the primary literature. They were designed so that, individually, the students probably could notsolve the problems, butamong them the various pieces of necessary information would he properly applied. In order for this to be a beneficial exoerience for students. I felt that it was imperative that everyone get somewhere with the problem. Therefore, I remained in the classroom and walked around giving hints and answering questions. From ohserving the class and my own interactions with the students I felt that this teaching method was extremely successful. At the end of the term I gave a questionnaire in order to see whether students shared my positive attitude toward group prohlems. There were 41 respondents to my auestions. The students were instructed to check as manjadswers as were applicable; so often the totals on a particular question are much higher than 41. Key questions, with the number of re- sponses, are reproduced in Tables 1-4. Significantly, only 4 students did not feel there was any positive aspect to working tbese prohlems in a group.

I was concerned that some students might have been em- barrassed to work with others (Table 2). About 25% of the res~ondents did exoerience this. hut an eaual number were relieved to know that others were having sfimilar difficulties with the material. Thus I felt that the "embarrassment factor" was not significant enough to cancel the prohlems. It was my hope that students would feel some extra pressure to prepare for tbese problems and therefore feel more confident in the groups.

Table 1. Student Responses to the Statement: "Worklng Problems as Part of a Group in Class is a Positive Experience

Because" (Circle all that apply)

32 A) They force me to think aloud. 20 B) I can ask questions of my classmates rather than the instructor. 21 C) I can imeract with the instructor as he walks around.

4 D) I do not think working these problems is a positive experience. 10 E) Mher reasons for liking the problems are (Please comment if appli-

cable).

Table 2. Student Responses to the Statement: "Working with Other Students" (Circle all that apply)

33 A) Helps me understand the material. 10 8) is embarrassing because I am afraid they know mare than I do. 10 C) is helpful because I see they do not know more than I do. 3 D) Doesn't Impress me one way or the other.

Volume 57. Number 6. June 1980 / 433

Table 3. Student Responses to the Statement: "In My Group.. ." (Circle all that apply)

to A) One person plays a dominant role 1 B) I play a dominant role. 2 C) One person never contributes. 1 D) I never contribute.

31 E) There is an active and roughly equal exchange of ideas.

attached onlv minimal sienificance to these erades. The onlv reason for gi;ing some point value was so that students would take the urohlems seriously and give their best efforts. In practice only 2-3 course grades were affected by performance on these group problems.

Through the use of simulated laboratory data and group problem solving, the essence of Piaget has been introduced into the lecture hall. That this endeavor is worth the effort is

Table 4. Student Responses to the Statement: "Overall I Think Working These Problems as a Group Is . . ."

10 A) Very helptul. 26 B) Helpful.

3 6) Not helpful.

Because I did grade these problems I wanted to know whether everyone contributed or if one student dominated a group. The significant finding here (Table 3) was that 10 students perceived someone as a dominant member, hut only one student felt dominant. Since the problems were graded, this perception would have been cause for concern had I not

reflected both in the student response to the specific ques- tionnaire and in the eeneral course evaluation. Manv students indicated that thetappreciated the opportnuiti to think about the material durine the lekture time. The number of students indicating a hig< interest in the subject matter in- creased by 55%. The number of students indicatine a low in- terest in (he material decreased hy 78% These numbers are of increased signifirance hecause this wns the third quarter of organic chemistry, by which time most students wouid have developed a reasonably strong interest level.

I do not believe the "loss" of lecture time is significant if one considers the benefits. Typically, I used the last 20-25 min of a class period for the problems, so over the course of the term only about two lecture days were "lost." These are readily made up, especially if class time is usually devoted to quizzes or problem solving.

434 1 Journal of Chemical Education