Redesigning a Preparatory Chemistry Course

1. Redesigning a Preparatory Chemistry Course Rebecca A. Krystyniak Mike Dvorak Saint Cloud State University March 17, 2008

2. Our Project • Redesigning Chemistry 140 • Preparatory chemistry course • Annual enrollment of ~750 students • Currently in the Pilot phase (double section = 50 students) with a full implementation planned for Fall 2008 (150 students)

3. Traditional Course Issues • Increase in class size has decreased student-instructor contact time • Difficulties utilizing active learning/small group activities in the course • 26.1% of students are receiving D’s, F’s and Withdrawls • Students need a C or better to enroll in 141 or 210 • Catering to different populations of students with a large range of background chemistry knowledge • Large number of faculty teaching course, including fixed term faculty (7 instructors teach CHEM 140 per year)

4. Redesign Project Plan • Supplemental Model of Redesign • 2 instructors per semester - an auditorium model • Each with 200 students • Teach collaboratively • Utilize audience-response system if desired • Web-based tutorial program (ALEKS) • Incorporate active learning into lecture • Combine lecture and group work during class time

5. Incorporate undergraduate Learning Assistants (LA’s) into course - both lab and lecture • Use Learning Assistant model from University of Colorado-Boulder • Develop a 1 cr. pedagogy course for LA’s • Each LA will have 10 student groups of 4 • LA’s lead outside of class active learning assignments

6. Current Implementation • Spring 2008 pilot • 50 students in redesigned course (a 100 ss traditional course also being offered) • 1 instructor • 7 Learning Assistants • Facilitating in class active-learning • Leading out-of-class activities • Enrolled in pedagogy course • ALEKS web-based tutorial • Fall 2008 Full-pilot • 150 students in redesigned course • 4 learning assistants • 2 instructors co-teaching course (to train faculty)

7. Cost Savings • Cost savings have not yet been realized • Intent is to decrease number of faculty teaching the course, while including Learning Assistants in the course

8. Obstacles • Mini-pilot study • Redesign faculty not teaching the course • Technology implementation issues • Student buy-in • Faculty buy-in • Large lecture course shy • Department in state of change • Outside of class time • Scheduling of LA’s

9. Successes • Final exam average score • mini-pilot (75 ss) 60.5% • traditional section (154 ss) 55.7% • First exam score in pilot (50 ss) • 5 points higher than in previous semesters with a median score of 90.4% • Positive informal feedback from students in pilot • ALEKS, active learning, and LA’s • Learning Assistants in mini-pilot • Believed that they learned teaching strategies and provided opportunities for students to gain a deeper understanding of the content.

10. Future Directions • Collect focus group data from students and Learning Assistants • Learning Assistants as an impetus for change in our department and other departments • Utilize faculty mentoring model for teaching redesigned courses • Investigate use of audience-response system in lecture • Investigate use of a laboratory coordinator with redesigned courses