1 / 29

Physical Science Oral and Practical Examinations

Waterloo, April 29 th 2010. Physical Science Oral and Practical Examinations. M. Lautens, A. Dicks, R. Batey, S. Skonieczny. Chemistry Department, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. Waterloo, April 29 th 2010. University of Toronto Chemistry Department.

rhea
Télécharger la présentation

Physical Science Oral and Practical Examinations

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Waterloo, April 29th 2010 Physical Science Oral and Practical Examinations M. Lautens, A. Dicks, R. Batey, S. Skonieczny Chemistry Department, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada

  2. Waterloo, April 29th 2010 University of Toronto Chemistry Department CHM 249H CHM 248Y CHM 343H

  3. Waterloo, April 29th 2010 CHM 249H 2010 44 students, Chemistry major and/or specialist program Grading Scheme: 2 Term tests10% each 1 Oral exam 10% Laboratory 35% Final exam 35%

  4. Waterloo, April 29th 2010 Oral Examination Issues Teaching staff Time Design Administration Evaluation Students Preparation Anxiety Learning experience

  5. Waterloo, April 29th 2010 Oral Examination Teaching staff: Time 10 students: 5 hrs. (oral or written examination) Hambrecht G., Delta Kappa Gamma Bulletin, 2003, 69, 31-32.

  6. Waterloo, April 29th 2010 Oral Examination Teaching staff: Design “Name” reactions: Claisen Condensation Fischer Esterification Strecker Synthesis Over 100 reactions for students to choose from

  7. Waterloo, April 29th 2010 Oral Examination Teaching staff: Administration Wednesday March 31st

  8. Waterloo, April 29th 2010 Oral Examination Teaching staff: Evaluation

  9. Waterloo, April 29th 2010 Oral Examination Teaching staff: Evaluation

  10. Waterloo, April 29th 2010

  11. Waterloo, April 29th 2010

  12. Waterloo, April 29th 2010

  13. Waterloo, April 29th 2010 How much time did it take you to prepare ? “1”: 1 hr.; “4”: 5 hrs.; “7”: 10 hrs. or more n = 37 %

  14. Waterloo, April 29th 2010 How stressful did you find the oral exam ? “1”: not at all; “4”: moderately; “7”: highly stressful % n = 37

  15. Waterloo, April 29th 2010 Did you find the examiners friendly ? “1”: not at all; “4”: somewhat; “7”: extremely friendly n = 37 %

  16. Waterloo, April 29th 2010 How much do you think you learnt ? “1”: nothing; “4”: a moderate amount; “7”: a lot n = 37 %

  17. Waterloo, April 29th 2010 How important is the oral exam as an assessment method? “1”: unimportant; “4”: moderately; “7”: extremely n = 37 %

  18. Waterloo, April 29th 2010 Oral Examination: Student Comments “Oral exam was very useful for exploring one reaction in depth. I liked the chance to meet with the prof”

  19. Waterloo, April 29th 2010 Oral Examination: Student Comments “Oral exam was very useful for exploring one reaction in depth. I liked the chance to meet with the prof” “The oral exam was stressful, but it helped me deal with these kinds of “events” at the university” “The oral exam was an incredibly valuable experience, and greatly increased my interest in organic chemistry. It added another dimension to the class”

  20. Waterloo, April 29th 2010 Oral Examination: Student Comments “The oral exam was a very different university assignment as it was an opportunity for students to present what they are interested in yet still show what they have learned from lecture. Also, it was nice to have some individualism in such a large university”

  21. Waterloo, April 29th 2010 Oral Examination: Student Comments “The oral exam was intimidating. But despite that and not being able to answer most of the questions Prof. Lautens/Dicks threw at me, I took time to think about it as a whole after the fact, and truly appreciated the experience. It was a great component of the course. Wish all my courses had an oral exam”

  22. Waterloo, April 29th 2010 CHM 248Y: Laboratory Practical Examination Martius Yellow, Multiple Synthesis

  23. Waterloo, April 29th 2010 CHM 248Y: Laboratory Practical Examination Martius Yellow, Multiple Synthesis • A race • All reactions work well • All compounds colourful • Instructor taking part • Analysis of each intermediate • i) melting point • ii) IR spectrum • iii) purification

  24. Waterloo, April 29th 2010 CHM 343H 2010 46 students, Chemistry major and/or specialist program Grading Scheme: 1 Term test15% Laboratory 45% Laboratory exam 5% Final exam 35%

  25. Waterloo, April 29th 2010 Practical Examination Issues Design Fairness over multiple days Evaluation No student preparation! = lower anxiety Insists on “lab autonomy”

  26. Waterloo, April 29th 2010 Practical Examination Approach “Olympiad” style: no preparation Students given procedure on the day(s) Synthesis of a sunscreen compound Focus on techniques learnt in lab Straightforward evaluation/ discrimination

  27. Waterloo, April 29th 2010 Unsolicited CHM 343H Feedback “The lab exam was sooooooo good; there was no talking and I could concentrate and think for myself without having a million people coming to me asking for help or what to do. All labs should be like that”

  28. Waterloo, April 29th 2010 Conclusions: • Requires planning and time • Topics may be tailored • Students are nervous before • Students are happy after • Build up of confidence • Learning experience

  29. Waterloo, April 29th 2010 Literature: Pause, B.M., Adolph, D., Prehn-Kristensen, A., Ferstl, R. Int. J. Psychophysiology, 2009, 74, 88-92. Schoofs, D., Hartmann, R., Wolf, O.T. Stress, 2008, 11(1), 52-61. Roecker, L. J. Chem. Educ.2007, 84(10), 1663-1666. Schraw, G., Brooks, D.W., Crippen K.J., J. Chem. Educ.2005, 82(4), 637-640. Brooks, D.W., Schraw, G., Crippen K.J., J. Chem. Educ.2005, 82(4), 641-644. “Student Learning Assessment. Options and Resources”, Middle States Commission on Higher Education, Philadelphia 2003.

More Related