Date: Tue, 9 Jul 1996 06:51:39 EDT From: Donald Rosenthal Subject: BEGIN DISCUSSION OF PAPER 8 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 Tuesday, July 8, 1996. I wish to thank Stan Smith and Iris Stovall for their paper. Discussion of Paper 7 is now over. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ There will be additional time for General Discussion between July 15 and July 19. >From 8 AM Eastern Daylight Saving Time (EDST) today until 8 AM EDST on Thursday, July 11 you have an opportunity to discuss Paper 8: "Personalizing the Large General Chemistry Lecture Experience" by Paul B. Kelter and James D. Carr Your discussion and questions should be sent to: CHEMCONF@UMDD.UMD.EDU or CHEMCONF@UMDD.BITNET The SUBJECT LINE can be useful in keeping track of various discussion threads. For example: P8 - GJ - D - II. Writing Across the Curriculum P8 indicates the message pertains to Paper 7. GJ are the initials of the sender - George Jones D - identifies discussion (Q for a Question, A for an Answer) A brief (less than 40 character) description of the content or discussion thread. 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 site (The URL is http://www.wam.umd.edu/~toh/ChemConf96.html). Please contact Professor O'Haver about Internet problems. Donald Rosenthal Symposium Co-Chair and Chair, Committee on Computers in Chemical Education Clarkson University Phone: 315-265-9242 E-mail: ROSEN1@CLVM.CLARKSON.EDU ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 9 Jul 1996 06:57:57 EDT From: Donald Rosenthal Subject: P8-PK-A-TW-III: SI Program The questions (IN CAPS) and my responses, in lower case, follow: P8-PK-A-III: Supplemental Instruction Program Terrell Wilson from Virginia Military Institute posted the following questions (responses, in sentence case, follow each QUESTION: 1. THE IMPLICATION OF YOUR PAPER IS THAT YOU FEEL THE SUPPLEMENTAL INSTRUCTION (SI) DESCRIBED IN YOUR PAPER IS BENEFICIAL. IF YOU FEEL THIS WAY, WHY DON'T YOU GIVE IT TO EVERYBODY? The SI program will be given in 3 of the 5 sections of gen chem this fall. Any student in those 3 sections (roughly 600 students total) may come to any or all of the SI sessions. It costs $850 for the undergraduate SI leader per section. With about 20 sections in various courses campus-wide, expense becomes a limiting factor. We would love to open it up to all sections. In time, hopefully. 2. IT IS NOT CLEAR TO ME WHO RECEIVED THE SI. NUMBERS GIVEN IN ONE TABLE PLACE 81 OF 190 STUDENTS IN THE SI GROUP. WERE THEY SIMPLY WALK-INS OR WERE THEY SELECTED IN SOME WAY? HOW MUCH SI DID THEY RECEIVE? The SI sessions are NOT required. Students may attend as often as they choose. Due to space limitations in our paper for this conference, we could only present some of the data we have obtained from 2.5 years of running the SI program in chemistry. But we have found from student comments that, generally, the more students attend the program, the better their study skills in chemistry are compared to what they were without the program and compared to others who did not take the program. Many, though not all, of our very best students participated at least occassionally, in the SI sessions. But the impact was also felt by students who received B and C grades in the course. 3. I AM A LITTLE SURPISED AT THE EFFECTIVENESS YOU REPORT FOR SI. (23% F IN THE NON-SI GROUP VS. 1% IN THE SI GROUP.) YOUR SI SOUNDS VERY MUCH LIKE THE CONTENT OF MANY "HOW TO STUDY" BOOKS. DID YOU USE A BOOK, OR DID YOU DEVELOP YOUR OWN MATERIAL? We are delighted, and no longer surprised, at the continued success of the SI program. The undergraduates who lead the sessions go through a fairly rigorous training program in which they use prepared materials (write to me and I'll send a copy) to learn how to lead the sessions. The general chemistry students who come to SI use no special materials. The SI program is so successful because, with very small (less than 30 students is typical) sessions, we take an intensley personal approach to learning. The interaction level in these sessions is quite stunning. This cannot possibly be done with a book. So we recognize that as so many of us are looking for ways to educate with computers, we always seems to come back to people as our primary educational conduits. By the way, there is an excellene "how to study chemistry" book on the market - I do recommend it to students - "How to Survive and Even Excel in General Chemistry" by 2 of the best teachers I know - Cathy Middlecamp (University of Wisconsin- Mad City) and Betsy Kean (who is presently moving to Cal State-Sacramento) - it's a McGraw Hill book. 4. THE CHEM 109 DATA TABLE CONTAINS A COLUMN CALLED "HSPR". I ASSUME THIS IS HIGH SCHOOL PERCENTILE RANK OR SOMETHINGH OF THE KIND. IS THIS CORRECT? IF SO, IT SEEMS TO BE A PREDICTOR OF GRADE. DO YOU SUPPOSE WHAT YOU ARE SEEING HERE IS SIMPLY THAT STUDENTS WITH HIGHER MOTIVATION GET HIGHER GRADES, RATHER THAN THAT SI PRODUCES HIGHER GRADES? (THEY MAY HAVE HAD HIGHER GRADES IN THE PAST AND THEN SOUGHT OUT SI). THIS ALSO SIMPLY SUGGESTS THAT HSPR IS A BETTER PREDICTOR OF GRADES THAN ACT SCORES. Yes, HSPR is high school percentile rank. It would seem that both ACT and HSPR scores predict performance in college, at least in broad brushstrokes. We, and others, have long known about the correlation between math ability and chem success and precvious chem background and chem success. Arlene Russell from UCLA handles this issue beautifully in the April 1994 J. Chem. Ed. The key to your question lies in the looking at the differences between the Mean Grade (received in chem 109) and the Mean GPA (received in all courses that semester for these freshmen, including chemistry). To make a long story short, the SI difference in chemistry is much greater than the GPA difference in other courses, where SI is not given. That is, if there is an average difference of 0.65 bewtween those who took SI and those who did not, if SI is a neutral factor in other courses (we believe it has SOME cross-talk effect) then the difference in Mean GPA should also be 0.65. But it is not, it is somewhat less. This is true in all ACT quartiles. This leads us to believe that intensive working with students has, in fact, enhanced their understanding of, and confidence about, gen chem. This is supported by written comments on student surveys. 5. THE BOTTOM LINE: IF YOUR OBJECTIVE IS TO PROVIDE EACH STUDENT WITH "THE DIGNITY OF AN IDENTITY" IN THE CLASSROOM, HAVE YOU CONSIDERED SIMPLY DROPPING THE LARGE LECTURES ENTIRELY AND HAVING YOUR PROFESSORS TEACH SMALL GROUPS? We point out in the paper that even at moderate-sized colleges, gen chem lecture sections are quite large. At UW - Oshkosh, I taught a class of 100+ students. Many years ago (1982), I taught a gen chem class at Manhattan College, a small religious-affiliated school of 4500 in the Bronx, NY. The class was 75 in a college of 4500. It is disingenuous to suggest merely "teach small classes." It ignores the economic situation in higher education at the overwhelming majority of public and private colleges in the country. At UNL, one of our faculty is developing a Web-based chemistry course. It is his plan to have the students study gen chem on the Web and then meet with him 3 times each week to discuss what the students have learned. I think that this is going in the wrong direction because I value the group discussion that ***IS POSSIBLE***, even in large classes. A sense of community is important to have in college. I think that "virtual chemistry" courses MIGHT work against this sense. Too new to now - no data (that I know of) on this. Paul B. Kelter University of Nebraska - Lincoln Lincoln NE 68588-0304 402-472-3512 pkelter@unlinfo.unl.edu ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 9 Jul 1996 06:59:25 EDT From: Donald Rosenthal Subject: P8-PK-A-BB-III: SI Program QUESTIONS ARE IN CAPS and responses are in lower case. P8-PK-A-III: Supplemental Instruction Program Bob Bruner, from UC Berkeley Extension and Contra costa College, posed the following questions (IN CAPS). Responses are in sentence case below each question. 1. FIRST TABLE (1995) WHAT IS 'GRADE POINT AVERAGE'? IS THIS THE STUDENTS' OVERALL GPA? (OR THE AVERAGE CHEM GRADE FOR THOSE LISTED?) IF THE FORMER, IT IS ODD THAT THE GPA IS SO MUCH HIGHER OVERALL FOR THE SI STUDENTS. IF STUDENTS IN SI HAVE HIGHER GPA'S, THEN ONE WOULD EXPECT THEM TO DO BETTER IN CHEM. (I REALIZE THAT THE GPA MAY INCLUDE THE CHEM GRADE, SO IS NOT TOALLY INDEPENDENT. BUT THE GPA DIFFERENCE IS HUGE. [IF WE OFFERED A VOLUNTARY OPEN STUDY SESSION, I'M SURE WE WOULD FIND THAT STUDENTS WHO CAME DID BETTER THAN THOSE WHO DID NOT - EVEN IF WE ADOURNED THE SESSION AT T=0. THE RESULT SIMPLY REFLECTS THAT BETTER (MORE SERIOUS, NOT NECESSARILY "SMARTER") STUDENTS ARE MORE LIKELY TO COME.] THE ABOVE POINT PRESENTS MY BASIC CONCERN. THE FOLLOWING POINTS JUST EXPAND ON THAT. You raise a key point. There are two ways to begin to tease out the impact of the SI sessions themselves from the fact that merely attending them shows a level of seriousness that might make the session discussion irrelevant. Way #1 is simply to read what the students themselves say about the programs in their evaluations. I think that we sometimes neglect the ideas that are expressed in focus groups and in written evaluations, because they are somewhat harder to quantify than bubbles on an evaluation form. But as an assessment tool, looking seriously at such responses can't be beat. And although we couldn't fit them into this paper, the students themselves wrote good things about the impact of the program. Way #2 is to note Table #2, and the fact that the difference between the Mean Grade (in the gen chem course) and the Mean GPA (all courses, including gen chem) is LESS for the SI students than the non-SI, except at the lowest level. This says to me that the chem grade was helped, relative to other courses, by SI. On balance, although we can try and justify this statistically (and I think it can be done) the student responses really tell the story. In addition to content, they also tell of comfort and motivation. These are valuable things to work for. 2. SAME TABLE. WHO ARE SI AND NON-SI? WAS ONE 200-STUDENT SECTION SPLIT? IF SO, HOW? The sessions were open to any student in the section. SI students were those who came to at least 1 section. We have data (not presented in this short paper) that indicate that "more is better" with SI. 3. RE:SECOND TABLE: SAME GENERAL ISSUE. GROUPING BY ACT SCORE SEEMS HELPFUL. HOWEVER, I AGAIN NOTE THAT MEAN GPA SHOWS A SUBSTANTIAL EFFECT IN THE SAME DIRECTION AS MEAN GRADE. IN THE CONTEXT OF #1, THIS CATCHES MY ATTENTION. It caught ours too! I think that the answer to your first question deals with this point. It is interesting to us that the mean high school percentile rank (HSPR) had general trends that followed whether or not students came to SI. But we really need more data (which we are currently processing from 1995-96 academic year) to see if this surprising trend holds up. Paul B. Kelter University of Nebraska - Lincoln Lincoln NE 68588-0304 402-472-3512 pkelter@unlinfo.unl.edu ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 9 Jul 1996 07:00:50 EDT From: Donald Rosenthal Subject: P8-PK-A-DR- III: SI Program P8-PK-A-III: Supplemental Instruction Program Don Rosenthal from Clarkson University, posed the following questions (IN CAPS). Responses are in sentence case below each question: A. WERE THERE 200 STUDENTS IN THE SI SECTION AND FROM 5 TO 15% ATTENDED ANY GIVEN SI SESSION? OR WERE SOME OF YOUR STUDENTS SI STUDENTS (N=81) AND SOME NON-SI STUDENTS (N=109)? The former is correct. Generally, about 20-35 students (10-20%) attended each SI session. The sessions were open to any student in my section. This fall, we are getting some more funding from the university, so 3 of our 5 gen chem I sections will have SI discussion leaders (we pay each undergraduate "leader" $850 for the semester - this compares to the pay of $600 to run one lab section). B. WERE THERE SOME SI STUDENTS WHO ATTENDED **NO** SI SESSIONS? No - by definition, an SI student is one who attends at least 1 SI session, though (at the risk of sounding like the Lays potato chip commercial, it was rare for any student to attend just one session. C. WHAT WAS THE NUMBER OF SESSIONS WHICH THE AVERAGE SI STUDENT ATTENDED PER WEEK (0.25, 0.5, 1, 2, ETC?) The average was about 1-2 sessions per week (or about 14-20 hours per semester). But the standard deviation is **VERY** high. A number of students attended nearly all and some attended only a couple of hours. We discouraged attendance immediately before exams and, for the final exam, we forbade attendance by students who had previously not been to a session. D. WERE THE SI STUDENTS REQUIRED TO ATTEND RECITATION SESSION WITH A TA? We do not take attendance at recitations. we do, however, have quizzes nearly every week. ALL students are expected to come to recitation. since we assign the more communicative TAs to recitation, these are generally pretty well attended. E. WERE NON-SI STUDENTS REQUIRED TO ATTEND RECITATION SECTIONS WITH A TA? See above. F. DO YOU HAVE ANY EVIDENCE THAT THE SI PROGRAM HAS A LONG-TERM EFFECT (OVER SEVERAL YEARS) ON STUDENT RETENTION AND PERFORMANCE OR DOES IT MERELY HELP STUDENTS DO BETTER IN CHEM 109 (GEN CHEM I)? That's a toughie. There are so many variables that enter into a student's future performance (personal situation, major, teachers of upper-level courses, etc..) And the program has only been in the chem department for 2.5 years. However, we do have two interesting pieces of initial evidence - We had the SI program in my Chem 110 class this past semester (the university popped for an extra $850 when they saw the (apparent) success of the program.) The department has had some difficulty attracting chem majors (typically, we graduate about 10 each year.) This semester, 10% (12 of 112) of the chem 110 class changed their major or minor to chemistry during the semester. This was not the case in the other two chem 110 sections (which were, admittedly, "taught" by a truly lousy faculty member.) The other piece of evidence is the response of our organic faculty, who are more pleased with this group of students than they have been in some time. But these things may simply represent random blips in the student class may correlate with the prime interest rate as much as the SI sessions. It will take more time to tease out the long-term effect. G. WHAT SORT OF STUDENT EVALUATION DOES THE SI PROGRAM RECEIVE? We have standard questionnaires as well as discussion groups and more open-ended question sheets. H. ONE TABLE IS LABELLED FALL 1995 SI DATA. AND THE OTHER IS LABELLED 1994-1995 SI DATA. IF I UNDERSTAND, THERE WERE 81 SI AND 109 NON-SI STUDENTS IN THE FALL 1995 GROUP AND 60 SI AND 240 NON-SI STUDENTS IN THE 1994-1995 GROUP. THESE 2 TABLES ARE FOR DIFFERENT GROUPS OF STUDENTS! IS THIS CORRECT? Yes! PBK ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 9 Jul 1996 10:46:18 EDT From: Donald Rosenthal Subject: P8- DR- Q- III. SI P8 - DR - Q - III. Supplemental Instruction (SI) Program In your paper you state: > .... there are special study skills that students need in order to > succeed in such courses. ... > Six courses were identified as suitable for the SI program. > The SI leader works with students ... on three focuses: thinking, > organization and content mastery. Typical SI sessions consider > note taking, graphic organization, questioning skills, and > test preparation. a. Were many of these students participating in SI sections in more than one course? b. Was the content of the Chemistry SI session course specific or was it general? It seems to me that information about thinking, organization, content mastery, note taking, graphic organization and questioning skills could be quite general. c. Did the SI leader spend most of his time lecturing to the students or answering questions? ----------------------------------------------- d. You indicate there were recitation sections which all students attended. i. What was the size of these recitation sections? ii. Did students ask questions and work problems at these recitation sessions (as well as taking quizzes)? ii. How did the SI session differ from the recitation session? Quizzes were given during the recitation sessions and presumably not at the SI session. Could the same question be asked at an SI session as was asked at a recitation session? Donald Rosenthal Clarkson University rosen1@clvm.clarkson.edu 315-265-9242 ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 9 Jul 1996 10:47:55 EDT From: Donald Rosenthal Subject: P8-DR-Q- I-3 Reassessing the Content P8-DR-Q- I-3 :Reassessing the Content You indicate: > .... our faculty visit the ... classes from time-to-time to talk > about their areas of expertise ... > ... students enjoy .. a different point of view. It seems to me that faculty who are actively engaged in research and talk about what they are doing and/or provide their unique perspective can contribute a great deal to a course - even at the General Chemistry level - I think of Linus Pauling in Chemistry and Feynmann in Physics both of whom had excellent reputations as teachers. I WONDER HOW MANY OF THE PARTICIPANTS USE SUCH GUEST LECTURERS IN ^^^^^^^^^^^^ THEIR GENERAL CHEMISTRY COURSES. If so, do you find this to be successful and popular with the students? Donald Rosenthal Clarkson University rosen1@clvm.clarkson.edu 315-265-9242 ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 9 Jul 1996 11:34:48 -0500 From: Paul Kelter Subject: Re: P8- DR- Q- III. SI Donald Rosenthal wrote: > > P8 - DR - Q - III. Supplemental Instruction (SI) Program > REPLY TO P8-DR-Q-III from P8 - PK - A - III ANSWERS ARE IN ALL CAPS. > In your paper you state: > > > .... there are special study skills that students need in order to > > succeed in such courses. ... > > Six courses were identified as suitable for the SI program. > > The SI leader works with students ... on three focuses: thinking, > > organization and content mastery. Typical SI sessions consider > > note taking, graphic organization, questioning skills, and > > test preparation. > > a. Were many of these students participating in SI sections in more than > one course? > WE DO NOT KNOW. WE CAN ONLY GUESS THAT THE ANSWER IS 'NO' BECAUSE THERE IS GENERALLY ONLY ONE SI SECTION PER MAJOR COURSE AND THERE ARE, PERHAPS, 5-10 SECTIONS IN LARGE COURSES. > b. Was the content of the Chemistry SI session course specific or > was it general? It seems to me that information about thinking, > organization, content mastery, note taking, graphic organization and > questioning skills could be quite general. > THE FOCUS OF THE SESSIONS WAS ON THINKING SKILLS (LARGELY PROCESS), USING THE CONTENT AS THE BASIS. THE SI LEADER TALKS ABOUT WHATEVER THE STUDENTS HAVE IN MIND (AT LEAST RELATED TO CHEMISTRY). HOWEVER, THE STUDENTS GENERALLY WANTED TO TALK ABOUT CURRENT CONTENT. > c. Did the SI leader spend most of his time lecturing to the students or > answering questions? > THE SI LEADER "LED". THAT IS, HE OR SHE USED A DISCUSSION FORMAT - STUDENTS WHO CAME WERE EXPECTED TO BUY INTO THAT FORMAT. > ----------------------------------------------- > > d. You indicate there were recitation sections which all students attended. > i. What was the size of these recitation sections? GENERALLY 30-50 STUDENTS > ii. Did students ask questions and work problems at these recitation > sessions (as well as taking quizzes)? YES, WITH THE BETTER TA'S, NO WITH THE LOUSY TA'S. > ii. How did the SI session differ from the recitation session? > Quizzes were given during the recitation sessions and presumably > not at the SI session. > Could the same question be asked at an SI session as was asked > at a recitation session? THE SI SESSIONS WERE NOT CONCERNED WITH GRADE. RATHER, THEIR FOCUS WAS ON STUDY SKILLS AS THEY RELATE TO COURSE CONTENT. YES, THE SAME QUESTION COULD BE ASKED IN BOTH VENUES. THE DIFFERENCE IS THAT IN THE SI SESSION, WITH A TRAINED SI UNDERGRAD LEADER, THE QUESTION WOULD BE DEALT WITH VIA A SENSE OF COMMUNITY. IN CONVENTIONAL RECIS', THE QUALITY OF INSTRUCTION AND THE LEVEL OF INVOLVEMENT IS NEARLY ALWAYS CONSIDERABLY LOWER. > > Donald Rosenthal > Clarkson University > rosen1@clvm.clarkson.edu > 315-265-9242 ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 9 Jul 1996 11:45:30 -0500 From: paul kelter Subject: p8 responses > From: pkelter (paul kelter) > Message-Id: <9607091640.AA12058@unlinfo.unl.edu> > Subject: [Fwd: Re: P8- DR- Q- III. SI] (fwd) > To: chemconf@umdd.umd.ed > Date: Tue, 9 Jul 1996 11:40:19 -0500 (CDT) > X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL20] > Content-Type: text > Content-Length: 3681 > > Forwarded message: > >From pkelter@unlinfo.unl.edu Tue Jul 9 11:38:11 1996 > Message-Id: <31E28AD7.4A1C@unlinfo.unl.edu> Conferences on Chemistry Research and Education > > > Donald Rosenthal wrote: > > > > P8 - DR - Q - III. Supplemental Instruction (SI) Program > > REPLY TO P8-DR-Q-III from P8 - PK - A - III > > ANSWERS ARE IN ALL CAPS. > > > In your paper you state: > > > > > .... there are special study skills that students need in order to > > > succeed in such courses. ... > > > Six courses were identified as suitable for the SI program. > > > The SI leader works with students ... on three focuses: thinking, > > > organization and content mastery. Typical SI sessions consider > > > note taking, graphic organization, questioning skills, and > > > test preparation. > > > > a. Were many of these students participating in SI sections in more than > > one course? > > WE DO NOT KNOW. WE CAN ONLY GUESS THAT THE ANSWER IS 'NO' > BECAUSE THERE IS GENERALLY ONLY ONE SI SECTION PER MAJOR COURSE > AND THERE ARE, PERHAPS, 5-10 SECTIONS IN LARGE COURSES. > > > b. Was the content of the Chemistry SI session course specific or > > was it general? It seems to me that information about thinking, > > organization, content mastery, note taking, graphic organization and > > questioning skills could be quite general. > > > > THE FOCUS OF THE SESSIONS WAS ON THINKING SKILLS (LARGELY > PROCESS), USING THE CONTENT AS THE BASIS. THE SI LEADER TALKS > ABOUT WHATEVER THE STUDENTS HAVE IN MIND (AT LEAST RELATED TO > CHEMISTRY). HOWEVER, THE STUDENTS GENERALLY WANTED TO TALK > ABOUT CURRENT CONTENT. > > > c. Did the SI leader spend most of his time lecturing to the students or > > answering questions? > > THE SI LEADER "LED". THAT IS, HE OR SHE USED A DISCUSSION FORMAT - STUDENTS WHO CAME WERE EXPECTED TO BUY INTO THAT FORMAT. > > > ----------------------------------------------- > > > > d. You indicate there were recitation sections which all students attended. > > i. What was the size of these recitation sections? > > GENERALLY 30-50 STUDENTS > > > ii. Did students ask questions and work problems at these recitation > > sessions (as well as taking quizzes)? > > YES, WITH THE BETTER TA'S, NO WITH THE LOUSY TA'S. > > > ii. How did the SI session differ from the recitation session? > > Quizzes were given during the recitation sessions and presumably > > not at the SI session. > > Could the same question be asked at an SI session as was asked > > at a recitation session? > > THE SI SESSIONS WERE NOT CONCERNED WITH GRADE. RATHER, > THEIR FOCUS WAS ON STUDY SKILLS AS THEY RELATE TO COURSE CONTENT. > YES, THE SAME QUESTION COULD BE ASKED IN BOTH VENUES. THE DIFFERENCE > IS THAT IN THE SI SESSION, WITH A TRAINED SI UNDERGRAD LEADER, THE > QUESTION WOULD BE DEALT WITH VIA A SENSE OF COMMUNITY. IN > CONVENTIONAL RECIS', THE QUALITY OF INSTRUCTION AND THE LEVEL > OF INVOLVEMENT IS NEARLY ALWAYS CONSIDERABLY LOWER. > > > > > Donald Rosenthal > > Clarkson University > > rosen1@clvm.clarkson.edu > > 315-265-9242 > > > ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 9 Jul 1996 12:51:44 -0400 From: AAHLGREN Subject: Re: P8-PK-A-TW-III: SI Program Rosenthal wrote: "...That is, if there is an average difference of 0.65 between those who took SI and those who did not, if SI is a neutral factor in other courses (we believe it has SOME cross-talk effect) then the difference in Mean GPA should also be 0.65. But it is not, it is somewhat less...." If the alternative proposition is that the best students are more likely to participate, then the above evidence could be suffering from a ceiling effect. The higher the Mean GPA in a group, the less room for improvement there is. (In the extreme, if the SI group already had an A-level Mean GPA, it couldn't improve at all.) But I don't know of any easy way to correct for this non-linearity; you would need another, even more credible measure of achievement without a ceiling. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 9 Jul 1996 13:17:43 -0400 From: AAHLGREN Subject: Re: P8-PK-A-BB-III: SI Program Rosenthal wrote: "...the [SI] students themselves wrote good things about the impact of the program." I.e., the students who chose to attend the voluntary SI sessions said that they liked them. That is evidence that SI students feel helped, although also relevant to consider would be the frequency of one-time-only attenders. (Incidentally, that does not provide evidence about how the *other* students would feel if they had been *required* to attend SI sessions.) ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 9 Jul 1996 13:39:19 -0400 From: patricia mabrouk Subject: Re: P8-DR-Q- I-3 Reassessing the Content > > P8-DR-Q- I-3 :Reassessing the Content > > You indicate: > > .... our faculty visit the ... classes from time-to-time to talk > > about their areas of expertise ... > > ... students enjoy .. a different point of view. > > It seems to me that faculty who are actively engaged in research and > talk about what they are doing and/or provide their unique perspective > can contribute a great deal to a course - even at the General Chemistry > level - I think of Linus Pauling in Chemistry and Feynmann in Physics > both of whom had excellent reputations as teachers. > > I WONDER HOW MANY OF THE PARTICIPANTS USE SUCH GUEST LECTURERS IN > ^^^^^^^^^^^^ > THEIR GENERAL CHEMISTRY COURSES. Yes, I have had guest lecturers but in Quant, which students here take immediately after completing two quarters of freshman chemistry. Since Quant under these circumstances could be considered part of the freshman chemistry sequence I hope that my experiences will be relevant and of interest. I have had recent graduates currently employed in the local biotech market and more seasoned veterans speak to my classes. We have also gone to visit the laboratory of colleagues. For example, several times students were taken to see the triple-quad mass spectrometer which Prof. Vouros' group uses and were shown simple mass spectra for interesting compounds. Another approach I have taken involves inviting the students to attend our departmental colloquia when a suitable speaker is visiting our campus. We have an annual colloquium on forensics which Henry Lee and Richard Saferstein have delivered. Since the criminal justice majors also attend, the lectures are at a suitable level and of course the area of forensics is one of great interest to students. I have usually asked students attending these colloquia to write a one page summary and using "bonus points" as a carrot to urge them to attend since this is an outside assignment. That the students seem to enjoy it and learn from it is evidenced by the number of typewritten summaries I receive from the students and the fact that I continue to use these assignments. Please don't hesitate to e-mail me if you have any additional questions! Pam Mabrouk pmabrouk@lynx.neu.edu ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 9 Jul 1996 14:06:07 EST From: Larry Rosenhein Subject: Re: P8- DR- Q- III. SI Paul Kelter wrote: > THE DIFFERENCE > IS THAT IN THE SI SESSION, WITH A TRAINED SI UNDERGRAD LEADER, THE > QUESTION WOULD BE DEALT WITH VIA A SENSE OF COMMUNITY. IN > CONVENTIONAL RECIS', THE QUALITY OF INSTRUCTION AND THE LEVEL > OF INVOLVEMENT IS NEARLY ALWAYS CONSIDERABLY LOWER. > Isn't that surprising? Wouldn't you expect the TAs (by virtue of experience and commitment to graduate work in chemistry) to give high quality instruction? Don't the TAs also receive instructional training? (You indicate a fairly extensive program in section V.). Secondarily, does the existence of this parallel form of obtaining help cause any friction between students and TAs? Larry Rosenhein Indiana State University (Terre Haute) chrosen@scifac.indstate.edu ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 9 Jul 1996 14:19:49 -0500 From: paul kelter Subject: Re: P8-PK-A-BB-III: SI Program > > Rosenthal wrote: > > "...the [SI] students themselves wrote good things about the impact of > > the program." > > I.e., the students who chose to attend the voluntary SI sessions said > that they liked them. That is evidence that SI students feel helped, > although also relevant to consider would be the frequency of > one-time-only attenders. (Incidentally, that does not provide > evidence about how the *other* students would feel if they had been > *required* to attend SI sessions.) THIS IS TRUE. HOWEVER, AT SOME POINT, STUDENTS HAVE GOT TO ***WANT*** TO GO THE EXTRA MILE - WE CANNOT FORCE THEM BY REQUIRING. IT IS ALSO PROBABLY (POSSIBLY?) NOT "LEGAL" TO DO SO WITHOUT GIVING EXTRA CREDITS FOR THE EXTRA TIME SPENT. P. KELTER ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 9 Jul 1996 14:22:56 -0500 From: paul kelter Subject: Re: P8-DR-Q- I-3 Reassessing the Content YES, THE IDEA OF BINUS POINTS IS A GREAT ONE, AND IS ACTUALLY QUITE BENIGN. WE HAVE STUDENTS WRITE A JOURNAL OF CHEM NOTES AND THEIR REACTIONS TO THE CLASS (AS DISCUSSED IN THE ARTICLE) DAILY, AND GIVE UP TO 60 BOnus POINTS (OF 1000 POSSIBLE). IT REALLY DOES NOT MAKE MUCH DIFFERENCE IN THE FIUNAL GRADE, AND THE EDUCATIONAL IMPACT IS SUBSTANTIAL...P KELTER, UNL. > > > > > P8-DR-Q- I-3 :Reassessing the Content > > > > You indicate: > > > .... our faculty visit the ... classes from time-to-time to talk > > > about their areas of expertise ... > > > ... students enjoy .. a different point of view. > > > > It seems to me that faculty who are actively engaged in research and > > talk about what they are doing and/or provide their unique perspective > > can contribute a great deal to a course - even at the General Chemistry > > level - I think of Linus Pauling in Chemistry and Feynmann in Physics > > both of whom had excellent reputations as teachers. > > > > I WONDER HOW MANY OF THE PARTICIPANTS USE SUCH GUEST LECTURERS IN > > ^^^^^^^^^^^^ > > THEIR GENERAL CHEMISTRY COURSES. > > Yes, I have had guest lecturers but in Quant, which students here take > immediately after completing two quarters of freshman chemistry. > Since Quant under these circumstances could be considered part of the > freshman chemistry sequence I hope that my experiences will be relevant > and of interest. > I have had recent graduates currently employed in the local biotech > market and more seasoned veterans speak to my classes. We have also gone to > visit the > laboratory of colleagues. For example, several times students were > taken to see the triple-quad mass spectrometer which Prof. Vouros' group > uses and were shown simple mass spectra for interesting compounds. > Another approach I have taken involves inviting the students to attend > our departmental colloquia when a suitable speaker is visiting our > campus. We have an annual colloquium on forensics which Henry Lee > and Richard Saferstein have delivered. Since the criminal justice > majors also attend, the lectures are at a suitable level and of course > the area of forensics is one of great interest to students. I have > usually asked students attending these colloquia to write a one page > summary and using "bonus points" as a carrot to urge them to attend > since this is an outside assignment. That the students seem to enjoy it > and learn from it is evidenced by the number of typewritten summaries I > receive from the students and the fact that I continue to use these > assignments. Please don't hesitate to e-mail me if you have any > additional questions! > Pam Mabrouk > pmabrouk@lynx.neu.edu > ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 9 Jul 1996 14:26:29 -0500 From: paul kelter Subject: Re: P8-PK-A-TW-III: SI Program > > Rosenthal wrote: > > "...That is, if there is an average difference of 0.65 between those > who took SI and those who did not, if SI is a neutral factor in other > courses (we believe it has SOME cross-talk effect) then the difference > > in Mean GPA should also be 0.65. But it is not, it is somewhat > less...." > > If the alternative proposition is that the best students are more > likely to participate, then the above evidence could be suffering from > > a ceiling effect. The higher the Mean GPA in a group, the less room > for improvement there is. (In the extreme, if the SI group already > had an A-level Mean GPA, it couldn't improve at all.) But I don't > know of any easy way to correct for this non-linearity; you would need > > another, even more credible measure of achievement without a ceiling. > I AGREE - IT IS VERY DIFFICULT TO TEASE OUT THE ACTUAL EFFECT. I AM NOT AT ALL CERTAIN THAT IT IS THAT IMPORTANT TO FIND OUT - I THINK THAT THE IMPACT ON STUDENTS IS CLEAR VIA THEIR WRITTEN AND VERBAL COMMENTS. I ALSO THINK THAT THE 'SENSE OF COMMUNITY' IS OF GREAT IMPORTANCE. P KELTER, UNL. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 9 Jul 1996 15:29:36 EST From: Larry Rosenhein Subject: Re: P8- DR- D- III. SI Program We have had an SI program at ISU for the past several years; it sounds similar to the one at Lincoln. Last year, there was an SI in my general chemistry class each semester. Some observations: 1) We also have statistics that indicate a large difference between students using the program and not: in my fall semester class, the conbined GPA of SI students (26) was 2.09 while that of non-SI students (47) was 1.55. (Overall, the difference in 16 courses university-wide was less dramatic: 2.66 vs 2.49.) Our difference was not as high as Lincoln's but was still very impressive to me. However, my impression corroborates the suspicions of several conference participants to the effect that because of the optional nature of the program, there is a good deal of self-selection involved, guaranteeing a higher GPA among SI students. I don't know which students have been participating in the program (see #2, below), but when I give help sessions myself, that is what I tend to find. Weaker students, I believe, need more individualized and intensive tutoring than can be obtained in a 50-minute session (with other students, having other needs). It seems quite possible to me that they try out the SI sessions, don't find them as useful as they think they should be, and stop going. Still, it may be the best we have to offer for the time being. I believe we need to do more to get these higher-risk students into the program from the beginning, (having the statistics, however flawed, may help with that), and keep them in there even if it means skewing the nature of the sessions toward them. Stronger students ought to be able to find help in other ways. Comments? 2) The paper doesn't give details on how the SI program is administered. Here, it is run by a Student Services program, which is completely independent of the Chemistry Department. I may be consulted about who would or would not make a good SI for my class (the choices are usually very limited); and I may meet with the SI during the semester--at the SI's discretion--but I am not paying them and they are not responsible to me or anyone in our department. I also have no first-hand knowledge of what goes on in the sessions. I can see some advantages to this: from the students' point of view, there is that buffer between their source of help, where they can be vulnerable, and the "Chemistry gang" whose only purpose in life is to make judgments on them. But I am often frustrated by the lack of control we have over this program. And I should add we have only a small MS graduate program so we do not have a TA system, or recitations. Do you have the same sort of arrangement at Lincoln? Any thoughts on what the ideal relation is between the SI program and the Chemistry dept.? Just a word on section VI of the paper, about lecturing to 1000 students to provide time for faculty-student interactions in smaller settings. I don't think I'd go for that idea exactly. But as I noted above, sometimes I do give weekly help sessions myself. They're in the evening so there's not as much time pressure; they're voluntary, of course, so I think there's more student willingness; I dress down a little (since I'm volunteering the time); and I find I'm really a different sort of person, doing something more like real teaching than when I'm just lecturing. I enjoy it and recommend it. Larry Rosenhein Indiana State University (Terre Haute) chrosen@scifac.indstate.edu ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 9 Jul 1996 16:59:59 -0500 From: paul kelter Subject: Re: P8- DR- Q- III. SI > > Paul Kelter wrote: > > > THE DIFFERENCE > > IS THAT IN THE SI SESSION, WITH A TRAINED SI UNDERGRAD LEADER, THE > > QUESTION WOULD BE DEALT WITH VIA A SENSE OF COMMUNITY. IN > > CONVENTIONAL RECIS', THE QUALITY OF INSTRUCTION AND THE LEVEL > > OF INVOLVEMENT IS NEARLY ALWAYS CONSIDERABLY LOWER. > > > Isn't that surprising? Wouldn't you expect the TAs (by virtue of > experience and commitment to graduate work in chemistry) to give high > quality instruction? Don't the TAs also receive instructional > training? (You indicate a fairly extensive program in section V.). > Secondarily, does the existence of this parallel form of > obtaining help cause any friction between students and TAs? > > > > Larry Rosenhein > Indiana State University (Terre Haute) > chrosen@scifac.indstate.edu > DR. ROSENHEIN RAISES ***EXCELLENT*** POINTS. (Rest of reply in sentence case:) It is my experience that there is a ***HUGE*** variability among TAs. At UNL (and, I'd guess at many other places as well), we get some who know a lot of chemistry and others who got in the 20th percentile on the GRE because they cheated. Some are deeply committed to young people and others for whom being TA's is an imposition on other, more important, aspects of their lives, like watching cricket matches on ESPN (a TA ran out on his grading responsibilities last Spring to catch the world champoinship cricket matches, because his team was playing...). So for many of our gen chem students, the SI experience is by far the more positive of the 2. Our TA training program does help, what with microteaching, concepts of effective interaction, etc. I credit Dave Brook's original Project Teach program with teaching me some of the classroom strategies that I use 20 years later. But we can't force-feed the grad students. So the variability is still pretty great. Our SI leaders are hand-picked because of their academic record, interaction skills, and heart. They are, in my opinion (for what it's worth) generally superior to most of the grad students we get - not because UNL attracts lousy students (we get a wide-range - some truly outstanding and others come in 'at-risk'), but because these are among the top science undergrads in the country. They will all fly through grad/medical school, should they choose to go in that direction. We have not had friction (that I know of....) between TAs and SI leaders. I think that the TAs appreciate any help that they can get. The students who show up at SI will generally be the more responsible ones to attend the recitations. Paul Kelter, UNL. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 9 Jul 1996 18:43:10 -0500 From: paul kelter Subject: Re: P8- DR- D- III. SI Program > > We have had an SI program at ISU for the past several years; it > sounds similar to the one at Lincoln. Last year, there was an SI in > my general chemistry class each semester. Some observations: > > 1) We also have statistics that indicate a large difference > between students using the program and not: in my fall semester > class, the conbined GPA of SI students (26) was 2.09 while that of > non-SI students (47) was 1.55. (Overall, the difference in 16 > courses university-wide was less dramatic: 2.66 vs 2.49.) Our > difference was not as high as Lincoln's but was still very impressive > to me. However, my impression corroborates the suspicions of several > conference participants to the effect that because of the optional > nature of the program, there is a good deal of self-selection > involved, guaranteeing a higher GPA among SI students. I don't know > which students have been participating in the program (see #2, > below), but when I give help sessions myself, that is what I tend to > find. Weaker students, I believe, need more individualized and > intensive tutoring than can be obtained in a 50-minute session (with > other students, having other needs). It seems quite possible to me > that they try out the SI sessions, don't find them as useful as they > think they should be, and stop going. Still, it may be the best we > have to offer for the time being. I believe we need to > do more to get these higher-risk students into the program from the > beginning, (having the statistics, however flawed, may help with > that), and keep them in there even if it means skewing the nature of > the sessions toward them. Stronger students ought to be able to find > help in other ways. Comments? AT THE UNIV OF WISCONSIN - EAU CLAIRE, DEAN NELSON HAS BEEN RUNNING A VERY SUCCESSFUL "CHEM 099" FOR HIGHER RISK STUDENTS. AT UNL, WE HAVE INSTITUTIONAL INERTIA TO THIS (HIGHER TEACHING LOADS AND ALL THAT UTTER NONSENSE). SO WE DO HAVE A GOOD NUMBER OF AT-RISK KIDS. THE SI SESSIONS ARE VERY MUCH FOR THIS EXACT AUDIENCE! BEING AN AT-RISK KID DOES NOT ABSOLVE HIM/HER OF THE RESPONSIBILITY OF SEEKING HELP. IF THEY WANT TO KNOW, WE WILL HELP THEM WITH ALL THE POWER OF OUR INSTITUION AND ITS PEOPLE. BUT THEY HAVE GOT TO WANT. > > 2) The paper doesn't give details on how the SI program is > administered. Here, it is run by a Student Services program, which > is completely independent of the Chemistry Department. I may be > consulted about who would or would not make a good SI for my class > (the choices are usually very limited); and I may meet with the SI > during the semester--at the SI's discretion--but I am not paying them > and they are not responsible to me or anyone in our department. I > also have no first-hand knowledge of what goes on in the sessions. > I can see some advantages to this: from the students' point of > view, there is that buffer between their source of help, where they > can be vulnerable, and the "Chemistry gang" whose only purpose in > life is to make judgments on them. But I am often frustrated by the > lack of control we have over this program. And I should add we have > only a small MS graduate program so we do not have a TA system, or > recitations. Do you have the same sort of arrangement at Lincoln? > Any thoughts on what the ideal relation is between the SI program and > the Chemistry dept.? > THE PROGRAM IS RUN THROUGH STUDENT SERVICES, BUT WE MAKE RECOMMENDATIONS ABOUT WHO THE SI LEADERS ARE, AND THEREFORE WE EFFECTIVELY GET TO MAKE THE CHOICE (THEY TRUST US....SILLY THEM!!!) I THINK THAT THIS IS A VERY SATISFACTORY AND NON-CORRUPT RELATIONSHIP - THIS KIDS KNOW THAT THERE ARE NO POINTS ASSOCIATED WITH SI. AND I AM NOT CONCERNED WITH THE ISSUE OF "SELF-SELECTION" AGAIN, THOSE WHO WANT SHALL GET. THEY SHOULD NOT BE PENALIZED FOR THEIR INDUSTRIOUSNESS. RE: THE LARGE LECTURE: I SPOKE WITH SOME STUDENTS - THAY AGREE THAT 1000 IS ***VERY*** DIFFERENT FROM 200 - I AGREE WITH YOU - LOUSY IDEA. PKELTER > Just a word on section VI of the paper, about lecturing to 1000 > students to provide time for faculty-student interactions in smaller > settings. I don't think I'd go for that idea exactly. But as I > noted above, sometimes I do give weekly help sessions myself. > They're in the evening so there's not as much time pressure; they're > voluntary, of course, so I think there's more student willingness; I > dress down a little (since I'm volunteering the time); and I find I'm > really a different sort of person, doing something more like real > teaching than when I'm just lecturing. I enjoy it and recommend it. > > Larry Rosenhein > Indiana State University (Terre Haute) > chrosen@scifac.indstate.edu > ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 9 Jul 1996 20:25:38 -0700 From: Bob Bruner Subject: Re: P8-PK-A-BB-III: SI Program -- reply to author reply At 06:59 AM 7/9/96 EDT, you [Paul kolter] wrote: > You raise a key point. There are two ways to begin to tease out >the impact of the SI sessions themselves from the fact that merely attending >them shows a level of seriousness that might make the session discussion >irrelevant. > Way #1 is simply to read what the students themselves say about the >programs in their evaluations. I think that we sometimes neglect the ideas that >are expressed in focus groups and in written evaluations, because they are >somewhat harder to quantify than bubbles on an evaluation form. But as an >assessment tool, looking seriously at such responses can't be beat. And >although we couldn't fit them into this paper, the students >themselves wrote good things about the impact of the program. > Way #2 is to note Table #2, and the fact that the difference between the >Mean Grade (in the gen chem course) and the Mean GPA (all courses, including >gen chem) is LESS for the SI students than the non-SI, except at the lowest >level. This says to me that the chem grade was helped, relative to other >courses, by SI. > On balance, although we can try and justify this statistically (and I >think it can be done) the student responses really tell the story. In addition >to content, they also tell of comfort and motivation. These are valuable things >to work for. Thanks for your responses to my original questions. I realize the difficulties you face in analyzing an optional program. However, the optional nature does influence the statistics, and I think we must be very careful about abusing statistics, just because they are convenient. (Sounds like you didn't put forward your strongest case -- the student responses!) Seems to me your _strongest_ conclusion is that students who choose (care enough?) to go SI feel they have been helped. At first that may sound funny, but it is very positive. I agree that comfort level is important. Second, you _may_ have data to say that these students are in fact helped. I'm not sure on this yet, whether the data is sound. But let's accept it for the moment. You did the initial experiments with SI optional, because that was the practical way to do it. But if the data are "encouraging" then maybe it is time to take the next step, do the next more sophisticated expt... do a "controlled" study and/or "force" students into SI, and see whether they respond. I won't deal with the "legal" aspects. Maybe "extra credit" (bribery), maybe a reallocation of class time, as suggested in the context of P7? Bob Bruner UC Berkeley Extension & Contra Costa College bbruner@uclink4.berkeley.edu ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 10 Jul 1996 08:18:38 EDT From: Donald Rosenthal Subject: P8-DR-D- I didn't say that! P8-DR-D- I didn't say that! On Tuesday, July 9 I forwarded three messages from Paul Kelter to CHEMCONF. ^^^^^^^^^^^ P8-PK-A-TW-III (06:57:57 EDT) P8-PK-A-BB-III (06:59:25 EDT) P8-PK-A-DR-III (07:00:50 EDT) The above information taken from the subject line of the messages indicates that these are answers (A) by Paul Kelter (PK) to questions from Terrell Wilson (TW), Bob Bruner (BB) and Donald Rosenthal (DR). Paul Kelter's name and affiliation appears at the end of each of these messages. The statement (incorrectly attributed to me): "That is, if there is an average difference of 0.65 ..." is by Paul Kelter in response to question 4 by Terrell Wilson. Also, I did not state " ... the (SI) students themselves wrote good things about the impact of the program." How could I make this statement? I suggest that each person sending a message to CHEMCONF place his name, affiliation and e-mail address at the end of the message (e.g. see below). Donald Rosenthal Clarkson University rosen1@clvm.clarkson.edu ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 10 Jul 1996 08:38:53 -0500 From: Paul Kelter Subject: Re: P8-PK-A-BB-III: SI Program -- reply to author reply Bob Bruner wrote: > > At 06:59 AM 7/9/96 EDT, you [Paul kolter] wrote: > > > You raise a key point. There are two ways to begin to tease out > >the impact of the SI sessions themselves from the fact that merely attending > >them shows a level of seriousness that might make the session discussion > >irrelevant. > > Way #1 is simply to read what the students themselves say about the > >programs in their evaluations. I think that we sometimes neglect the ideas that > >are expressed in focus groups and in written evaluations, because they are > >somewhat harder to quantify than bubbles on an evaluation form. But as an > >assessment tool, looking seriously at such responses can't be beat. And > >although we couldn't fit them into this paper, the students > >themselves wrote good things about the impact of the program. > > Way #2 is to note Table #2, and the fact that the difference > between the > >Mean Grade (in the gen chem course) and the Mean GPA (all courses, including > >gen chem) is LESS for the SI students than the non-SI, except at the lowest > >level. This says to me that the chem grade was helped, relative to other > >courses, by SI. > > On balance, although we can try and justify this statistically (and I > >think it can be done) the student responses really tell the story. In addition > >to content, they also tell of comfort and motivation. These are valuable things > >to work for. > FROM PAUL KELTER (UNIV OF NEBRASKA): YES, YES, YES. (!!!) > Thanks for your responses to my original questions. I realize the > difficulties you face in analyzing an optional program. However, the > optional nature does influence the statistics, and I think we must be very > careful about abusing statistics, just because they are convenient. (Sounds > like you didn't put forward your strongest case -- the student responses!) > > Seems to me your _strongest_ conclusion is that students who choose (care > enough?) to go SI feel they have been helped. At first that may sound > funny, but it is very positive. I agree that comfort level is important. > DITTO, DITTO, DITTO (!!!)...PBK > Second, you _may_ have data to say that these students are in fact helped. > I'm not sure on this yet, whether the data is sound. But let's accept it for > the moment. > THIS SYMPOSIUM HAS BEEN VAERY VALUABLE TO ME FOR MANY REASONS. I HAVE GOTTEN ALL KINDS OF IDEAS AND PERSPECTIVES ABOUT MANY THINGS FROM THE PREVIOUS 7 PAPERS, AND LOOK FORWARD TO THE NEXT PAPER AS WELL. AN UNINTENDED PLUS FOR ME (AS I AND MY STUDENTS PREPARE A FULL SI PAPER FOR SUBMISSION TO J CHEM ED) IS TO GET EXPERT AND WELL-MEANING CRITICISM FROM MANY, MANY FACULTY, RATHER THAN JUST 4 "BLIND" REVIEWERS (I SUPPOSE THAT CAN BE TAKEN IN A COUPLE OF DIFFERENT WAYS...) > You did the initial experiments with SI optional, because that was the > practical way to do it. But if the data are "encouraging" then maybe it is > time to take the next step, do the next more sophisticated expt... do a > "controlled" study and/or "force" students into SI, and see whether they > respond. I WILL BE MEETING SOON WITH A STATISTICIAN FROM UNL (BARBARA PLAKE) TO DEAL WITH THE PROGRAM DESIGN ASPECTS (ESPECIALLY "VALIDITY"). THIS IS ANOTHER VALUABLE OUTCOME OF THIS CONFERENCE (WITH THANKS TO DON ROSENTHAL AND TOM O'HAVER) (!!) > > I won't deal with the "legal" aspects. Maybe "extra credit" (bribery), maybe > a reallocation of class time, as suggested in the context of P7? THAT'S A TOUGHIE. GEE, I REALLY HATE TO MAKE SPECIAL PROGRAMS "REQUIRED". SEEMS TO SAY THAT THERE IS SOMETHING SORELY LACKING IN THE ESSENTIAL COURSE STRUCTURE (HOW'S **THAT** FOR PROVOCATIVE!!!) OF 3 LECTURE, 1 RECI AND 3 LAB. THANKS BOB, FOR YOUR CONTINUED INSIGHT.... PAUL KELTER ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR OF CHEMISTRY UNIVERSITY OF NEBRASKA PKELTER@UNLINFO.UNL.EDU > > Bob Bruner > UC Berkeley Extension & Contra Costa College > > bbruner@uclink4.berkeley.edu ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 10 Jul 1996 12:59:45 MDT From: Reed Howald Subject: Re: P8- RH - evaluation of SI > > Paul Kelter wrote: > > > THE DIFFERENCE > > IS THAT IN THE SI SESSION, WITH A TRAINED SI UNDERGRAD LEADER, THE > > QUESTION WOULD BE DEALT WITH VIA A SENSE OF COMMUNITY. IN > > CONVENTIONAL RECIS', THE QUALITY OF INSTRUCTION AND THE LEVEL > > OF INVOLVEMENT IS NEARLY ALWAYS CONSIDERABLY LOWER. > > > Isn't that surprising? Wouldn't you expect the TAs (by virtue of > experience and commitment to graduate work in chemistry) to give high > quality instruction? Don't the TAs also receive instructional > training? It appears that the use of optional SI (supplemental instruction on techniques of learning) is effective. Student comments show this. But is there a method of demonstrating this scientifically? As long as the test group is distinguished from the control group by choosing to attend at least one optional SI class the data is suspect. Even assigning students to the test group, requiring them to attend the SI classes will not prove anything because in dealing with people there is a strong placebo effect, and the students know that they are in the test group. However there is a way to construct a blind experiment: Paul Keltner asserts that an effective SI session requires a trained SI undergrad leader. One can assign every student to one or two SI sessions randomly, take attendance, but provide trained SI leaders to only half of the sessions. There should be a measurable difference in the performances of the two groups that would show all chemistry teachers and administrators whether providing trained SI leaders is worth the cost and effort. Actually just providing SI sessions shows students that you are interested in their learning, and that alone will increase the amount students learn. But if we are really serious about improving science teaching we ought to devote some time and effort to getting some scientific data in controlled (scientific) experiments on teaching methods. Sincerely, Reed Howald Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry Montana State University Bozeman, MT 59717 "uchrh@earth.oscs.montana.edu" ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 10 Jul 1996 16:21:27 -0500 From: paul kelter Subject: Re: P8- RH - evaluation of SI FROM PAUL KELTER: REED'S COMMENTS (BELOW) ARE IMPORTANT. ***HOWEVER***, BY THE FACT THAT WE ASSIGN SOME KIDS TO UNTRAINED LEADERS, AREN'T WE PUTTING THEM AT AN EDUCATIONAL DISADVANTAGE FOR THE PURPOSE OF THE EXPERMENT? > > > > > Paul Kelter wrote: > > > > > THE DIFFERENCE > > > IS THAT IN THE SI SESSION, WITH A TRAINED SI UNDERGRAD LEADER, THE > > > QUESTION WOULD BE DEALT WITH VIA A SENSE OF COMMUNITY. IN > > > CONVENTIONAL RECIS', THE QUALITY OF INSTRUCTION AND THE LEVEL > > > OF INVOLVEMENT IS NEARLY ALWAYS CONSIDERABLY LOWER. > > > > > Isn't that surprising? Wouldn't you expect the TAs (by virtue of > > experience and commitment to graduate work in chemistry) to give high > > quality instruction? Don't the TAs also receive instructional > > training? > > It appears that the use of optional SI (supplemental instruction on techniques > of learning) is effective. Student comments show this. But is there a method > of demonstrating this scientifically? As long as the test group is > distinguished from the control group by choosing to attend at least one > optional SI class the data is suspect. Even assigning students to the test > group, requiring them to attend the SI classes will not prove anything because > in dealing with people there is a strong placebo effect, and the students know > that they are in the test group. However there is a way to construct a blind > experiment: Paul Keltner asserts that an effective SI session requires a > trained SI undergrad leader. One can assign every student to one or two SI > sessions randomly, take attendance, but provide trained SI leaders to only half > of the sessions. There should be a measurable difference in the performances > of the two groups that would show all chemistry teachers and administrators > whether providing trained SI leaders is worth the cost and effort. Actually > just providing SI sessions shows students that you are interested in their > learning, and that alone will increase the amount students learn. But if we > are really serious about improving science teaching we ought to devote some > time and effort to getting some scientific data in controlled (scientific) > experiments on teaching methods. > > Sincerely, > Reed Howald > Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry > Montana State University > Bozeman, MT 59717 > "uchrh@earth.oscs.montana.edu" > ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 10 Jul 1996 20:24:03 -0700 From: Bob Bruner Subject: Re: P8- DR- D- III. SI Program -- neckties At 03:29 PM 7/9/96 EST, you wrote: > I >dress down a little (...edited...); and I find I'm >really a different sort of person, doing something more like real >teaching than when I'm just lecturing. > > Larry Rosenhein > Indiana State University (Terre Haute) > chrosen@scifac.indstate.edu > > So why not dress down for regular class, thus improving the quality of your "lectures"? I actually intend that to be somewhat serious. We (the teaching community) keep railing against formal lectures -- and keep doing them. One reason we keep doing them is that we enjoy doing them. One of my seminal experiences in grad school was while TA'ing for my thesis advisor (Gunther Stent, Molecular Biology, UC Berkeley -- a wonderful person, a wonderful teacher, a wonderful lecturer). One day there was an unusually large number of questions (good ones, mostly -- as usual from students). Finally, he cut the questions short, saying "I have to go on." I did detect some reluctance in his voice. But I sat there and thought, "Why?" I try to remember that incident. I tell myself that the _one time_ I _know_ _someone_ cares about what I am saying is when I am responding to a question. Each of us has special situations, so I can't propose any universal solution. But I would offer a couple of thoughts... At least in the basic lower division courses, we have good books. There is a variety of books available. Surely, we have one that does a good job of doing the basics. We need to free ourselves from the idea that "In lecture we present the course material." We have good books to do that. (I also believe that students should learn to use a book as primary source material. The book is always available.) Our job is to complement the book. One part of that is providing "personal attention." You unfortunate folks who have classes sizes best expressed in scientific notation... Why not spend half of each class taking questions that someone cares about? Or have group problem solving time, with you and the TAs (and some peers?) wandering around the room helping? Or ??? Try something. Challenge the convention. Start by taking off the tie, and walking around front of the lecture bench. Walk into the audience. See what happens. Bob Bruner UC Berkeley Extension & Contra Costa College bbruner@uclink4.berkeley.edu ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 11 Jul 1996 12:03:00 MDT From: Reed Howald Subject: Re: P8- RH - evaluation of SI >FROM PAUL KELTER: >REED'S COMMENTS (BELOW) ARE IMPORTANT. ***HOWEVER***, BY THE FACT THAT WE >ASSIGN SOME KIDS TO UNTRAINED LEADERS, AREN'T WE PUTTING THEM AT AN >EDUCATIONAL DISADVANTAGE FOR THE PURPOSE OF THE EXPERMENT? Yes, but not more than we do by assigning them to untrained and/or incompetent TA's. > > Wouldn't you expect the TAs (by virtue of > > experience and commitment to graduate work in chemistry) to give high > > quality instruction? Don't the TAs also receive instructional > > training? There are some very good TA's, but anyone who expects them all to give high quality instruction is naive, blind, or hasn't seen much of the system we have in place at most large schools. The pool of undergraduate students is large enough that it is possible to avoid incompetent and untrained leaders for the SI classes. Graduate students are admitted to graduate school for a variety of reasons, but the quality of their teaching skills is rarely a consideration. And both the best and worst ones generally teach for one full academic year before the faculty give up on an individual or reward good ones with research fellowships. Yes TA's do receive instructional training at most schools, but the quality is such that most faculty at most schools cannot stand to sit through it more than once. That here at Montana State University is better than most because we are teaching them how to use a particular system of hardware and software used by the freshmen for computer collection of experimental data. But the department here did not provide the time and money for this training when the system was first introduced, and suffered terrible evaluations from the students in the sections with TA's who were not convinced of the advantages the computers offered. Sincerely, Reed Howald Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry Montana State University Bozeman, MT 59717 "uchrh@earth.oscs.montana.edu" ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 11 Jul 1996 14:39:58 -0500 From: Paul Kelter Subject: Re: P8- RH - evaluation of SI Reed Howald wrote: > > >FROM PAUL KELTER: > >REED'S COMMENTS (BELOW) ARE IMPORTANT. ***HOWEVER***, BY THE FACT THAT WE > >ASSIGN SOME KIDS TO UNTRAINED LEADERS, AREN'T WE PUTTING THEM AT AN > >EDUCATIONAL DISADVANTAGE FOR THE PURPOSE OF THE EXPERMENT? > > Yes, but not more than we do by assigning them to untrained and/or incompetent > TA's. > FROM P KELTER: CERTAINLY, IF WE FIND LOUSY TA'S UNACCEPTABLE, WE SHOULD FIND THEM EVEN MORE SO WITH AN EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAM WHOSE BEST ASSET IS WELL-TRAINED PROGRAM LEADERS!! > > > Wouldn't you expect the TAs (by virtue of > > > experience and commitment to graduate work in chemistry) to give high > > > quality instruction? Don't the TAs also receive instructional > > > training? > > There are some very good TA's, but anyone who expects them all to give high > quality instruction is naive, blind, or hasn't seen much of the system we have > in place at most large schools. The pool of undergraduate students is large > enough that it is possible to avoid incompetent and untrained leaders for the > SI classes. Graduate students are admitted to graduate school for a variety of > reasons, but the quality of their teaching skills is rarely a consideration. > And both the best and worst ones generally teach for one full academic year > before the faculty give up on an individual or reward good ones with research > fellowships. FROM P KELTER: RIGHT ON!!!! > > Yes TA's do receive instructional training at most schools, but the quality is > such that most faculty at most schools cannot stand to sit through it more than > once. That here at Montana State University is better than most because we are > teaching them how to use a particular system of hardware and software used by > the freshmen for computer collection of experimental data. But the department > here did not provide the time and money for this training when the system was > first introduced, and suffered terrible evaluations from the students in the > sections with TA's who were not convinced of the advantages the computers > offered. FROM P KELTER: INTERESTINGLY, WE HAVE ARE USING A NEW DATA ACQUISITION SYSTEM THIS FALL - THE TI-85 CBL SYSTEM. ALL OF OUR STUDENTS WHO TAKE CALCULUS (OVER 60% OFTHE GEN CHEM STUDENTS) ARE REQUIRED TO GET TI-85'S, SO WE ARE HOPEFUL THAT THE CBL SYSTEM WILL WORK WELL. IT IS NOT AS SOPHISTICATED (AND REALLY GOES TOWARD DIFFERENT EDUCATIONAL ENDS) THAN JOHN AMEND'S EXCELLENT SYSTEM, AND WE LOOK FORWARD TO STUDENT FEEDBACK ON THE NEW SYSTEMS. > > Sincerely, > Reed Howald > Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry > Montana State University > Bozeman, MT 59717 > "uchrh@earth.oscs.montana.edu" ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 14 Jul 1996 19:54:05 -0700 From: Bob Bruner Subject: Re: P8-DR-Q- I-3 Guest speakers? At 10:47 AM 7/9/96 EDT, you wrote: >P8-DR-Q- I-3 :Reassessing the Content >It seems to me that faculty who are actively engaged in research and >talk about what they are doing and/or provide their unique perspective >can contribute a great deal to a course - even at the General Chemistry >level - I think of Linus Pauling in Chemistry and Feynmann in Physics >both of whom had excellent reputations as teachers. > >I WONDER HOW MANY OF THE PARTICIPANTS USE SUCH GUEST LECTURERS IN > ^^^^^^^^^^^^ >THEIR GENERAL CHEMISTRY COURSES. >If so, do you find this to be successful and popular with the students? > >Donald Rosenthal >Clarkson University >rosen1@clvm.clarkson.edu >315-265-9242 > I can't address your specific proposal. (It sounds like a very good idea.) However, the following experiences at a community college are at least somewhat relevant to the broader issue of exposing our students to research and/or "the real world". In Intro Org/Bio I used to bring in one outside speaker a semester. The speaker was not a "big-shot" (Ph.D. or "researcher", but "someone like you, who took this course, and uses chem some in their job." For example, one was a librarian from Chevron, who had taken the course a year earlier. Talks were good, with good discussion. The discussion often emphasized the business aspects; the students enjoyed hearing how a product is developed, especially the business concerns. On the other hand, feedback (especially the anon type on course evaluations) had quite a bit of "If it's not on the test, don't do it." This latter comment may be more common in this particular course, where a relatively large number probably already have well defined goals (in particular, nursing). Last fall our Chem Dept brought in a speaker from the Calif State DNA lab, the fellow who had presented most of the state's DNA evidence at the OJ trial (and a former student of mine). The idea was to take advantage of current events, but discuss science. We advertised only through science classes and bulletin boards, and filled our largest classroom. It worked out very well. Bringing in outside speakers is fairly uncommon for us. I hope this encourages us to do more. I also maintain a "current events" bulletin board near our chem labs. The details are rather idiosyncratic -- whatever I come across. I post items from newspapers, short news items from Science and Nature, and from J Ch Ed -- and others. I make a point to post things that are in the public eye; debate & controversy are good. Details not important; the point is that it is one more way to expose our young students to the real world. For those at research schools... I would encourage you to urge your undergrads to attend research seminars. This raises a lot of issues. One would be to caution the students to emphasize that they learned _something_ rather than that they were overwhelmed by most. Giving a few extra credit points (perhaps for a brief summary, or asking some questions) will get more to give it a try, and is probably justified. Bob Bruner UC Berkeley Extension and Contra Costa College bbruner@uclink4.berkeley.edu.edu ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 15 Jul 1996 06:53:37 -0400 From: Tom Kenney Subject: Re: P8-DR-Q- I-3 Guest speakers? On Sun, 14 Jul 1996, Bob Bruner wrote: > > I also maintain a "current events" bulletin board near our chem labs. The > details are rather idiosyncratic -- whatever I come across. I post items > from newspapers, short news items from Science and Nature, and from J Ch Ed > -- and others. I make a point to post things that are in the public eye; > debate & controversy are good. Details not important; the point is that it > is one more way to expose our young students to the real world. > We do something somewhat similar, but not instructor directed. Students in our "Chemistry and Society" class are required to bring in a published article weekly with short, original comments attached. A lot of these are pretty poor (although a good indication of what some of our students think is science). The better ones are often posted on the board. (However, this week the board has the results from the lab where the students not only made soap, but had to package it and "sell" it to the instructor. Interesting.) Tom Kenney e-mail: tkenney@umd5.umd.edu s-mail: Chemistry Department Montgomery College Rockville, MD 20850 ***Standard disclaimers apply.*** ------------------------------