=========================================================================
Date: Mon, 10 Jun 1996 07:03:00 EDT
From: to2 <Thomas_C_O'HAVER@UMAIL.UMD.EDU>
Subject: Discussion of Paper 1 begins
CHEMCONF '96
New Initiatives in Chemical Education
An On-Line Symposium, June 3 to July 19, 1996
Sponsored by the American Chemical Society's
Division of Chemical Education
Organized by:
Donald Rosenthal, Department of Chemistry, Clarkson University, and
Tom O'Haver, Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry,
The University of Maryland at College Park.
It is Monday, June 10, 1996.
Papers 1 to 5 are now available and may be retrieved
from the World Wide Web.
(The URL is http://www.wam.umd.edu/~toh/ChemConf96.html)
>From 8 AM Eastern Daylight Saving Time (EDST) today until 8 AM
EDST on Wednesday, June 11 you have an opportunity
to discuss Paper 1 -
"What is AAAS Project 2061? Why Should Chemists Care?"
by Jerry A. Bell and Andrew Ahlgren.
Your discussion and questions should be sent to:
CHEMCONF@UMDD.UMD.EDU or CHEMCONF@UMDD.BITNET
In order to insure that this On-Line symposium functions smoothly
PLEASE READ THESE BRIEF INSTRUCTIONS CAREFULLY.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Over 800 persons are registered on the Listserv CHEMCONF
Discussion List. This list is an unmoderated list. Any message
sent to CHEMCONF@UMDD.UMD.EDU or CHEMCONF@UMDD.BITNET will be
distributed to ALL subscribers. If you use the REPLY option
of your e-mail system your message will be sent to ALL subscribers
in most cases and NOT just to the sender of the message.
With over 800 subscribers it is important that extraneous messages
(noise) be reduced to a minimum. Messages which simply say "I agree
with this", "Right On", etc. should not be sent to CHEMCONF. Such
messages contribute little to the development of the dialogue. You may
if you wish send such messages to individuals.
The SUBJECT LINE can be useful in keeping track of
various discussion threads. For example:
P1 - GJ - A - JS - AAAS and Primary School Chemistry
P1 indicates the message pertains to Paper 1.
GJ are the initials of the sender - George Jones
D - JS identifies discussion (or an answer) of a question from JS
A brief (less than 40 character) description of the content or discussion
thread.
Please do not append or include a long quotation from the paper or
a previous question or discussion message. Quote only a few lines and
place a ">" at the beginning of each quoted line.
CHEMCONF IS NOT TO BE USED FOR SENDING GENERAL MESSAGES OR EXTRANEOUS
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
QUESTIONS.
^^^^^^^^^
Be courteous to others in your responses and your e-mail
practices.
Please make your comments and questions
carefully reasoned and succinct.
Send one long message rather than several short messages.
(Let's try to maximize Quality/Quantity.)
If you wish to sign off, change your mail options, retrieve files, etc.
remember to send such request to:
LISTSERV@UMDD.UMD.EDU or LISTSERV@UMDD.BITNET and
NOT CHEMCONF. (Listserv commands were provided when you signed on
and are available on the World Wide Web.)
Thomas O'Haver (University of Maryland, Phone: (301) 405-1831
e-mail: to2@umail.umd.edu), symposium co-chair, is managing the CHEMCONF
Listserv and the World Wide Web. Please contact Professor O'Haver about
Internet problems.
Donald Rosenthal
Symposium Chair and
Chair, Committee on Computers in Chemical Education
Clarkson University
Phone: 315-265-9242
E-mail: ROSEN1@CLVM.CLARKSON.EDU
Tom O'Haver Professor of Analytical Chemistry
University of Maryland Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry
College Park, MD 20742 Maryland Collaborative for Teacher Preparation
(301) 405-1831 to2@umail.umd.edu
FAX: (301) 314-9121 http://www.wam.umd.edu/~toh
=========================================================================
Date: Mon, 10 Jun 1996 09:58:26 -0400
From: JBELL <jbell@AAAS.ORG>
Subject: P1-DD/JB-SQ response
Dan Dill (Boston Univesity) wrote: Could you describe what you mean by an
absolute grading scale?
SHORT ANSWER: "Absolute" in this case means the grade depends directly on the %
correct, not "on the curve" to give a familiar distribution of A to F grades.
LONG ANSWER:We probably erred in using the term "absolute" grading scale and
should have used "criterion referenced" -- in distinction to "norm-referenced"
(grading on the curve). For the criterion-referenced system, the tester
decides, on some basis, that, say, 90% right is an A, 80% right is a B, and so
on. If everyone gets 90% right or better, everyone gets an A. So, each
student's grade is not affected by how well other students do. ("Criterion-
referenced" is a better label because it reminds the reader of the need to
choose a criterion, whereas "absolute" may offer false assurance that there is
some external, independent criterion.)
The difficulty for the instructor is in the "on some basis." In most academic
situations, the tester will almost surely have to adjust either (1) the
threshold percents or (2) the difficulty of questions, so that there is a
plausible distribution of grades -- probably not all A's or all F's. The
adjustment, however, occurs over time and with increasing experience, not on a
particular test or even during a particular semester. So how well students do
will likely affect grades (or, alternatively, how hard one has to work for the
same grades), although with a longer feedback delay than in the test-by-test
grading on the curve. That is, the criteria will probably be adjusted over
time, but will still be the same for all students in the course (and known to
them, a priori) at any particular time. Criterion-referenced grading is
therefore different from norm-referenced grading chiefly in the heavy demand it
puts on the test-maker to estimate consistently the difficulty of new tests.
=========================================================================
Date: Mon, 10 Jun 1996 10:30:53 -0400
From: JBELL <jbell@AAAS.ORG>
Subject: P1 - DR - SQ Response
P1 - DR - SQ - Effect of Recommendations of Project 2061 on Curriculum (from Don
Rosenthal, Clarkson College)
1. I do not have access to the ACS 1993 report "Chemistry at the K - 12
Level: An analysis of the chemistry content of the Project 2061
Benchmarks and the Scope and Sequence Content Core"
a. What affect would the adoption of the Project 2061 recommendations
have on the chemistry content?
ANSWER: The major effects on content would be to reduce the amount of
stoichiometric calculations and mole manipulations as well as the amount of
chemical nomenclature students would be responsible for on exams. There would
be an increase in material related to organic and biochemistry, materials
science, and real world and applied examples. The Chemistry in the Community,
ChemCom, materials more closely parallel both the 2061 and the NAS's National
Science Education Standards (NSES) than do traditional inorganic/physical
chemical high school and first-year texts.
b. Would the College Board Chemistry proficiency examination
and the New York State Chemistry Reagent examination have to
be changed because topics which are presently covered would be omitted?
ANSWER: Almost certainly there would have to be changes in such exams to
account for the difference in outlook of the new curricula based on new
standards. However, we must be careful to clarify that the standards try to
define what ALL students should understand and be able to do in science, not all
the science that SOME students (whose goals are clearly in the sciences) should
understand. The standards (in their entirety) are a subset of what these latter
students might get from a longer exposure to science than everyone else.
2. a. What impact would the Project 2061 recommendations have upon the
content of college-level General Chemistry courses?
ANSWER: Directly? Almost none. Indirectly, as collegiate instructors begin to
address questions of student understanding (as delineated in this paper and the
second by George Bodner), the Project 2061 methodolgy and principles can guide
the reconstruction of General Chemistry courses. There will not be a single
route to such reconstructions, but multiple routes, depending upon local
circumstances.
b. Would different textbooks be required?
ANSWER: Undoubtedly. Some of the directions that new texts would take are
implicit in the arguments in papers 1 and 2. In the best of all worlds, they
would support an inquiry-based approach that would rely a good deal more on
student experimental work and analysis and less on instructor talk. Not
everything can be "discovered", but it need not be recited didactically by a
lecturer or book either. There are other resources students can access in
libraries, through computer-based technologies, and from one another.
c. Is anyone presently teaching a college-level course which complies
with the Project 2061 recommendations? If so, what is the
syllabus for such a course?
ANSWER: Not that we are aware of, although experiments along the lines we have
discussed are going on here and there and are reported at ACS Meetings, through
the Journal of Chemical Education, and so on. We would not expect a collegiate
level course to follow the 2061 guidelines, but to be developed using the 2061
principles that stress understanding, not coverage. The largest initial changes
will probably be in the way that learning is assessed. The results of such
studies will be used to develop other changes.
=========================================================================
Date: Mon, 10 Jun 1996 09:11:00 -0700
From: Jaqueline E Madison <je_madison@CCMAIL.PNL.GOV>
Subject: Paper 1
I have a question to toss out. Do you really believe AAAS Project
2061 is to have teachers teach less? If that is the case, I'm dis-
appointed. I've read it and my impression is that more students would
learn science and may help to increase the numbers in the profession.
I would be interested in hearing from others.
J. Madison, Battelle PNNL
=========================================================================
Date: Mon, 10 Jun 1996 11:27:30 -0600
From: "John W. Moore" <JWMoore@MACC.WISC.EDU>
Subject: Re: P1-DD/JB-SQ response
Jerry and others,
FYI, I have been using an absolute scale for the past four or five years
with good success, and most people teaching general chem here in Madison are
doing the same.
If you are going to encourage cooperation and group work, this is a necessity.
I post grades after each exam so that students know how they are doing in
all aspects of the course. This may be illegal, given right to privacy act,
but students demand it.
However, I always have to adjust my expectations down during the semester or
at the end. This bothers me a bit, but I don't think it is worse than
changing the curve on an exam to generate a reasonable number of As.
John
>Dan Dill (Boston Univesity) wrote: Could you describe what you mean by an
>absolute grading scale?
>
>SHORT ANSWER: "Absolute" in this case means the grade depends directly on
the %
>
>correct, not "on the curve" to give a familiar distribution of A to F grades.
>
>LONG ANSWER:We probably erred in using the term "absolute" grading scale and
>should have used "criterion referenced" -- in distinction to "norm-referenced"
>(grading on the curve). For the criterion-referenced system, the tester
>decides, on some basis, that, say, 90% right is an A, 80% right is a B, and so
>on. If everyone gets 90% right or better, everyone gets an A. So, each
>student's grade is not affected by how well other students do. ("Criterion-
>referenced" is a better label because it reminds the reader of the need to
>choose a criterion, whereas "absolute" may offer false assurance that there is
>some external, independent criterion.)
>
>The difficulty for the instructor is in the "on some basis." In most academic
>situations, the tester will almost surely have to adjust either (1) the
>threshold percents or (2) the difficulty of questions, so that there is a
>plausible distribution of grades -- probably not all A's or all F's. The
>adjustment, however, occurs over time and with increasing experience, not on a
>particular test or even during a particular semester. So how well students do
>will likely affect grades (or, alternatively, how hard one has to work for the
>same grades), although with a longer feedback delay than in the test-by-test
>grading on the curve. That is, the criteria will probably be adjusted over
>time, but will still be the same for all students in the course (and known to
>them, a priori) at any particular time. Criterion-referenced grading is
>therefore different from norm-referenced grading chiefly in the heavy demand it
>puts on the test-maker to estimate consistently the difficulty of new tests.
>
>
John W. Moore
Professor of Chemistry
University of Wisconsin-Madison
1101 University Avenue
Madison, WI 53706
Phone: 608-262-5154
FAX: 608-265-8094
Email: JWMoore@macc.wisc.edu
World Wide Web: http://www.chem.wisc.edu/people/faculty/moore.html
=========================================================================
Date: Mon, 10 Jun 1996 12:44:34 -0400
From: "Jeff Davis (CHE)" <davis@CHUMA.CAS.USF.EDU>
Subject: Paper#1
As usual Jerry has hit the nail squarely on the head. The difficulty
students in General Chemistry have with anything but memorization and
formula-solving is legendary. Unfortunately this extends into just about
every kind of course. For several years I have been teaching a course I
designed for Liberal Arts students. Most of the texts that might be
suitable I found to be compilations of either chemical facts of an
applied sort or chemical principles and procedures often inclusive of but
much condensed from General Chemistry texts. A couple of years ago I
began using Chemistry in Context from ACS. There is an admirable effort
there to organize issues in which chemical knowledge is important and one
could say that the discussion of these issues is oriented effectively
toward illustrating that a variety of kinds of information are available,
not always consistent, and other kinds of information are still needed.
One can apply the "scientific method" using this information, or lack
thereof, to show how science works.
Unfortunately, the science itself is simply introduced in a "here it is"
approach. The actual science now becomes descriptive with minimal chance
for the student to see where the concepts were developed, how they relate
to concrete experiences, etc. So again the problem is that students don't
see chemistry as a science because they don't "do" any science.
Despite the fact that every textbook contains far more topics and detail
than any human being could ever use in a course, there still obviously is
a question as to what should be expected from a course like General
Chemistry or Organic Chemistry. In Florida, for example, we have many
transfer students that go from 2YCs to 4YCs and between the latter. I
have always felt that if a student truly understands the underlying
concepts and processes in an area he should be able to delve into
textbooks and other literature to bring himself up to speed once he finds
out what he is supposed to understand going in to a new course. The
question is, can an instructor articulate what the expectations are for
beginning his particular course beyond the simple listing of prerequisite
courses. Can a faculty decide what are the key things that are expected
as a result of taking a year of General Chemistry or a year of Organic
Chemistry. It appears not, but it seems to me that we have to move in
this direction if students are going to be instructed in such a way that
they can apply concepts intelligently to both real world happenings and
the manipulations they are taught to do in our courses.
Jeff Davis
Prof. and Chair
Univ. of South Florida
=========================================================================
Date: Mon, 10 Jun 1996 15:15:51 -0400
From: Brian Tissue <tissue@VT.EDU>
Subject: P1 - BT - discussion of reduced course coverage
I fully agree that chemistry courses should focus more on microscopic
concepts and macroscopic relevance, and less on algorithmic problem solving.
However, I think there is one major disadvantage of doing so by reducing
topic coverage. Continuing with the analogy from the paper of a mind as
paths in a forest, broad coverage produces many paths. When students or
graduates encounter new material later in their careers, they have relevant
paths, although faint, to help them effectively construct new knowledge and
understanding.
I don't think students have to completely understand every topic at the end
of a course for coverage of the topics to have been useful. It would be nice
if they at least had a clue, i.e., a faint path. Does anyone know of any
studies of the knowledge and understanding that chemistry graduates have
after working for some period of time after graduation?
Determining a reasonable coverage and depth in intro chemistry almost
depends on predicting the students' future exposure to chemical concepts.
Chemistry majors will have many of the topics reinforced in subsequent
courses, allowing coverage of more topics in less depth. Many non-majors
won't take another chemistry course, and whatever understanding or
misunderstanding of chemical concepts they possess when they leave intro
chem might persist for a long time.
Brian
***************************************************************
Prof. Brian M. Tissue phone: (540) 231-3786
Department of Chemistry FAX: (540) 231-3255
Virginia Tech e-mail: tissue@vt.edu
Blacksburg, VA 24061-0212 http://www.chem.vt.edu/
=========================================================================
Date: Mon, 10 Jun 1996 18:22:59 -0400
From: James Herron <j.herron@MOREHEAD-ST.EDU>
Subject: Re: P1-DD/JB-SQ response
In-Reply-To: <26061011243171@vms2.macc.wisc.edu>
A short follow-up to John Moore's comments:
On Mon, 10 Jun 1996, John W. Moore wrote:
> Jerry and others,
>
> FYI, I have been using an absolute scale for the past four or five years
> with good success . . .
>
> However, I always have to adjust my expectations down during the semester or
> at the end. . .
>
I have used a grading pattern similar to John's and have adjusted on this
basis: Total points in the course (quizzes, hour exams, labs, final,
etc) is 1000 and grades are based on %s of that. However, I make two
assumptions: a) Nobody, including me, could earn 1000 points because of
measurement errors (misread exam question, grader doesn't like the way I
format my lab report, etc.) and b) somebody in the class will acquire as
many points as it is humanly possible to earn. [In classes of 100 or
more, I feel reasonably comfortable with these assumptions, and there is
always somebody with a score of 930-980.] I then apply my percentages to
this top score to get the grade cuts.
This is NOT a true criterion-referenced grading system, which requires a
different REPORTING system as well, but it allows the possibility of
everyone earning high grades if they perform well on the assigned tasks.
J. Dudley Herron, Chair
Department of Physical Sciences
123 Lappin Hall
Morehead State University
Morehead, KY 40351-1689
=========================================================================
Date: Mon, 10 Jun 1996 18:55:45 -0400
From: James Herron <j.herron@MOREHEAD-ST.EDU>
Subject: Re: P1 - BT - discussion of reduced course coverage
In-Reply-To: <199606101915.PAA14912@sable.cc.vt.edu>
I had planned to respond to Jerry's paper but reading comments made by
others leads me to believe that the important issues are already being
addressed and I can just add my two cents worth!
On Mon, 10 Jun 1996, Brian Tissue wrote:
> I fully agree that chemistry courses should focus more on microscopic
> concepts and macroscopic relevance, and less on algorithmic problem solving.
> However, I think there is one major disadvantage of doing so by reducing
> topic coverage. Continuing with the analogy from the paper of a mind as
> paths in a forest, broad coverage produces many paths. When students or
> graduates encounter new material later in their careers, they have relevant
> paths, although faint, to help them effectively construct new knowledge and
> understanding. . . .
>
There is certainly merit to this argument, and it should not be dismissed
lightly. I suspect that we need to think about content in the same way
that Frank Martin thought about it at Purdue many years ago. He divided
content into what he called "minimum essentials" and "all the rest" (my
label, not his). He reasoned that there are many ideas that will be so
important in subsequent courses and any other place chemistry is applied
that one should ensure that those ideas are thoroughly mastered, and a
student could not pass his course unless they scored at least 80% on such
"minimum essentials." But Martin also felt that there are hundreds of
topics in chemistry that students should know a little about if time could
be found to expose students to them. Students were tested over these
less "essential" (but perhaps more interesting) topics, but the depth of
understanding required was lower.
I have argued for many years that we could reduce content in the
introductory course a great deal by focusing on more general concepts
using a single example (or very limited number) of subordinate concepts.
For example, beginning students have considerable difficulty with the
general concept of concentration (probably because of weak proportional
reasoning) and by introducing molarity, molality, mass percent, volume
percent, parts per million, and all of the other expressions of
concentration, we complicate things to the point that none of the
terms (or the more general concept, concentration) is sensible. With
insufficient time to sort out the relationship inherent in any concen-
tration term, students resort to rote memory in hopes of passing the exam.
Similarly, after a student acquires a sound understanding of any one
concept of acids and bases, one of the others can be developed from it.
However, when the introductory course introduces Arrhenius, Bronsted-Lowry,
and Lewis acids in a single chapter before the student has a chance to
consolidate his/her ideas about any one, confusion results. [This issue
is discussed in more detail in The Chemistry Classroom, available
from ACS Books.]
J. Dudley Herron, Chair
Department of Physical Sciences
123 Lappin Hall
Morehead State University
Morehead, KY 40351-1689
=========================================================================
Date: Mon, 10 Jun 1996 19:40:56 -0400
From: George Long <grlong@GROVE.IUP.EDU>
Subject: p1.comment.GRL.what should we teach in gen chem
> Can a faculty decide what are the key things that are expected
>as a result of taking a year of General Chemistry or a year of Organic
>Chemistry. It appears not, but it seems to me that we have to move in
>this direction if students are going to be instructed in such a way that
>they can apply concepts intelligently to both real world happenings and
>the manipulations they are taught to do in our courses.
>
>Jeff Davis
>Prof. and Chair
>Univ. of South Florida
>
This last paragraph highlights a criticism I have of this paper. While on
one hand it is stated that
(from paper 1)> Concepts are learned best when they are
>encountered in a variety of contexts and expressed in a variety of ways,
for that ensures that there are more opportunities for them to become
imbedded in a student's knowledge system" [AAAS, 1989, p. 198].>>
We continue to try to define the optimal curriculum. If the statement above
is true (and I think it is), then the optimal curriculum is different for
each individual. There should be no such thing as an optimal curriculum,
and no right answer to the question - what should we teach in general chemistry.
The problem faculty have is that our knowledge of the basic concepts is in
place, and so appears to us to have a a definite construction. However, to
use an analogy from physics, our path to understanding chemistry was chaotic
(despite the best efforts of our professors) and cannot be retraced - the
process of aquiring knowledge is not commutative. Thus I would argue that
the structure of chemical concepts we (as experts) have created for
ourselves does not necessarily represent a good pathway for learning those
concepts.
****************************************************************************
George R Long, Ph.D.
Department of Chemistry
Indiana University of Pennsylvania
Indiana, PA 15705
grlong@grove.iup.edu
412-357-2575
Our lives are merely trees of possibilities - Marc Bolan
****************************************************************************
=========================================================================
Date: Mon, 10 Jun 1996 19:56:39 -0400
From: Mary Swift <mswift@UMD5.UMD.EDU>
Subject: p1-mls-response
Starting out this conference with a paper that challenges the
"traditionalist's" way of thinking about chemical education was daring!
Congratulations!
The tyranny of the curriculum may be measured in part by the weight of the
textbooks we use to teach chemistry. These tomes obviously cannot be
'covered' in one semester or even two, so each of us makes choices [already]
about what is 'important' , what we will cover, how we will cover it, etc.
Bell and Ahlgren have I think set a frame work for others to consider in
making future such choices. The explosion of knowledge simply cannot be
accommodated by cramming more into the semester, we must work toward to
empowering our students in this environment. In some way, by some mechanism
the students need to develop into autonomous learners, after all that is
what we are as professionals.
Several of the examples cited use techniques fairly well established to aid
students as they progress in their intellectual development. These are
further reinforced when the assessment tool does goes beyond simple recall
or algorithmic problem solving. Changing our ideas of assessment will
be hard work even for those committed to such an endeavor. I suggest taking
a look at Bloom's Taxonomy (B.Bloom, Taxonomy of Educational Objectives,
The Classification of Educational Goals. Handbook 1. the Cognitive Domain
Longman Inc. New York 1956).
Another reference on the tradeoff between content and critical thinking is
Nelson, Craig in Enhancing Critical Thinking in the Sciences edited by
Crow and published by Society for College Science Teachers Washington DC
1989 pp17-27.
the fights over the preceived trade offs have been and will continue to be
monumental, but there is simply too much content and something has to give
I suggest we start thinking about this idea of autonomous learning and
giving students practice in this early and often.
Some of you may be familiar with the term constructivism as used by our
colleagues in liberal arts and the modern language association. Quite clearly
I thing Bell and Ahlgren are using this as a metaphor for one model of how
students may be trying to make sense of their studies. See the paper
by Bodner (j chem ed 1986, vol 63, pp 873-878 for more on this.
Mary
Mary L. Swift Voice: 202-806-6289
Biochemistry & Molecular Biology Fax : 202-806-5784
College of Medicine
Howard University E-mail: mswift@umd5.umd.edu
Washington DC 20059-0001
=========================================================================
Date: Mon, 10 Jun 1996 20:48:55 -0400
From: "Richard O. Pendarvis" <afn02809@AFN.ORG>
Subject: Re: P1-DD/JB-SQ response
On Mon, 10 Jun 1996, John W. Moore wrote:
> Jerry and others,
>
> FYI, I have been using an absolute scale for the past four or five years
> with good success, and most people teaching general chem here in Madison are
> doing the same.
At my school, we have only 2 chemistry faculty. I have graded with an
"absolute" grading scale for 8 years. My collegue has used curved grades
for the last 17 years. I personally feel that grading with a "curve"
assumes certain things about the distribution of student abilities which are
generally not valid in a small population at an institution like mine.
<Richard>
- - ____
| | _ | | Organic Chemistry
/ \ |_| | | || CAI Programming
/ \ | | / \ || Pizza
/ \ / \ | | _||_ Star Trek
(_________) (_____) |______| _/____\_ Doberman Pinschers
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Richard Pendarvis, Ph.D. P.O. Box 1388 |
| Associate Professor of Chemistry Ocala, FL 32608 |
| Central Florida Community College EMAIL: afn02809@freenet.ufl.edu |
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
=========================================================================
Date: Mon, 10 Jun 1996 21:22:02 -0400
From: "Richard O. Pendarvis" <afn02809@AFN.ORG>
Subject: P1 - Prj 2061 and Educational Reform in General
In-Reply-To: <01I5QLO7P6Z099DGDW@pnl.gov>
On Mon, 10 Jun 1996, Jaqueline E Madison wrote:
> I have a question to toss out. Do you really believe AAAS Project
> 2061 is to have teachers teach less? If that is the case, I'm dis-
> appointed. I've read it and my impression is that more students would
> learn science and may help to increase the numbers in the profession.
>
> I would be interested in hearing from others.
>
> J. Madison, Battelle PNNL
There are a number of things which are disturbing about the nature of
educational reform and our social system in general.
In a book called "Megatrends", J. Nesbitt articulated some thoughts that
many of us have pondered about the way change occurs in our civilization.
He said something to the effect that 'Trends {real change} begin at the
bottom of our society and work upwards. Fads start at the top and work
down.'
It seems that social organizations continue to try to bring
about change from the top and thus end up creating fads instead
of change. This appears to be true in government, religion, and
even education. Although I have only been in education for 8 years,
I have seen a number of these well intentioned educational reform
ideas pass by like hoola hoops and yo-yos.
If Project 2061 is to be successful, it must operate with a different
paradigm.
<Richard>
- - ____
| | _ | | Organic Chemistry
/ \ |_| | | || CAI Programming
/ \ | | / \ || Pizza
/ \ / \ | | _||_ Star Trek
(_________) (_____) |______| _/____\_ Doberman Pinschers
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Richard Pendarvis, Ph.D. P.O. Box 1388 |
| Associate Professor of Chemistry Ocala, FL 32608 |
| Central Florida Community College EMAIL: afn02809@freenet.ufl.edu |
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
=========================================================================
Date: Mon, 10 Jun 1996 22:49:10 -500
Comments: Authenticated sender is <cbailey@henry.wells.edu>
From: "Christopher T. Bailey" <cbailey@HENRY.WELLS.EDU>
Organization: Wells College
Subject: Re: P1-DD/JB-SQ response
Continuing with the discussion of absolute scale grading as previously
posted by John Moore and James Herron.
I grade in a manner very similar to James Herron---an absolute scale
with some slight ameliorative curving at the end of the semester. I
have found that one unexpected bonus to grading this way (where
assignments are worth *points* and only the final grade has a letter)
is that very few of my students become overly obsessed with grades.
Some students do come to me early in the semester worried because
they "only" got a "B" on a particular assignment. However, when I
explain to them that they did not get a "B", but *did* get 16 points
towards a possible 850 points for the semester, they start looking at
the big picture and begin to worry less and less about scores on
individual assignments.
*******************************************************
Christopher T. Bailey CBAILEY@WELLS.EDU
Associate Professor of Chemistry
Chair, Biological & Chemical Sciences Major Program
Wells College
Aurora, New York 13026
315-364-3286 http://www.wells.edu
=========================================================================
Date: Mon, 10 Jun 1996 23:44:03 -0500
From: Theresa Julia Zielinski <theresaz@CHEM.WISC.EDU>
Subject: P1, TJZ,D, More is less etc. (Long message)
Dear Colleagues,
I too have been advocating less content coverage to promote more effective
learning for a few years now. It is impossible to "cover" let alone have
students achieve a degree of mastery in the large variety of topics that most
courses present. I do not believe that a thin little used path in the brain
will
have any lasting benefit for the student. In fact all the concern with coverage
gives the teacher and the student a false sense of accomplishment and the
illusion of learning equivalent to the unread coffee table volume. Deeper
understanding comes with reflection. The ability to use concepts comes from
practice with the concepts in a variety of situations - not just in a homework
set. Learning difficult topics requires time.
In light of this I think that a careful full development of fewer topics not
only
permits a level of mastery in them but also provides the students with the
learning and metacognative skills that permit them to be independent
learners. In this way they can learn what they need to know whenever they
need to know it. My responsibility as a teacher is to create for students the
opportunity to do more than record in a notebook a carefully constructed
and filtered set of notes from my labors. They must build their own
understanding and take possession of their own learning as I did and still do
for myself. My student write their own notes for each other actively in class
and during homework sessions.
For this reason I embrace the ideas presented in the paper by Bell and
Ahlgren. I have a few comments that I would like to add to the discussion
before I leave town for two days without a computer.
First: I think that it is important to promote cooperative learning among our
students. There is too much competition for grades and much of it is due to
faculty test design and evaluation from early grades through graduate
school. The whole concept of a curve is repugnant to me. I think it may also
be unethical. How can a system that predetermines that a certain percent of
students must get an F be otherwise? What does this do to the moral of
students? What image does this portray of Science? It seems to me that it
would be difficult to put students in "competition" with the content not each
other when most faculty were raised on and many continue to practice
competition in their careers or hide the cooperative nature of their work. The
uniform adjustment of grades by sliding the requirements for letter grades is
not a curve. However, this approach must be used with caution as it can lull
students into believing that this will always happen and then they will not
perform to their optimum. Better would be a closer match between
expectations and outcomes from instruction. To do this I think it is necessary
to give students clear learning objectives for each unit of instruction.
Second: The fact that most of our students in the first year have not learned
to visualize models of atoms is not surprising. Students entering the first
year chemistry course are not usually ready to do this as they are still for
the
most part still at the concrete stage of intellectual development. See Herron,
J.Chem.Ed. vol 52, p 146, 1975. Also see Finster, J.Chem.Ed. vol66, p659,
1989 and vol68, p 753, 1991. Visualization and abstraction may just be
beyond their skill level and so they memorize to get by but don't have a
grasp of the underlying concepts. Furthermore they are given the illusion of
know something when really they don't. No wonder people are fooled by
clever advertising campaigns and pseudo science claims especially with
respect to risks and benefits and health claims. The situation persists into
pchem where the inability to visualize makes the mathematics used so much
magic for the majority of students. How much time is wasted because we
must teach mathematical visualization instead of the chemistry insights that
the math permits. We lose the forest, the trees, and the paths in this
scenario.
I have students who can't compute an equilibrium constant after completing
general chemistry and quantitative analysis sources. So much for those paths
that are little used. Sure the material was covered and these students passed
the exams on this material most with high scores.
Third: I too was impressed with the study done by Phelps. It struck a chord
with me as I saw my students represented in her descriptions. The
difficulties that science majors have in speaking up in class I think is more
than their "hiding behind the numbers." Their behavior is adequately
understood with in the Perry model of intellectual development. Most of the
students in a first year course are Dualists. Plug and Chug is normal for
them. Questioning the authority is not part of their behavior profile. With
careful design of our curriculum we can maintain this low level of
intellectual development right up to graduation day. Non- science majors
from the humanities don't usually have this problem. It is part of their
behavior pattern to challenge and assess the written and spoken word. They
are usually ahead of science majors in this type of development.
Forth: With respect to content. I still wonder how some teachers can persist
at equating covering content with student learning or effective teaching.
Many would say they don't but current practice shows that they do. It is
what students in science expect - lectures with entertainment. They even
prefer dull lectures to work hard active learning situations. After all they
are
paying you to lecture aren't they. Students for the most part, especially the
younger ones and those on lower rungs of the development schemes, are not
critical thinkers. They have not realized that the emperor has no clothes ,
i.e.- nothing is learned until one takes the material and wrestles with it and
builds it into ones own intellectual frame works. Faculty who do try to
promote critical thinking and active learning in the classroom are often
subjected to lower evaluations. This is especially hard on the younger
untenured members of the professoriat. It is exasperated by older faculty
who insist that nothing be changed in the methods used in the classroom.
In conclusion I think that instruction on learning how to learn needs to be
embedded into the chemistry curriculum along with technology. The best
way to do this is to model it ourselves and to incorporate reflection
promoting activities in class. This methodology means a switch to process
learning with context rich materials.
"Covering less" means critically thinking about the content of our courses. It
also means trusting that our students, after they finish our courses, will be
able to continue learning in the discipline without our supervision. Our trust
will be well founded if we give students the learning tools to use to stand on
their own in a rapidly changing technological environment.
Theresa Z.
Theresa Julia Zielinski, Ph.D.
Chemistry Department
Niagara University, Niagara University NY 14109
tjz@niagara.edu
and
Visiting Professor of Chemistry
University of Wisconsin - Madison
1101 University Avenue
Madison WI 53706-1396
theresaz@chem.wisc.edu
=========================================================================
Date: Tue, 11 Jun 1996 07:03:00 EDT
From: to2 <Thomas_C_O'HAVER@UMAIL.UMD.EDU>
Subject: Discussion archives now available
Dear ChemConfers:
An archive of the short questions submitted last week is now available
in plain text from from the ChemConf Home Page. Click on the link
labeled "Short Questions for Papers 1 to 5" to access.
An archive of the first day of discussion of Paper 1 are also
available. Click on the link labeled "Discussion of Paper 1".
I will update these discussion archives daily.
The ChemConf Home Page is located at:
http://www.inform.umd.edu/EdRes/FacRes/ChemConference/ChemConf96/Home.html
(shortcut: http://www.wam.umd.edu/~toh/ChemConf96.html)
Tom
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tom O'Haver Professor of Analytical Chemistry
University of Maryland Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry
College Park, MD 20742 Maryland Collaborative for Teacher Preparation
(301) 405-1831 to2@umail.umd.edu
FAX: (301) 314-9121 http://www.wam.umd.edu/~toh
=========================================================================
Date: Tue, 11 Jun 1996 09:17:54 -0400
From: JBELL <jbell@AAAS.ORG>
Subject: Madison comment--response
I have a question to toss out. Do you really believe AAAS Project
2061 is to have teachers teach less? If that is the case, I'm dis-
appointed. I've read it and my impression is that more students would
learn science and may help to increase the numbers in the profession.
I would be interested in hearing from others.
J. Madison, Battelle PNNL
RESPONSE (form Bell and Ahlgren): Students learn very little chemistry now and
understand less. (Those who doubt this are encouraged to give their seniors (or
entering graduate students) the freshman chemistry final--and, better yet,
interview the students about their answers.) Project 2061 wants students
to
_understand_ more, which will increase their satisfaction with the subject, how
much they eventually learn, and their likelihood of entering the field. This
understanding can be achieved by cutting what is fruitlessly _attempted_ to be
taught now. Other improvements to instruction, as represented in the other
papers, will no doubt help, but will hardly have a chance in the current glut of
attempted instruction. Does this mean that teachers do less teaching? Surely
not, since facilitating student understanding is much harder than simply
didactic exposition. Do they attempt fewer topics (subtopics and sub-
subtopics)? Yes.
=========================================================================
Date: Tue, 11 Jun 1996 09:45:34 -0400
From: JBELL <jbell@AAAS.ORG>
Subject: "Absolute" grading--Moore, Herron, Bailey
Moore, Herron and Bailey have all suggested versions of "absolute" grading
systems that reinforce our suggestion in paper #1. Here are two more.
Dudley Herschbach (reported in Tobias, "They're Not Dumb, They're Different",
page 60) uses the "resurrection points" system. Points lost on an hour exam for
errors on a particular kind of problem (say Hess' Law) can be regained by
successful execution of a problem of the same kind on the final exam, so no
points are irretrievably lost.
For about a decade I have used a much simpler version of Herschbach's system
that was, I am told, used many years ago by William Doering in organic
chemistry. In this system, any hour examination score (percent) is replaced by
the final examination score (percent), so that the student who learns from her
mistakes and does better on the final (cumulative) exam has her learning
accounted for. Over the years, I have found that this system does not result in
enormous jumps in scores for students (with rare exceptions--far under one
percent), but is an incentive for learning from the hour exams (instead of
filing them someplace irretrievable). Some students increase their grades by a
half point or so (B to B+, e.g.) and fewer students fail abysmally (although
some still do fail, of course). This system requires less extensive record-
keeping than Herschbach's, but is not as "personalized" and does not recognize
each individual's strengths and weaknesses.
J.A. Bell, AAAS
=========================================================================
Date: Tue, 11 Jun 1996 10:13:25 -0400
From: Jack Martin Miller <jmiller@SANDCASTLE.COSC.BROCKU.CA>
Subject: Re: P1-DD/JB-SQ response
>On Mon, 10 Jun 1996, John W. Moore wrote:
>
>> Jerry and others,
>>
>> FYI, I have been using an absolute scale for the past four or five years
>> with good success, and most people teaching general chem here in Madison are
>> doing the same.
Richard Pendarvis replied,
>At my school, we have only 2 chemistry faculty. I have graded with an
>"absolute" grading scale for 8 years. My collegue has used curved grades
>for the last 17 years. I personally feel that grading with a "curve"
>assumes certain things about the distribution of student abilities which are
>generally not valid in a small population at an institution like mine.
>
This is very true, but of large classes as well --- marking on acurve
assumes a bell curve but large chemistry classes, especially those with a
quantitative portion of an exam show a biomodal distribution.
Jack Martin Miller
Professor of Chemistry
Adjunct Professor of Computer Science
Brock University,
St. Catharines, Ontario, Canada, L2S 3A1.
Phone (905) 688 5550, ext 3402
FAX (905) 682 9020
e-mail jmiller@sandcastle.cosc.brocku.ca
http://chemiris.labs.brocku.ca/staff/miller/miller.html
=========================================================================
Date: Tue, 11 Jun 1996 10:03:39 EST
From: George Bodner <GMBODNER@VM.CC.PURDUE.EDU>
Subject: Grading Systems
Much has been written about grading scales in the correspondence
over the last few days. I have had trouble using an absolute
grading scale for one of the reasons John Moore states -- the need
to "adjust" this scale at the end of the semester, often by lowering
expectations. My problem is simple: In spite of more than 20 years
of writing exams, I still don't know -- before the exam is given --
how easy or how difficult it is. Thus, I have trouble writing exams
that would give me the performance necessary to use an absolute
scale. I also have a great deal of concern about changing a grading
scale that has been announced to the students, because we have
talked to a number of students over the years who approached the
task of studying for final exams based on their expectations of a
grade. (They had reasonable expectations of a B, for example, but
knew that they could not possibly get an A -- based on the
announced scale -- and so they devoted their time to calculus or
physics, only to find out, after the semester was over, that they
COULD have gotten the A in chemistry because the scale was
changed.)
I am also troubled with the notion of grading on a "curve." This
assumes that there is a more or less regular distribution of student
performance in the class, which we know is often not the case.
(Last semester, for example, I taught the second half of a course for
engineers who were identified as being slightly brighter than the
average of our engineering population. They did remarkably well -- 32%A, 35%B,
2%F) Grading on a curve also
assumes that the distribution of students' abilities from year to year
in a course is similar, which we have reason to suspect is not the
case.
For many years, we have been using a criterion referenced system
at Purdue. I have used this approach in both general and organic
chemistry, with a remarkably amount of success. Because both of
these courses have computer-managed grade recording systems, we
get a computer print-out at the end of the semester that tells us
everything about the students' performance on quizzes, exams,
labs, etc. We then look at the distribution of scores, and find the
98th or 99th percentile. (Not the top student, whose score is often
anomalously high, but the students near the top of the grade
distribution.) Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that the 98th
or 99th percentile has a score of 900 points. (It doesn't matter
whether this is out of 1000 possible points, or 1200, or even 1500,
but it is often out of 1000.) We assign an A to any student whose
total score is more than 90% of this standard. (In a bad semester,
this has been as low as 5% of the total population; in a good
semester, like last semester, it has gotten up to 30% or more.) We
assign a B to any student whose total score is more than 80% but
less than 90% of the 98th-99th percentile. This technique works
reasonably well for C's (about 70%), but often has been gently
adjusted for D's (I have seen it fall to as low as 55%).
There are several advantages to this approach. At any point in the
course, I can run a "curve" and tell the students exactly how well
they are doing. (The curve is based on their performance on the
exams, quizzes, labs, etc., rather than just the exam.) If I write an
unusually difficult exam, or an unusually easy exam, they don't
either suffer or benefit from my mistake. The standards from
semester to semester -- or from year to year -- are consistent. And,
perhaps most importantly, the course is no longer one in which the
students compete with each other. This approach is therefore
ideally suited for use with cooperative, or better yet, collaborative
learning.
When this system is transferred from one course to another, or
from general chemistry to organic chemistry, the dividing lines for
the A's, B'S, C's, and so on, might have to be adjusted. But, once
they are set, reasonably consistent standards can be achieved from
year to year.
George Bodner
Purdue University
gmbodner@vm.cc.purdue.edu
=========================================================================
Date: Tue, 11 Jun 1996 10:34:26 EST
From: George Bodner <GMBODNER@VM.CC.PURDUE.EDU>
Brian Tissue raised an important point when he noted that we are
preparing students who will take many different paths. His goal of
preparing them for their experiences with new material later in
their careers, or Jeff Davis' goal of preparing them to delve into
textbooks or the literature to bring themselves up to speed when
they go into a new course, brought to my mind a metaphor out of
research on problem solving. I remember reading an article that
talked about heuristics (or strategies) for solving problems. The
author noted that there are "strong" heuristics and "weak"
heuristics. The paper then went on to suggest that "strong"
heuristics are intrinsically weak; "weak" heuristics CAN BE
strong.
At first glance, that appears to be nonsense. But let's parse the
sentence, to see if we can understand the author's argument. A
"strong" heuristic is one that is very likely to lead to an answer --
hopefully, the correct answer. It is therefore relative weak in the
sense that it is very specific to a particular kind of problem; it can't
be transferred easily to problems outside of its particular domain of
relevance. A heuristic can be "weak" because it doesn't
necessarily lead directly to the answer and yet simultaneously
strong because it can be applied to many different problems in
many different contexts.
If I was teaching a general chemistry course for biology majors, I
know exactly what I should do. When I teach a course -- like last
semester -- that is exclusively for engineers, I know what to do.
But the problem that most of us face is that we have both
populations in our course at the same time. At many institutions,
the problem is even more severe because there are ENG students
(from English) sitting next to ENG students (from Engineering).
When we design general chemistry courses, perhaps our goal
should be developing "weak" heuristics that can be used as a
general guide for approaching problems in almost any context,
rather than "strong" heuristics that lead to the answer in a narrow
content domain. If this goal is achieved, we won't be teaching
algorithmic problem solving techniques, but we might be helping
them develop true problem-solving skills.
=========================================================================
Date: Tue, 11 Jun 1996 11:41:38 -0500
From: "Dr. David Ritter" <c617scc@SEMOVM.SEMO.EDU>
Subject: Re: P1, TJZ,D, More is less etc. (Long message)
Theresa Julia Zielinski, Ph.D wrote:
>Dear Colleagues,
>
>I too have been advocating less content coverage to promote more effective
>learning for a few years now. It is impossible to "cover" let alone have
>students achieve a degree of mastery in the large variety of topics that most
>courses present. <snip> Deeper
>understanding comes with reflection. The ability to use concepts comes from
>practice with the concepts in a variety of situations - not just in a homework
>set. Learning difficult topics requires time. <snip> In light of this I
think that a careful full development of fewer topics not
>only permits a level of mastery in them but also provides the students with
>the learning and metacognative skills that permit them to be independent
>learners.
I have been teaching a course in which we examine a subset of the general
chemistry topics in great detail. In fact, on the first day, I tell my
students that if they really mastered their general chemistry course that I
will guarantee them an A in this course. We carefully develop a few topics
from general chemistry, and construct pathways between the various topics.
Oh, BTW we call this course physical chemistry :-)
>...There is too much competition for grades and much of it is due to
>faculty test design and evaluation from early grades through graduate
>school. The whole concept of a curve is repugnant to me. I think it may also
>be unethical. How can a system that predetermines that a certain percent of
>students must get an F be otherwise? What does this do to the moral of
>students? What image does this portray of Science? It seems to me that it
>would be difficult to put students in "competition" with the content not each
>other when most faculty were raised on and many continue to practice
>competition in their careers or hide the cooperative nature of their work...
I also grade this course on an "absolute scale" and try to encourage
cooperation between the students. However, they soon realize that they are
indeed in competition with mastery of the material itself.
We must keep in mind that this is a competetive society. For example, a
competition for a predetermined finite number of jobs may indeed place the
same individuals into an analogous situation. While I see only a small
number that may not be representative of the whole country, my students seem
to be very conscious of this.
David Ritter
Department of Chemistry
Southeast Missouri State University
c617scc@semovm.semo.edu
=========================================================================
Date: Tue, 11 Jun 1996 11:54:59 -0800
From: Walter Volland <wvolland@BCC.CTC.EDU>
Organization: Bellevue Community College
Subject: Paper #1: What are Students Lerning?
To ask the question, "What are students learning?" is misleading.
The real question should be, "What are we trying to teach?".
It seems overly optimistic to expect the chemistry classes in high
school and college to do someting the rest of the eductional system is
isn't.
I agree it is better to have less content and more understanding. I do
not feel it must be an either or proposition.
=========================================================================
Date: Tue, 11 Jun 1996 15:59:36 EST
From: George Bodner <GMBODNER@VM.CC.PURDUE.EDU>
Walter Volland raised the question: "Do you believe students use our models
and representations to duplicate our explanations in the same way they use
problem algorithms?"
I am convinced that they TRY to use our representations to duplicate our
explanations. I am equally convinced from my experience with organic
chemistry they the representations they use have very different meanings for
them then they do for us.
=========================================================================
Date: Tue, 11 Jun 1996 16:23:56 -0500
From: "Dr. David Ritter" <c617scc@SEMOVM.SEMO.EDU>
Subject: Re: P1, TJZ,D, More is less etc.
-
Theresa Julia Zielinski, Ph.D wrote:
>Dear Colleagues,
>
>I too have been advocating less content coverage to promote more effective
>learning for a few years now. It is impossible to "cover" let alone have
>students achieve a degree of mastery in the large variety of topics that most
>courses present. <snip> Deeper
>understanding comes with reflection. The ability to use concepts comes from
>practice with the concepts in a variety of situations - not just in a
homework
>set. Learning difficult topics requires time. <snip> In light of this I
think that a careful full development of fewer topics not
>only permits a level of mastery in them but also provides the students with
>the learning and metacognative skills that permit them to be independent
>learners.
I have been teaching a course in which we examine a subset of the general
chemistry topics in great detail. In fact, on the first day, I tell my
students that if they really mastered their general chemistry course that I
will guarantee them an A in this course. We carefully develop a few topics
from general chemistry, and construct pathways between the various topics.
Oh, BTW we call this course physical chemistry :-)
>...There is too much competition for grades and much of it is due to
>faculty test design and evaluation from early grades through graduate
>school. The whole concept of a curve is repugnant to me. I think it may also
>be unethical. How can a system that predetermines that a certain percent of
>students must get an F be otherwise? What does this do to the moral of
>students? What image does this portray of Science? It seems to me that it
>would be difficult to put students in "competition" with the content not each
>other when most faculty were raised on and many continue to practice
>competition in their careers or hide the cooperative nature of their work...
I also grade this course on an "absolute scale" and try to encourage
cooperation between the students. However, they soon realize that they are
indeed in competition with mastery of the material itself.
We must keep in mind that this is a competetive society. For example, a
competition for a predetermined finite number of jobs may indeed place the
same individuals into an analogous situation. While I see only a small
number that may not be representative of the whole country, my students seem
to be very conscious of this.
David Ritter
Department of Chemistry
Southeast Missouri State University
c617scc@semovm.semo.edu
=========================================================================
Date: Tue, 11 Jun 1996 03:15:33 +0000
Comments: Authenticated sender is <lljones@bentley.univnorthco.edu>
From: "Loretta L. Jones" <lljones@BENTLEY.UNIVNORTHCO.EDU>
Subject: Re: P1, TJZ,D, More is less etc.
I have seen a course in physics called "The Great Ideas of Physics,"
which focuses on six important ideas in order to build
understanding among non-science majors. Does anyone know of a similar
course in chemistry, whether introductory or advanced?
David Ritter's physical chem course may approach this idea. I wonder
how many others teach courses in this way, even courses offered under
a traditional umbrella?
Loretta L. Jones
Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry
University of Northern Colorado
Greeley, CO 80639
Voice 1-970-351-1443
FAX 1-970-351-1269
lljones@bentley.univnorthco.edu
=========================================================================
Date: Tue, 11 Jun 1996 17:00:27 EST
From: George Bodner <GMBODNER@VM.CC.PURDUE.EDU>
Re: Loretta Jones question
I have taught a similar course using the book by Rom Harre' entitled Great
Scientific Experiments. I know a number of people who have taught similar
courses from that text.