Taking a scientific approach to undergraduate* science (chemistry) education

Based on the work of many people, some from my 20+ yrs in undergrad sci ed research (including chemistry)

* applies to all levels but with some caveats

(as opposed to approaching as art form or random trial & error)

Carl WiemanPhysics and Graduate School of Education

Stanford University

How to optimize chemistry education in lieu of increasingknowledge and needs?

New stuff and new skills to learn, more specialization– Have to fit more in! What should the curriculum look like?

What fraction of the material you learned in classes do you use?

What fraction of the material you use did you learn in classes?

Before any discussion of curriculum

So what is important for student to learn?

What should students learn?

The basic elements of chemistry expertise(how to think more like chemist)

I. Nature of expertise and how it is learned

II. Implementation in science classroom and data on effectiveness

III. Some particular challenges in chemistry for improvingteaching

cognitivepsychology

brainresearch

College sciclassroom

studies

Major advances in past few decades Guiding principles for achieving learning

or ?

Expert competence =• factual knowledge• Mental organizational framework retrieval and application

I. Expertise research*

• Ability to monitor own thinking and learning

New ways of thinking-- everyone requires MANY hours of intense practice to develop.Brain changed

*Cambridge Handbook on Expertise and Expert Performance

patterns, relationships, scientific concepts,

historians, scientists, chess players, doctors,...

Learning expertise* (any level)--

Challenging but doable tasks/questionsPractice all the elements of expertise with feedback and reflection. Motivation critical!

* “Deliberate Practice”, A. Ericsson researchaccurate, readable summary in “Talent is over-rated”, by Colvin

Subject expertise of instructor essential!

Exercise brainNot listening passively to someone talk about subject

• conceptual and mental models + selection criteria• recognizing relevant & irrelevant information• does result make sense? - ways to test• …

Example from teaching about current & voltage

1. Preclass assignment--Read pages on electric current. Learn basic facts and terminology. Short online quiz to check/reward. (Simple information transfer. Accomplish without using valuable expert & class time)

2. Class starts with question:

II. Application in the classroom(best opportunity for useful feedback & student-student learning)

Student practicing thinking like scientist, with feedback

When switch is closed, bulb 2 will a. stay same brightness, b. get brighterc. get dimmer, d. go out.

21 3

3. Individual answer with clicker(accountability=intense thought, primed for feedback)

4. Discuss with “consensus group”, revote.Practicing physicist thinking– conceptual model, examining conclusion, finding ways to test, further testing & refining model. Listening in! What aspects of student thinking right, what not?

Jane Smithchose a.

5. Demonstrate/show result (phet cck)

6. Instructor follow up summary– feedback on which models & which reasoning was correct, & which incorrect and why. Large number of student questions/discussion.

Students-practicing thinking like scientist (with feedback)Instructor talking ~ 50% time, but responsive

Chemistry clicker/peer discussion/practicing-expert-thinking question examples (analytic):

Control--standard lecture class– highly experienced Prof with good student ratings. (A “good teacher”)Experiment–- physics postdoc trained in principles & methods of effective teaching.

two ~identical sections of 1st year college physics. 270 students each.

They agreed on:• Same learning objectives• Same class time (3 hours, 1 week)• Same exam (jointly prepared)- start of next class

Research– comparing learning in the in classroom*

*Deslauriers, Schewlew, Wieman, Sci. Mag. May 13, ‘11

1. Targeted pre-class readings

2. Questions to solve, respond with clickers or on worksheets, discuss with neighbors (“Peer Instruction”)

3. Discussion by instructor follows, not precedes.

4. Activities address motivation (relevance) and prior knowledge.

Class design- as described

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 120

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

Test score

nu

mb

er

of

stu

den

ts standardlecture

experiment

Histogram of test scores

Clear improvement for entire student population.Engagement 85% vs 45%.

ave 41 ± 1 % 74 ± 1 %

guess

~ 1000 studies, all fields of STEM (~20 by me)

Active practice and feedback versus conventional lecture Typical--• x 50-100% more learning on instructor-independent measures• 1/3 -2/3 lower failure and drop rate

Meta-analyis of several hundred studies (Freeman et al PNAS 2014)--gains similar all levels, all sci & eng disciplines

NRC-- “Discipline-based Educ. Research in Sci & Eng.” (NAS Press 2012)

Examples:• Cal Poly-- improved learning & teaching methods dominant

factor in teacher effectiveness (=amount learned)

• UCSD– failure rates

Most research --Learning in a course (class, homework, exam studying)

9 instructors, 8 terms, 40 students/section. Same prescribed set of in-class learning tasks.

Hoellwarth and Moelter, Am. J. Physics May ‘11

average trad. Cal Poly instruction

1st year mechanics

CS1* CS1.5 Theory* Arch* Average*0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

24%

14%

25%

16%

20%

10%11%

6%3%

7%

Standard Instruction Peer Instruction

Fail

Rate

U. Cal. San Diego, Computer ScienceFailure & drop rates– Beth Simon et al., 20124 different instructors

III. Cultural challenges to improving chem ed (relative to other sciences)

• Instructors feel compelled to cover too much, too fast.• Excessive reliance on poor exams. High failure rates OK.• Data has less impact-- how well expertise being learned &

conditions for long term retention.

Examples:1. a. What is in the bubbles in boiling water?

(After completing 1st year chem class less than half get correct,~ 40% say H and O atoms,. Only 6% change due to course.) Even a few grad TAs miss!!

Similar on other very basic questions like conservation ofmass and number of each type of atom in chemical reactions.

Examples (cont.)2. Not just in intro. We observed profound conceptual deficiencies in 3rd year P-chem.

3. Belief that “equilibrium means everything has stopped” still present in many upper level students.

Most fundamental aspect of chemistry expertise– basic mental models and when to apply.

Results like #1-3 known but much less concern/response in chemistry than similar results in physics.

My groups work studying learning of Intro Quantum Mech.–

Students leave intro chem class with some memorized QM facts& small mangled pieces of the concepts

Instruction-induced perceptions of subject (expert-novice) Chemistry vs. Physics Measured for bio majors taking both intro chem and physics

Both courses generally bad results but two particularly surprising*

* CLASS.colorado.edu --survey and some research papers

1. Significantly more likely to agree with “It is impossible to discuss ideas in chemistry without using equations.” than with physics equivalent.

2. Significantly less likely to perceive chemistry as having real world connections compared to physics.

real world connections response strongly correlates with interest & choice of major

Good References:S. Ambrose et. al. “How Learning works”Colvin, “Talent is over-rated” Discipline-based Educ. Research in Sci. & Eng. Nat. Acad. Press (2012)

cwsei.ubc.ca-- resources, references, and videos

Summary: Taking a scientific approach to chemistry teaching

Tremendous opportunity for improvement– • What is desired chemistry expertise? • How to provide sufficient practice and

feedback to learn? • Measure results rigorously, use data to

guide instruction

copies of slides + 20 available

Effective teaching practices, ETP, scoresvarious math and science departments at UBC

before and after for deptthat made serious effortto improve teaching

CBE—Life Sciences Education Vol. 13, 552–569, Fall 2014

The Teaching Practices Inventory: Wieman & Gilbert

extras below, may need to answer questions

Some ideas for moving ahead1. Use new educational tools that enhance learning(e.g. simulations -- show gas and salts sims)

2. Chem Curriculum and Teaching of the Futurea. Delineate desired cognitive capabilities(What can they do that indicates success?)Look for common cognitive processes across areasof chemistry and chemical engineering practice

b. Design curriculum by figuring out how to embedthese mental processes into range of desired contexts.

c. Always focus on “What thinking can they do?”,not “What material has been presented to them?”and be scientific--measure results and iterate

II. What does it look like in classroom?(can go into more details later if desired)

• Designed around problems and questions, not transmission of information and solutions

• Students actively engaged in class and out with thinking and solving, while receiving extensive feedback

• Teacher is “cognitive coach”-- designing practice tasks, motivating, providing feedback

My most recent paper…Cog. psych– “cognitive load” (processing demands on brain) impacts learning.

Me—Hypothesis. Jargon in biology increases processing demands. So presenting concepts before jargon would achieve better learning.Biologists Lisa M. & Megan B. to testReading before class. Textbook vs. textbook without jargon. Then same active-learning class for both with jargon.

DNA Structure Genomes0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40 Control Concepts-First

Free response question

To

tal S

co

re

test of learning at end of classLisa McDonnell & Megan Barker & CW

II. Role of faculty

Practice tasks– challenging but achievable. (and motivating)Explicitly practice expert-like thinking.Specific and timely feedback to guide thinking.

demand expertise in teacher

Unique at Stanford– extraordinary expertise of faculty

“Talking textbook”—little expertise needed or transferred

Effective teaching (exercising learner’s brain)– demands and transfers expertise

teacher as “expertise coach”

IV. What does “transformed teaching” feel like to faculty?led large-scale experiment– changing how entire large science departments teach

Is possible, but is a new expertise. Takes ~~ 100 hours to master basics.Normally, no incentive to. (teaching practices & student learning never count)

Requires changing beliefs about learning--What is best, what is possible.

New faculty perspectives:• teaching more rewarding & intellectually challenging• different limitations on learning

Useful (=evidence of improved learning) at college level so far only when enhances capability of teachers.

• task accountability and feedback to more students (online homework, in-class clickers)

• interactive simulations online--better convey expert conceptual models(e.g. PhET.colorado.edu ~ 130 Million delivered, 75 languages)

Role of technology

Large part of my time.Crusading for improved undergrad math and science teaching. (outside Stanford)Talk & write about & my large scale experiments in change– UBC and CU science depts.Better ways to evaluate university teaching

What about K-12?

These effective methods work at all levels, but require much more subject mastery than does lecture. K-12 science teachers need much better college science education and better model for teaching science before they can use these methods effectively.

• concepts and mental models + selection criteria• recognizing relevant & irrelevant information• what information is needed to solve• How I know this conclusion correct (or not)• model development, testing, and use• moving between specialized representations

(graphs, equations, physical motions, etc.)

Compare with typical HW & exam problems, in-class examples

• Provide all information needed, and only that information, to solve the problem

• Say what to neglect• Not ask for argument why answer reasonable• Only call for use of one representation• Possible to solve quickly and easily by plugging into

equation/procedure

Has NONE of the expertise in light bulb question design:

• Recognize expert conceptual model of current. • Recognize how physicists would use to make

predictions in real world situation. • Find motivational aspects in the physics (“Lets you understand how electricity in house works!”)

The conventional alternative:

“Here is circuit with resistors and voltage sources. Here is how to calculate currents at A and B and voltage difference using the proper equations.... “

8 V 1

2

1

AB

12 V

What expert thinking will students not practice?

When switch is closed, bulb 2 will a. stay same brightness, b. get brighterc. get dimmer, d. go out.

21 3

Physics expertise in question design:• Recognize expert conceptual model of current. • Recognize how physicists would use to make

predictions in real world situation. • Find motivational aspects in the physics (“Lets you understand how electricity in house works!”)

answer &reasoning

• concepts and mental models + selection criteria• recognizing relevant & irrelevant information• what information is needed to solve• does answer/conclusion make sense- ways to test• model development, testing, and use• moving between specialized representations

(graphs, equations, physical motions, etc.)• ...

Some components of S & E expertise

Only make sense in context of topics.Knowledge important but only as integrated part– how to use/make-decisions with that knowledge.