2004

Reflection, Research, ApplicationThe on-going Transformation Cycle in Chemistry

121/123

2004

Initial conditions LiteraturePedagogical decision

Issues we considered:Student responseTA responseExperience

What are your

conditions?What about

the pedagogical perspective

?

What issues do you need

to consider?

ongoing

Conclusion

Reflection Research Discussion

recursiveness scaffolding

2004

SETTING

• 2500 students term 1 (Chem 121 + Chem 154)

• 1600 students term 2 (Chem 123)

• 35 TAs

• 1 laboratory instructor

• 2 part-time lab technicians

• Alternate week labs

2004

ALTERNATE WEEK LABS

BEFORE:• 11 labs per term• learning by repetition • better technical skills

AFTER THE CUTS:• 6 labs per term• no time for repetition• poorer technical skills

2004

Let’s look at the incoming students

• Surface learning

Memorization and repetition (Bloom Taxonomy Lowest Levels)

• Difficulties in processing written information

• Poor laboratory skills

• Difficulties integrating concepts

• Poor transference skills: eg. difficulties in contextualizing math for chemistry

• Unable to apply acquired skills in unfamiliar situations

2004

PEDAGOGICAL PROCESSResult: Guided Inquiry

to understand principles

to be able to design

an experiment

requires synthesis of

theory and method

experiential knowledge is required in the

Deep Structure Learning

Theory Method Application

Laboratory

2004

LAB COMPONENTS

• Problem: Students need to apply theoretical concepts,

become familiar with the techniques and synthesize them to

create an experimental design.

How could we facilitate students’ lab preparation outside the

classroom?

• Solution:

– Dry Lab Week (outside the lab)

Preparation for the Experiment

– Wet Lab Week (inside the lab)

Performing the Experiment

2004

Developmental Strategy

new Lab Manual

e-learning tools

Virtual Lab

Bridging to the Lab

on-line techniques

Glossary

Library Skills Mini Course

Crystal Models Tutorial

CAI

WebCT quizzes

WebCT Forum

Tutorials

Molecular Models Tutorial

2004

Initial conditions LiteraturePedagogical decision

Issues we considered:Student responseTA responseExperience

What are your

conditions?What about

the pedagogical perspective

?

What issues do you need

to consider?

ongoing

Conclusion

Reflection Research Discussion

recursiveness scaffolding

2004

TRANSFORMATIONBEFORE:• 6 wet labs per term• step-by-step instruction

NOW:• 6 wet labs per term• 6 dry labs per term• guided inquiry instruction

BEFORE:

30% have a good grasp of volumetric analysis

NOW:

95% have a good grasp of volumetric analysis

Choosing Analytical Glassware

2.1 3.9

24.9

69.0

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0

80.0

0 1 2 3

Mark (out of 3)

% Students

Example of outcomes: Volumetric Analysis Quiz

2004

TAs Preparation

• TAG/Skylight workshop in guided inquiry teaching

• Practical training for individual experiments

2004

One Student’s Comment….

When we had problems in the lab she

didn't just give us the answers.  She

gave us clues that would lead us to the

answers so that we could think for

ourselves and derive the answers to

our problems on our own.

2004

One TA’s Comment….

…. It is, of course, more difficult to teach the inquiry-based

program—the teacher needs to think, in order to

respond to the students’ questions with something other

than a rote answer out of the lab manual. It is also more

difficult for the students, but the vast majority of them

rise to the challenge—they are not, by and large, in

university because they dislike thinking. In fact, it’s

delightful to watch the students in the first few weeks of

class as they realise that they are not only allowed to

question, they are supposed to question.

2004

What we see in the lab

Before:

• The most common type of question was factual ….

Now:

• More process related, “why” questions

• Less fact related questions

• Discussions

2004

Initial conditions LiteraturePedagogical decision

Issues we considered:Student responseTA responseExperience

What are your

conditions?What about

the pedagogical perspective

?

What issues do you need

to consider?

ongoing

Conclusion

Reflection Research Discussion

recursiveness scaffolding

2004

CONCLUSIONS

• Students are better prepared

• Less stress in the laboratory

• More interest

• More accomplished in the lab

• More advanced questions

• Synthesis of theory, method and application

2004

Not everything is perfect….

• Novice learners

• Workload and organization

• Taking responsibility for one’s own learning

• Help outside the lab

2004

Development Team:

• Sophia Nussbaum (Director)

• Matt Le Page

• Joanne Nakonechny (Skylight)

• Cyprien Lomas (Skylight)

• Students:

– Alexei Polishchuk

– Zev Thompson

• Illustrations:

– Elizabeth Varty

• Librarian:

– Kevin Lindstrom

SUPPORTED BY GRANTS

From

ACADEMIC COMMITTEE FOR THE CREATIVE USE OF

LEARNING TECHNOLOGIES (ACCULT)

and

TEACHING AND LEARNING ENHANCEMENT FUND

(TLEF)