Janet Bond-RobinsonJanet Bond-RobinsonArizona State UniversityArizona State University

Chemistry & Biochemistry Chemistry & Biochemistry Dept.Dept.

RedesignRedesignGENERAL CHEMISTRY

Non-science MajorsScience Majors

Sem I and IIEngineering Majors

2640 + 1800 Enrolled

Science Majors and Non-science MajorsScience Majors and Non-science Majorswithin the General Chemistry Enrollmentwithin the General Chemistry Enrollment

PROBLEM

PRECIPITATING FACTORS

SOLUTION

PICTURES OF REDESIGNED COLLABORATION AREA

FUNCTION RECITATION TAs

COST SAVINGS

RETENTION

LEARNING GAINS THUS FAR

THREE IN-DEPTH SURVEYS GIVEN TO STUDENTS

ANALYSIS OF STUDENT POPULATION DIFFERENCES

ProblemProblem

The time already allocated was inefficiently used by the program

Each lab TA ran a little recitation for 50 minutes at the beginning of the 3-hr lab

Nothing cohesive among TAs Done with some preparation or “on the

fly” No knowledge about what TAs did

A recitation HOUR could be much more useful and cohesive to students

Precipitating FactorsPrecipitating Factors

Generally, many students weren’t learning enough. Students knowing how to use out-of-class time

for effective learning Poor long-term memory of concepts 25-40% DFW rate Lab TAs didn’t know what was happening in

the lecture class; couldn’t help.

We took a poor long octagonal classroom/low ceiling Traded it for our previous monopoly of six pre-

lab classrooms (fit 24) Our Redesign $$$ leveraged 10x more from

university and Steelcase Company.

SolutionSolution

INCREASE STUDENTS’ TIME ON GUIDED WORK outside of lecture and lab

Each course adopted use of Online Homework Removed 50 min from lab

to generate enrollment for 70 recitation sections in a collaborative learning format

Lab TAsLab TAs could teach more: less time/lab and no prep for recitationfrom 6 hr to 8 hr (from two labs to 4 labs) Fewer Lab TAs needed

“Recitation TAs”: a TA devoted to conducting 6-8 recitations of 50 minutes.

Specialized TA could focus on course concepts

Faculty members wrote conceptual activities

PILOT FULL IMPLEMENTATION

Recitation TAs function as facilitators.Recitation TAs function as facilitators.

Cost SavingsCost Savings

Due to a change in the way recitation occurred

2/3 as many TAs needed for recitation time in new format

24% decrease in overall number of TAs: 101 to 77

~ $20,000 + 13,500 tuition + 7.2% of base // TA35,000 x 24 = $840,000 saved annually

Reason for Fewer TAs w/ 72 students, i.e., 2; not 3 Collaborative work in tables of 6 promoted

discussion among studentsThe “scripted” activity was written by a faculty

member of each course

Reduction of teaching assistants Reduction of teaching assistants was important and desirable. was important and desirable.

The shortage of chemistry graduate students had resulted in hiring graduate students

outside our dept.to staff the general chemistry program.

Since no one in the department knew these graduate students or their chemistry

background, this situation provided uncertainty

in quality control of teaching assistantsfor students enrolled

in our introductory chemistry courses.

Cost Savings, cont.Cost Savings, cont.

Substituting 5 full-time “instructors” at the Master’s level for 8.5 TAs working 50% time.

We gained equivalent of + 1.5 TA annuallyAt savings of $40,500 annually.

cost 5 instructors’ salary + benefits = $51,400 * 5 = $257,000 for instructors vs $297,000 for TAs

Total Annual Cost Savings ~ $881,000

Student Retentioni.e., Lowering DFW rate

W defined: (# taking 1st exam - # grades given).

Non-Science Majors’ Course No pattern of retention

DFW Averaged 31% over 3 semesters of Traditional, Pilot, and Full Implementation

Recorded change in population from 40% nursing and kinesiology to below 30% due to Downtown course increased enrollments

Science Majors Sem I Course DFW dropped 4% from 24.1% Traditional

to 19.9% Redesigned Course

Student LearningStudent Learningas measured by common exam questionsas measured by common exam questions

Non Science Majors No pattern over three semesters of

traditional, pilot, and full implementation

Science Majors No common exam questions in the

Traditional First implementation semester

Only 30-45% of students answering correctly on four of the eight questions

Questions selected Fall 08 too fact oriented rather than understanding

Student Populations Very DifferentStudent Populations Very Different

Approaches to Learning Survey: 3 scoresMeaning-oriented; Strategic; Surface/Apathetic Taken at midterm; very possible “Instructor

Effect”Non-Sc Maj course significantly more surface

Evaluation of Recitation Activities Understanding Content: Good; ScMaj Course Working in Groups: Good; no difference Use of Technology, Software, & Physical

Objects Recitation TAs: Good; ScMaj Course

+ Online Homework: time/wk, attempted, % completion Non-ScMaj Course

AcknowledgementsAcknowledgements

Pam Marks

Allan Scruggs

Ron Briggs

Jim Allen

Rich Bauer

Holly Huffman