Upload
others
View
3
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Scholarship of Teaching and Learning
Redesign of Introductory Chemistry Courses through a Chemistry Resource Room
Proposal Authors: Kathryn Asala, Banita Brown, Richard Jew, Katharine Popejoy
Pilot Section Instructors/eHomework Designers: Stacy Hutchison, Susan Michael
Staff Manager/Data Analyst: Matthew Olian
Introduction
In 2009, we proposed an 18 month transformation of space in the Burson building into a
Chemistry Resource Room (CRR). With the funding, our goals were to renovate the space, purchase
furniture and computers, and hire undergraduate workers to staff the room. We proposed to require
CHEM 1251 (Principles of Chemistry I) students to use this space in a Fall 2010 pilot to remediate their
study skills and understanding of the material with the overall goal of lowering DFW rates and increasing
student satisfaction with the class. We intended to assess the success of the pilot through examining
DFW rates and through attitudinal surveys of the students in the course. We also planned for longer
term incorporation of the CRR into curricula for higher‐level chemistry courses, such as CHEM 2131
(Organic Chemistry I).
The timeline of this project was delayed by one semester due to the renovations of the space in
Burson. The reconstruction work was not completed until January 2011. Thus, the project was piloted in
two sections of CHEM 1251 in Spring 2011 instead of the proposed Fall 2010 semester. Despite the
delay in the project, we have met all of the aforementioned goals and have found that the majority of
the students in the two pilot sections were pleased with the CRR and the resources it offered. These
results suggest that students feel better about the course knowing that the CRR is available even if their
learning is not significantly improved, and that the Chemistry Resource Room may be best utilized in
conjunction with other initiatives.
The construction of the Chemistry Resource Room, execution of online and offline resources,
and results of assessment data are detailed below.
Construction of the Room
Although a portion of the SoTL grant was initially allocated to reconstruction, Academic Affairs
and the Department of Chemistry funded the
reconstruction of the space in Burson 239 due to the
cost of the renovations greatly exceeding the SoTL
grant allocation. The construction converted a
former research computer lab, TA room, storage
closet, and access corridor (1212 square feet) into
the current CRR. The walls between each of these
former areas were taken down to establish a larger,
more open space with a window facing into the
hallway and toward a building window to allow
more ambient light and to make the room more
visible to passing students. New lighting was also installed to make the room brighter. Another set of
interior windows was moved to the adjacent computer lab to make it more visible, while doorways were
created from the computer lab to the hallway and between the computer lab and the CRR. The back
wall was painted”uncertain gray” as an accent wall, while power and Ethernet hubs were installed in the
floor at three central locations. We elected to go with Ethernet ports instead of wireless access so that
the room would not get inundated with wireless users, as this would have been the only WiFi access
point in the building. New carpeting was laid down, while new whiteboards and a periodic table were
mounted at various locations around the room. The SmartPodium, projector, and screen from Burson
119 were moved upstairs and installed in this room as well.
The construction finished in late
January 2011, by which point we had
purchased and assembled 8 square, laminate
tables and 32 red fabric, sled‐base chairs.
Computer tables that had previously been in
the research computer lab were used for 5 PCs
that were bought from a previous grant.
Eventually, one‐time monies from the CLAS
Dean’s Office were used to purchase an
additional 4 tables and 10 chairs, a new desk
for the CRR staff worker, and an additional 2
PCs and 4 iMacs. These additional computers
were put up on the additional tables. A
bookcase was added next to the CRR staff desk to hold reference textbooks. Copies of the textbooks
from all chemistry courses and extra books for CHEM 1251 were placed in the CRR.
Staffing and Maintenance of the Resource Room
The majority of the SoTL money was used to hire 5 undergraduate workers (Michael
Kielmanowicz, Logan Moseley, Grace Millsap, Anjail Ameen, and Martin Trinh) and a post‐baccalaureate
staff manager (Matthew Olian). Stacy Hutchison, a part‐time faculty member, assisted with the
scheduling and staffing of the CRR, while Matt was responsible for the day‐to‐day operation of the room.
Matt created an Employee Handbook with standard operating procedures for opening and
closing the room, including booting up/shutting down computers, putting away answer keys in locked
cabinets, and logging students into the room. Each undergraduate staffed the room for 4 hours per
week, while Matt staffed the room 20 hours per week. Additional hours were made up by TAs (1‐2
hours per week) and faculty (1‐2 hours per week) to staff the room for roughly 45 hours per week,
including 11 am – 8 pm open hours between Tuesday and Thursday. Staff workers helped students
solve book and eHomework problems through guided inquiry.
As the room usage increased, we realized that we needed a faster system of logging student
information, so we bought an ID scanner that registers 800‐IDs from students’ UNCC ID cards. Matt and
Dr. Jew created a combination of macros and formulas to pull a student’s information from the current
semester’s roster and register the time the student entered the room. In addition, we created a check‐
out system for textbooks, answer keys, and software by trading for student ID cards as collateral. The
undergraduate staffers kept all of the paperwork updated and sent Matt the scanner logs for their shifts
at the end of each shift.
CHEM 1251 Pilot
The Chemistry Resource Room pilot was tested in Spring 2011 CHEM 1251 Sections 002, taught
by Mrs. Susan Michael, and 003, taught by Mrs. Stacy Hutchison. To ensure that students would use the
CRR, points were built into the syllabus around the room’s usage. These two sections had 100 out of
800 points allocated toward “Participation” in the CRR between Exams 1 and 2 (Unit 2), between Exams
2 and 3 (Unit 3), and between Exams 3 and 4 (Unit 4). Students who scored 90‐100 on Exam 1
automatically earned 34/34 Participation points for Unit 1 and were not required to use the CRR.
Students who scored 80‐89 on Exam 1 earned 25/34 Participation points; 70‐79 on Exam 1 earned 15/34
points; 60‐69 on Exam 1 earned 5/34 points; and <59 on Exam 1 earned 0/34 points. Students could
earn a maximum of 12 points per week between Exams 1 and 2; over 3 weeks, this amounted to 36
possible points. Students who scored 80‐89 could earn all of their Participation points back by
completing one week’s worth of assignments in the CRR at any point during Unit 2; students who earned
70‐79 needed to use the CRR for at least two weeks to get all of their Participation points; and so forth.
This encouraged students who performed poorly on exams to go to the Resource Room for remediation
over multiple weeks and helped them realize that continuous study is necessary for their success.
For each of the 3 weeks during Unit 2, the first week was strictly review of topics from Exam 1.
The second and third weeks were current topics from Exam 2. Because the topics in chemistry build
progressively, we encouraged students to review and master material from the previous exam to help
build their foundation for upcoming material. Despite the 36 possible points available during each Unit,
students could earn a maximum of 34 Participation points.
Although we had intended to use problems that were hard‐coded on the computers in the CRR
to enforce CRR usage, this was not feasible, so we decided to class test MasteringChemistry, an online
homework system by Pearson, for these purposes. The sizeable number of non‐traditional students
enrolled in CHEM 1251 made it difficult to require students to spend time, physically, in the Resource
Room. Students who work during the day and live far from UNCC are especially hard‐pressed to come in,
so MasteringChemistry seemed a suitable compromise for rigor and accessibility. Susan Michael and
Stacy Hutchison set up mirrored assignments for their students on a Unit‐by‐Unit basis.
MasteringChemistry provides a number of tutorial questions, which are useful for the type of student
targeted by this pilot.
Susan Michael created a handout detailing the login instructions for MasteringChemistry. These
handouts were available only in the CRR to introduce students to the room and to the CRR staff.
Although some students realized that these online assignments could be done from home, the CRR staff
encouraged all students to take advantage of the computers and the live help offered in the CRR.
Students who continued to work on MasteringChemistry from home were still actively working on
chemistry problems, so CRR staff did acknowledge that the work could be done from anywhere but
pointed out the benefits of working at the CRR. To further encourage students to work in the CRR, hard
copies of weekly problem sets, quizzes, exams, textbooks, and answer keys for all of the previous
materials were available for checkout in the CRR.
In addition to the online homework, the Chemistry Resource Room was also used as a location
for Supplemental Instruction (SI) sessions and for Team Approach to Successful Learning (TASL)
workshops for CHEM 1251, both of which were aimed at aiding students with problem solving. Over 7
days before finals, the CRR staff workers also held review sessions for the final exam for all students
where 1‐2 chapters’ worth of material was covered in each session. Although these uses did not
specifically support the pilot testing, they showed the utility of having such a space to bring together
students of a variety of aptitude levels.
Usage Statistics
Due to the large number of students using the room, the door between the CRR and the
adjacent computer lab were kept open during normal operating hours, with staff workers going
between both rooms to help students as needed. As of May 2, 2951 total logins were recorded, with an
average of 268 logins per week. A total of 420 unique students visited the CRR.
Of students who came into the CRR, 152 students came only once, 182 students came 2‐5 times,
and 82 came 6 or more times, with two students logging in 22 times over the course of the semester.
Attendance fluctuated almost periodically, with an uncharacteristically high attendance in Week 11
before finals. Interestingly, the data do not show a significant linear increase in attendees nor a large
drop‐off in attendees after the Withdrawal date, both of which we had expected. Of the unique
attendees, 327 were from CHEM 1251, 30 were from CHEM 1252, 45 were from CHEM 2131, and 18
were from CHEM 2132. The organic students were present more often toward the middle‐to‐end of the
semester.
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Number of Students
Week Number (February 7th ‐ April 29th)
Students
Analysis of Student, Staff, andInstructor Satisfaction
Stacy Hutchison, Matthew Olian, and Richard Jew designed a survey with both multiple choice
and free‐response answers to assess student satisfaction with the room.
Regarding the learning environment in the CRR (questions 1‐7), over 50% of respondents agreed
or strongly agreed that the learning environment was conducive to learning and studying, except that
only 49.2% replied that they agreed or strongly agreed that they felt comfortable asking to use
resources like answer keys and whiteboards. 35.6% of respondents strongly agreed that they felt
comfortable asking questions in the CRR, while 66.7% agreed or strongly agreed that the room was
conducive to group studying. These results suggest that we have created an appropriate atmosphere
for study and for collaboration within the CRR, but that we need to more actively advertise the variety
of resources available in the CRR.
Staff workers (questions 8‐12) were generally perceived as helpful and competent in chemistry.
Over 60% of respondents agreed or strongly agreed that staff workers were courteous, knowledgeable,
and approachable, although only 51.5% agreed or strongly agreed that the workers could be easily
identified. In the future, we plan on having pictures of the staff posted in the room and nametags for
the staff to use.
Responses to questions 13‐16 about motivation for using the CRR were unexpected. Only 46.7%
agreed or strongly agreed that they would not have used the CRR if not for the assignments, while
29.2% would have used the room of their own volition. 34.2% of respondents agreed that they started
attending the Resource Room due to the associated Participation points, but continued to use the room
after that. Only 34.7% agreed or strongly agreed that they did not use the CRR when they scored well;
the 37.7% who disagreed with this statement likely recognized the utility of the room even when their
scores were high. However, 24.7% stated that they did not return to the CRR for help with concepts
they didn’t understand after previously using the CRR, so it is likely that students used the CRR more as a
group study location than as a remediation tool.
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
0 5 10 15
Exam Weeks
Non Exam Weeks
Linear (Exam Weeks)
Linear (Non Exam Weeks)
Finally, students generally liked Mastering Chemistry and found that it related well to the topics
in class and was a useful source of problems. Interestingly, 54.4% of students found that live personal
support was beneficial. This seems to tie in with the inhibition many students seemed to face in
approaching the staffers for assistance or for access to resources available in the room.
Free‐response questions generated roughly the same results, with students recognizing the
benefit of having a room specific to chemistry and chemistry personnel over a general classroom or
computer lab. Although students appreciated the drop‐in availability of the room compared to
instructor office hours, some students were not satisfied with staff who taught concepts differently from
their instructors. 75.3% of respondents affirmed that the previous Unit review prior to subsequent
assignments from new chapters helped retention of previous material.
Matthew Olian and the undergraduate workers all noted a tendency for students to work on
MasteringChemistry without asking for help. All of the staff had to verbally engage students before
those students would feel comfortable asking for help. The reluctance to request help was the biggest
impediment for most of the staff to overcome. They also cited a need to restrict the number of minutes
allocated to each student to ensure that all students who needed help could be helped.
Grade Statistics
Of the Section 002 students who attended the CRR one or more times, 53.1% earned grades of
ABC, with 46.8% of students who used the CRR earning grades of DFW (27.9% DF, 18.9%W). These
results are significantly better than the average grades for the section, where only 41.6% of students
earned ABC grades and 58.5% earned DFW with 29.0% W grades. In Section 003, of students who
attended the CRR once or more, 52.6% earned ABC grades (versus 40.6% overall), 47.4% earned DFW
grades (versus 59.4% overall), with 15.8% earning W grades (versus 23.1%). As anticipated, of the
students who did NOT attend the CRR, 70.0% of Section 002 (49 students) and 85.8% of Section 003 (42
students) earned grades of F or W.
These results show that students who used resources in the CRR achieved higher grades than
students who did not use the CRR. Although not all students who used the CRR were able to pass CHEM
1251 with an A, B, or C grade, the higher B and C percentages compared to the overall course suggests
that CRR usage helps students succeed at the next higher grade level.
002 - Used CRR 002 - No CRR 002 - Overall 003 - Used CRR 003 - No CRR 003 - OverallA 5.4% 5.7% 5.5% 9.0% 6.1% 8.2%
B 19.8% 2.9% 13.1% 20.3% 0.0% 14.8%
C 27.9% 15.7% 23.0% 23.3% 2.0% 17.6%
D 12.6% 5.7% 9.8% 15.8% 6.1% 13.2%
F 15.3% 27.1% 19.7% 15.8% 42.9% 23.1%
W 18.9% 42.9% 29.0% 15.8% 42.9% 23.1%
# 113 70 183 133 49 182
Future Study
In using the CRR in the future, we plan to implement changes with employees and with
resources.
We have found that Matthew Olian’s managerial position is a necessity for coordinating
scheduling, for developing routine policies, and for collecting and processing data. Additionally, having a
manager with experience with upper‐level chemistry classes has been useful, as students from organic
and biochemistry often stopped in to ask for help. Sustainability, however, will be a challenge, as the UA
and managerial positions were funded through the SoTL grant. We may be able to use one Graduate TA
as the manager and have other Graduate TAs spend 1‐2 hours per week in the Resource Room, but
without additional funding, we will not be able to keep the room staffed for as many hours as we have
in Spring 2011. Finally, we will need to have photos of the employees posted at the beginning of the
semester, as they give the employees a sense of authority and pride in their work while also making
these employees visible to the students using the CRR.
Beyond financial resources, we would like to supply the CRR with more physical resources to
encourage students to explore beyond the information presented in class. We are currently working on
getting duplicate textbooks and answer keys for a number of different levels of chemistry so that
students who have more complicated questions can go to another resource, while other students who
need more basic explanations can find those as well. We would like to have a variety of molecular
modeling kits as well so that students can build representations of the chemicals they are studying in
class. Electronic modeling and other Flash/video resources are equally useful and can be made
accessible on the local drives of the CRR computers as long as there is no copyright infringement.
Another model we have considered is using online office hours with the CRR staff so that students can
have virtual “drop‐in” tutoring if the CRR is not particularly busy.
Finally, the large increase in the number of organic chemistry students using the room suggests
that we may be able to have the CRR be a resource for the entire department. We have already had
several meetings and ceremonies held in the CRR, but further incorporation of the room in the curricula
of other classes will help establish a central meeting location for students and faculty alike.
Dissemination of Results
In our original proposal, we planned to disseminate our work at conferences like the ASTE and
NARST. Pearson is interested in the results of our Resource Room usage in conjunction with the
Mastering Chemistry program, and we have discussed our results informally with Michael Moore and
others in CHHS to see how they could increase usage of their Resource Room. We hope that the CTL can
provide guidance with appropriate journals in which to publish and appropriate conferences at which to
present. In addition, if there are ways to disseminate our finding across the UNCC campus, we would be
happy to provide the data we have collected.
Dear Student: You can add to your Participation Points in Chem 1251 by completing assignments on Mastering Chemistry. What You Need:
A valid email address A Student Access Code: (given below)
ZIP or other postal code for your school: ___28223____________
A Course ID: (given below) 1. Register
• Go to www.masteringchemistry.com and click Students under Register. • To register using the student access code inside the MasteringChemistry Student Access Code
Card/Kit, select Yes, I have an access code. Click Continue. • License Agreement and Privacy Policy: Click I Accept to indicate that you have read and agree
to the license agreement and privacy policy.
• Select the appropriate option under “Do you have a Pearson Education account?” Continue to give the requested information until you complete the process. The Confirmation & Summary page confirms your registration. This information will also be emailed to you for your records. You can either click Log In Now or return to www.masteringchemistry.com later.
• The Access Code for your section is as follows: a. If you are registered for Chem 1251 Section 003 with Ms. Hutchison:
Your Access Code is: PSSMC-PASHM-PREYS-MEDAN-HIGHS-VIRES
b. If you are registered for Chem 1251 Section 002 with Mrs. Michael: Your Access Code is: PSSMC-CRISS-PREYS-MEDAN-SHAWM-VEXES
2. Log In • Go to www.masteringchemistry.com. • Enter your Login Name and Password and click Log In.
3. Join Your Instructor’s Online Course and/or Open Self-Study Resources Upon first login, you’ll be asked to do one or more of the following:
• Join a Course by entering the MasteringChemistry Course ID. a. If you are registered for Chem 1251 Section 003 with Ms. Hutchison:
Your Course ID is Hutchison1251
Your Access Code is PSSMC-PASHM-PREYS-MEDAN-HIGHS-VIRES
b. If you are registered for Chem 1251 Section 002 with Mrs. Michael: Your Course ID is Michael1251 Your Access code is PSSMC-CRISS-PREYS-MEDAN-SHAWM-VEXES
To Access MasteringChemistry Again Later Simply go to www.masteringchemistry.com, enter your Login Name and Password, and click Log In. After you have joined a course: You can open any assignments from the Assignments Due Soon area or from the Assignments page. For self-study, click eText or Study Area, if these options are available. Support Access Customer Support at http://www.masteringchemistry.com/support, where you will find:
• System Requirements • Answers to Frequently Asked Questions • Additional contact information for Customer Support, including Live Chat
Resource Room Survey On scantron sheet, bubble in your response for questions 1‐20 Strongly Disagree = 1 (A) Disagree = 2 (B) Neutral = 3 (C) Agree = 4 (D) Strongly Agree= 5 (E)
Environment
1. I feel comfortable asking questions in the CRR.
2. The CRR has appropriate resources.
3. The CRR has a good stock of resources.
4. The CRR is physically comfortable.
5. The noise level in the CRR is conducive to self‐studying.
6. The noise level in the CRR is conducive to group studying.
7. I feel comfortable asking to use resources, like answer keys and whiteboards, in the CRR.
Staff
8. The CRR staff workers were courteous.
9. The CRR staff workers were knowledgeable about chemistry.
10. The CRR staff workers were approachable.
11. The CRR staff workers successfully assisted me without directly giving answers to problems.
12. I could easily identify the CRR staff worker.
Usage/Motivation
13. I would NOT have used the resource room if my participation assignments were not located there.
14. I started using the CRR only because of participation assignments, but sometimes returned to study after that.
15. I did not use the CRR when I scored well on my exams.
16. After using the CRR, I returned to the CRR to get help with concepts I didn't understand.
Assignments/Mastering Chemistry
17. Rate the overall effectiveness of Mastering Chemistry assignments. 18. I feel that online assignments with live personal support were an effective out‐of‐the‐classroom learning tool.
19. I feel that the feedback provided by Mastering Chemistry helped me understand underlying concepts more than answer keys to homework.
20. I feel that Mastering Chemistry paralleled course material well.
Free response follow‐up
How is the resource room different from:
(a) the library
(b) a computer lab
(c) instructor's office hours
(d) a study room
Did the set‐up where a unit review preceded new assignments help your
retention of information from previous sections?
What else would motivate you to use the CRR?
Number Question S. Dis. Disagree Neutral Agree S. Agree %SD %D %N %A %SA %(A+SA)
1 comfortable asking questions 7 21 56 41 69 3.6% 10.8% 28.9% 21.1% 35.6% 56.7%
2 appropriate resources 3 12 52 71 57 1.5% 6.2% 26.7% 36.4% 29.2% 65.6%
3 good amount of resources 3 11 73 64 45 1.5% 5.6% 37.2% 32.7% 23.0% 55.6%
4 physically comfortable 4 19 52 61 60 2.0% 9.7% 26.5% 31.1% 30.6% 61.7%
5 noise good for self‐study 6 21 50 68 50 3.1% 10.8% 25.6% 34.9% 25.6% 60.5%
6 noise good for group study 2 13 50 83 47 1.0% 6.7% 25.6% 42.6% 24.1% 66.7%
7 comfortable asking for resources 4 25 70 49 47 2.1% 12.8% 35.9% 25.1% 24.1% 49.2%
8 courteous workers 3 9 46 77 59 1.5% 4.6% 23.7% 39.7% 30.4% 70.1%
9 chemically knowledgeable workers 1 6 58 71 58 0.5% 3.1% 29.9% 36.6% 29.9% 66.5%
10 approachable workers 4 15 53 66 56 2.1% 7.7% 27.3% 34.0% 28.9% 62.9%
11 workers assisted without direct answers 6 8 63 71 49 3.0% 4.1% 32.0% 36.0% 24.9% 60.9%
12 easily identified workers 8 21 66 61 40 4.1% 10.7% 33.7% 31.1% 20.4% 51.5%
13 would NOT use w/o participation 26 31 47 47 44 13.3% 15.9% 24.1% 24.1% 22.6% 46.7%
14 started w/participation, kept going 18 33 55 67 23 9.2% 16.8% 28.1% 34.2% 11.7% 45.9%
15 did not use CRR with good exams 30 44 54 38 30 15.3% 22.4% 27.6% 19.4% 15.3% 34.7%
16 returned to CRR for help 17 48 68 37 24 8.8% 24.7% 35.1% 19.1% 12.4% 31.4%
17 effectiveness of Mastering 14 18 41 73 46 7.3% 9.4% 21.4% 38.0% 24.0% 62.0%
18 live personal support needed for eHW 7 22 59 52 53 3.6% 11.4% 30.6% 26.9% 27.5% 54.4%
19 Mastering feedback > book feedback 8 24 42 63 54 4.2% 12.6% 22.0% 33.0% 28.3% 61.3%
20 MC paralleled course material 5 15 40 79 52 2.6% 7.9% 20.9% 41.4% 27.2% 68.6%