Developing a Sustainable Approach to Problem Based Learning in Chemistry

Dr. Dylan Williamsdpw10@le.ac.uk

Developing a Sustainable Approach to Problem Based Learning in Chemistry

Dr. Dylan Williamsdpw10@le.ac.uk

Department of ChemistryDepartment of Chemistry

INTRODUCTIONINTRODUCTION

Since 2007 the Department of Chemistry at Leicester has introduced PBL content into some undergraduate courses.

Between 2007-09 the Department was the lead institution of Strand 3.2 of the CFOF project (funded by the HEFCE & managed by the RSC).

This presentation focuses on the changes we have made to our PBL approach since 2007.

MOTIVATIONSMOTIVATIONS

To investigate potential benefits of the introduction of PBL including:Greater appreciation of chemistry in a wider context.Increased student engagement and peer teaching.Development of transferable skills.Improved understanding of connections between different areas within the subject.Improved student retention.

YEAR 1 – FORMAT

18 PBL sessions were introduced in to a core level1 inorganic-physical module replacing 8 lectures and 7 workshops.

Students worked in small (5-6) groups on week long problems (2 × 1 hr sessions).

Learning supported by Blackboard VLE.

Facilitators guided the learning process by engaging students in dialogue.

Facilitators guided 3 groups per session.

YEAR 1 – ASSESSMENTYEAR 1 – ASSESSMENT

Facilitators gave feedback at the end of every problem - Further modifications allowed until the end of the problem scenario.

Final individual marks took into account the group mark, facilitator comments, the mark from individual essay and peer review survey responses.

YEAR 1 – PROBLEMS YEAR 1 – PROBLEMS

‘A Tiny Adventure’ (weeks 1-6) - students acted as scientific advisors to a movie studio.

States of Matter, Size & Scale, Bonding, etc.

Spectroscopy based problems (weeks 7-10).

YEAR 1 – EVALUATION

Students formed strong bonds with group members – low drop out rate.

PBL did not adversely affect the module average – encouraged weaker students to work.

Most students liked the format.

Overall, the introduction of PBL into the Department was successful.

YEAR 1 – EVALUATION

PBL is resource intensive - Contact time, number of staff & suitable teaching space.

Structure of the problems made it difficult to give students detailed feedback to reflect on.

Students dislike waiting to a facilitator during contact sessions.

Some students felt the scenario got in they way of learning.

Staff identified need to make the process more efficient in terms of facilitator time.

YEAR 2 - CHANGES

Introduce longer problems – combine existing problems to create a series of two week long problems & use the final session to give detailed feedback.

Improve the student access to facilitators – facilitators only work with 2 groups per session.

Cut some film dialogue in the scenario.

Produce robust assessment criteria & facilitator guide – detailed guide prepared.

YEAR 2 MODULE STRUCTURE

Session 1 – Planning session run in much the same way as 2007/08.

Session 2 – Group progress meeting: students must give a short summary of what research they have done since S1.

Between S2 and S3 students upload a draft answer which facilitators check.

Session 3 – Each group receives detailed feedback from the facilitator – this is a major improvement on the previous year.

YEAR 2 - ASSESSMENT

Individual essay replaced with peer assessment task – each student marks a part of another group’s wiki.

Peer review survey simplified in order to make it easier to scale marks.

YEAR 2 - BENEFITS

Students spend more time with facilitators during sessions (in 07/08 - facilitator spent 18 hrs with 3 groups, in 08/09 - 14 hrs with 2 groups in 08/09)

More use of PhD students as facilitators – reduces the teaching cost.

Improved peer review survey is much easier for staff to interpret.

Students get a chance to see work submitted by other groups.

YEAR 2 - EVALUATION

Answers Percent Answered

The PBL was OK but we often had to wait to see our facilitator and this wasted time

60%

Because PBL was done in teams it was a good way to meet people and make friends

58.5%

I thought the PBL topics were integrated well with the module 56.9%

Doing PBL in teams was useful, I found it helpful to talk about some of the concepts with other students and PBL forced me to do this.

41.9%

PBL made me think about the course material in a different way 41.9%

I thought the PBL did not improve my understanding of chemistry at all 

20%

I thought the PBL problems did not integrate well with the rest of the module

13.8%

I didn't mind the problems but I did not like working in a group it would be better if you worked on your own.

6.1%

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Dr Dai Davies, Prof Derek Raine, Dr Jonny Woodward, Dr Sarah Symons and all staff at the University of Leicester Department of Chemistry and Centre for i-Science.

Dr Katy McKenzie and all facilitators

Strand 3.2 Partners