Paper 9 discussion archive Date: Fri, 13 Mar 1998 08:12:18 EST From: Donald Rosenthal Subject: Paper 9 - Short Questions To: CHEMCONF Registrants From: Donald Rosenthal Re: SHORT QUESTIONS FOR PAPER 9 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ It is 8 AM EST (Eastern Standard Time - 1300 GMT) on Friday, March 13 During the next 24 hours you may send SHORT QUESTIONS about Paper 9 - Pulling Out All the Stops: Applying Technology to Every Facet of Introductory Chemistry by James H. Reeves to the author and the conference participants. SHORT QUESTIONS are sent to clarify aspects of the paper, obtain more information from the authors and/or conference participants and help to promote subsequent discussion. Answers to SHORT QUESTIONS will be sent at the beginning of the discussion on Monday, March 16. DISCUSSION of Paper 9 will begin on Monday, March 16 and continue ^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^ through Thursday, March 19. The paper can be retrieved from the Conference World Wide Web Site: http://www.inform.umd.edu/EdRes/Topic/Chemistry/ChemConference/ChemConf98/ Short Questions should be sent to CHEMCONF@UMDD.UMD.EDU Please include the PAPER NUMBER, YOUR INITIALS AND THE TOPIC IN THE SUBJECT LINE, e.g. "Paper 9 - QR: Evaluation of Student Responses to Technology" These messages will be received by the author AND the conference registrants. Please send ASCII only messages with no more than 72 characters per ^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^ line and no attachments. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ To send comments or questions privately to the author of the paper, send your message to the author's e-mail address given in the paper. Reports of typographical errors, spelling or grammatical errors should be sent directly to the author and not to CHEMCONF. [ Part 3: "Included Message" ] Date: Fri, 13 Mar 1998 08:36:16 EST From: Donald Rosenthal Subject: Paper 9 - DR: Some Short Questions Some Short Questions for Paper 9 1. Have I missed something? What does MCP mean? 2. What are the advantages and disadvantages of applying technology in terms of time, expense, teaching and learning? - Can you list a few. 3. You provided some bar graphs comparing student evaluations and performance in MCP and traditional courses. How were students selected for the MCP courses? 4. In your paper you state "lecture instructors are most effective when they use the instructional techniques best suited to their styles of teaching." - How does a teacher determine which techniques these are? If a teacher explores a new instructional technique does this alter his style of teaching? 5. You mention CSC 475 which during the Spring of 1998 featured 100% on-line content requiring no classroom attendance. Can you tell us more about the nature of this course? Was there a textbook? What was the role of the instructor? Were there examinations? How did students react to this course? Donald Rosenthal Clarkson University Potsdam NY ROSEN1@CLVM.CLARKSON.EDU [ Part 4: "Included Message" ] Date: Fri, 13 Mar 1998 13:17:00 EST From: to2 Subject: Paper 9 - TOH: Short questions about simulations In your paper you describe the ActivChemistry simulation system. 1. Did you use the lessons that came with this package or did you develop your own custom lessons using the packages lesson editor? 2. Did you like the packaged lessons? I reviewed the pre-release package for the publisher, and while I liked the simulation software, I was disappointed in the included lessons. I did not feel that they made optimum use of the simulation environment (not that I myself would know how make optimum use of it. ;0) 3. How did your students react to ActivChemistry? 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 [ Part 2: "Included Message" ] Date: Sat, 14 Mar 1998 19:42:12 +0000 From: pankuch Subject: Re: CHEMCONF Digest - 12 Mar 1998 to 13 Mar 1998 Question on paper 9: > The CD-ROM based software called ActivChemistry was developed to > be an interactive environment in which objects associated with chemistry >(bottles, Bunsen burners, > thermometers, atoms, molecules, etc) are given attributes consistent with their real world behaviors. Jimmy, What kind of results have you had with students using ActivChemistry? How much training does it take to get students productivly using the program? Brian Pankuch [ Part 2: "Included Message" ] Date: Mon, 16 Mar 1998 07:52:13 -0500 From: Jimmy Reeves Subject: Re: Paper 9 - DR: Some Short Questions [The following text is in the "iso-8859-1" character set] [Your display is set for the "ISO-LATIN" character set] [Some characters may be displayed incorrectly] -----Original Message----- From: Donald Rosenthal To: CHEMCONF@UMDD.UMD.EDU Date: Friday, March 13, 1998 7:40 AM Subject: Paper 9 - DR: Some Short Questions Some Short Questions for Paper 9 1. Have I missed something? What does MCP mean? Sorry. MCP stands for "Math, Chemistry & Physics". The original grant called for coordinated courses to be developed in all three of these disciplines in an effort in help students connect the disciplines conceptually. Core courses in each discipline (Calculus I and II, Calculus-based Physics and Introductory Chemistry) would be developed using common themes such as the microscopic/macroscopic connection and the role of mathematical models in describing our world. The NSF funded an ILI grant that bought the original suite of 12 desktop and eight laptop computers, as well as the original A/D equipment (IBM PSL kits) used in the project For more information, see the WWW page: http://smec.uncwil.edu/mcp/ . 2. What are the advantages and disadvantages of applying technology in terms of time, expense, teaching and learning? - Can you list a few. Let^Òs take the questions one at a time: Threading technology into effective chemistry teaching requires a significant time commitment; indeed, some of us consider it the major part of our scholarly work. Many of the tools being used today have been available for less than one year. Integrating them into a coherent course is the challenge we are now facing, and it^Òs a full time job. The time I^Òve devoted each semester varies; I was an administrator for a year and a half. Now, developing and integrating technology in my teaching is what I do when I^Òm not at committee meetings. That said, I think the day is coming when instructors will be able to easily integrate technology in the form of interactive exercises, ^Ómastery learning^Ô modules, on-line quizzes and active notes without making this radical a commitment. Notes that have been typed using a modern word processing program can be made available on the WWW simply by saving the file in the .htm format. Notes developed in presentation packages such as Micorsoft Powerpoint can be viewed directly over the WWW. These activities take very little time, but can have an effect on student learning. I have found disturbing differences between my Toolbook screens and my student^Òs notes, so having notes available can be of significant value to the conscientious student. If faculty want to commit a bit more time, we often recommend that they consider picking one topic that is particularly frustrating to teach with traditional methods and develop a hypermedia presentation. In this way the time commitment is less overwhelming. The expense involved in multimedia can be considerable, if one includes the cost of classrooms equipped to present the materials ($8000 and up per classroom), as well as general purpose computer labs where students can fulfill the hypermedia requirements of the course, computers for faculty who develop the materials, and servers to handle the load, and significant time planning how it all fits together. (I^Òm currently the committee designing a new classroom building that was recently funded for UNCW by the legislature.) UNCW has made significant investments in all of these categories, and my colleague Dick Ward has been closely involved with these purchases since the beginning. As significant numbers of students begin to use personal computes equipped to deliver these materials, the costs will shift but probably not decrease significantly. Our administration is now committed to a sensible replacement policy for computers, though the details of this plan are not yet available. Though the costs are significant, many university administrations are concerned enough about being left behind that they find a way to fund at least modest technology efforts. As for the effectiveness in teaching and learning, I^Òm afraid the jury^Òs still out on that one. We are beginning to set up studies to assess these questions, but until a coherent course with the new tools is created, the effectiveness will be difficult to access. I can tell you that I have considerably more fun teaching this way, and I think that many of my students find it effective. 3. You provided some bar graphs comparing student evaluations and performance in MCP and traditional courses. How were students selected for the MCP courses? There was no attempt to have students self-select the MCP section of the course. The only difference between the sections for which the students signed up was the requirement that they be registered for the corresponding MPC labs, which were advertised as special computer labs. The demographics showed that the 200 students in my section had slightly higher high school GPA and predicted UNCW GPA scores, and as I reported in the paper, when these differences were factored into the analysis, ^Óthere were no statistical differences in the performance of typical university students in the two classes overall, on conceptual questions, or on quantitative questions^Ô(Master^Òs Thesis, M. Bullock). 4. In your paper you state "lecture instructors are most effective when they use the instructional techniques best suited to their styles of teaching." - How does a teacher determine which techniques these are? If a teacher explores a new instructional technique does this alter his style of teaching? As I said above, its my hope that the tools for effective hypermedia instructional delivery will be made available by publishers in forms easily adapted to a wide variety of teaching styles. Currently, most provide combinations of pictures and videos from their textbooks, and some interactive exercises. Other sources, like this ChemConf Listserve and J. Chem Ed Software, provide a variety of additional tools that can be explored. Faculty with whom I^Òve talked confirm my observation that the design and integration of technology forces us to rethink the methods we^Òve traditionally used to convey certain concepts, and to distill the key information in unique and often more effective ways. Of course, this metamorphosis can also be initiated by the incorporation of any number of other new teaching strategies, and it is probably the most significant benefit of any brand of educational reform. 5. You mention CSC 475 which during the Spring of 1998 featured 100% on-line content requiring no classroom attendance. Can you tell us more about the nature of this course? Was there a textbook? What was the role of the instructor? Were there examinations? How did students react to this course? This question is best handled by the instructor of CSC 475, Ron Vetter: a) Can you tell us more about the nature of this course? CSC 475 is intended for people who already have a basic understanding of personal computers and the Internet, but who want to know more about the underlying computer and communication technologies of the net and gain an understanding of emerging issues and trends. CSC 475 consists of three major topic areas: the Internet, multimedia computing, and computer communication networks. Students (junior/senior computer science majors, education majors, and business majors) will learn how to use Internet tools effectively, the latest multimedia technology (both software and hardware), and emerging research areas in networked multimedia. (see - http://vetter.cmsfac.uncwil.edu/~vetter/CLASSES/csc475-spr98/) b) Was there a textbook? Yes, the instructor realized early on that he did NOT want to write a textbook. c) What was the role of the instructor? As a facilitator. He posted questions for discussion on the electronic discussion board, monitored questions/answers (giving a few of his own), and graded the homework and exams. d) Were there examinations? Yes, three of them. They were held on-campus at several different times as well as off-campus in a proctored manner. The instructor is still evaluating how to do this electronically (and has concerns about cheating). e) How did students react to this course? So far, very positive. The most common remark is, "I didn't think it would be so time consuming" --> they must have thought an online course would be a breeze! Also, the instructor noticed that assignments were not turned in until a day or two before the deadlines ==> students wait until the last minute so be sure to put deadlines on things!! Ron Jimmy: I forgot to mention that I have 65 students enrolled (98% are from UNCW and are on-campus). Ron -- Dr. Ronald J. Vetter, Associate Professor vetter@cms.uncwil.edu Mathematical Sciences Department Phone: (910) 962-3671 University of North Carolina at Wilmington Fax: (910) 962-7107 601 South College Road Wilmington, North Carolina 28403 Donald Rosenthal Clarkson University Potsdam NY ROSEN1@CLVM.CLARKSON.EDU [ Part 3: "Included Message" ] Date: Mon, 16 Mar 1998 07:52:58 EST From: Donald Rosenthal Subject: BEGIN DISCUSSION OF PAPER 9 To: CHEMCONF Registrants From: Donald Rosenthal ROSEN1@CLVM.CLARKSON.EDU Re: BEGIN DISCUSSION OF PAPER 9 It is 8 AM EST (Eastern Standard Time - 1300 GMT) on Monday, March 16. The next 96 hours will be devoted to discussion of Paper 9 - "Pulling Out All the Stops: Applying Technology to Every Facet of Introductory Chemistry" by James H. Reeves The paper can be retrieved from the Conference World Wide Web Site: http://www.inform.umd.edu/EdRes/Topic/Chemistry/ChemConference/ChemConf98/ Messages should be sent to CHEMCONF@UMDD.UMD.EDU Please include: the PAPER NUMBER, YOUR INITIALS AND THE TOPIC IN THE SUBJECT LINE, e.g. "Paper 9 - QR: Evaluation of Student Responses to Technology" These messages will be received by the author AND the conference registrants. Please send ASCII only messages with no more than 72 characters per ^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^ line and no attachments. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Appropriately labelled subject lines will be useful in sorting out the various discussion threads. Only discussion which is sent from the SAME MAIL ADDRESS from which you subscribed will be accepted and distributed to participants. Place your name, affiliation and e-mail address at the end of your message. Remember that messages sent to CHEMCONF will be distributed to all participants. As a courtesy to other participants, please keep your messages concise and avoid irrelevant, redundant, and personal comments ^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ which are not of general interest. A very helpful technique is to quote a small passage from that paper or message in your response and to place a ">" character at the beginning of each quoted line, e.g.: > We used the....so-and-so...in order to.... We tried that too, but we found that.... The ">" character in this example is an e-mail convention indicating that the particular line is quoted from another message. There is no need to re-type the quoted passage if you have saved it on the file system of your computer; just Copy and Paste the desired passage into your message, then type ">" characters in front of each line. --------------------------------------- SOME CHEMCONF LISTSERV SPECIAL FEATURES ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Digest Mode ^^^^^^^^^^^ If you wish to lurk and NOT actively participate in the discussion, you may wish to receive multiple messages compiled into a single mailing once each day rather than receiving a number of short messages. If the digest mode is elected you must be sure your mail system is able to handle a large file. To elect the digest mode, send the one line message: SET CHEMCONF DIGEST to: LISTSERV@UMDD.UMD.EDU This message must be sent from the e-mail address used to sign on. To cancel the Digest format and return to receiving each separate mailing, send the message: SET CHEMCONF MAIL to: LISTSERV@UMDD.UMD.EDU To Suspend Mail Temporarily (without Signing Off) ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ If you are subscribed to CHEMCONF and wish to suspend mail for several days (or weeks), send the message: SET CHEMCONF NOMAIL to: LISTSERV@UMDD.UMD.EDU Messages sent while you are in the Nomail mode, will NOT be sent to you if you return to the Mail mode. However, these messages can be retrieved from the Filelist. To resume receipt of messages, send the message: SET CHEMCONF MAIL to: LISTSERV@UMDD.UMD.EDU Signing Off ^^^^^^^^^^^ In the event you wish to sign off CHEMCONF, please send the one line message: SIGNOFF CHEMCONF to: LISTSERV@UMDD.UMD.EDU Note that each of the above commands is sent to: LISTSERV@UMDD.UMD and NOT CHEMCONF@UMDD.UMD.EDU --------------------------------------- SCHEDULE ^^^^^^^^ March 16 to 19 - Discussion of Paper 9 March 20 to 26 - Short Questions and Discussion of Paper 10 April 10 to 16 - Short Questions and Discussion of Paper 11 April 17 to 23 - Short Questions and Discussion of Paper 12 April 24 to May 15 - Evaluation and Discussion of Selected Topics If you need HELP, please send an e-mail message to: Tom O'Haver at to2@umail.umd.edu and NOT TO CHEMCONF ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ======================================================================= [ Part 4: "Included Message" ] Date: Mon, 16 Mar 1998 09:40:38 -0500 From: Jimmy Reeves Subject: Re: Paper 9 - TOH: Short questions about simulations [The following text is in the "iso-8859-1" character set] [Your display is set for the "ISO-LATIN" character set] [Some characters may be displayed incorrectly] -----Original Message----- From: to2 To: CHEMCONF@UMDD.UMD.EDU Date: Friday, March 13, 1998 12:29 PM Subject: Paper 9 - TOH: Short questions about simulations In your paper you describe the ActivChemistry simulation system. 1. Did you use the lessons that came with this package or did you develop your own custom lessons using the packages lesson editor? The current version of ActivChemistry (version 1.5) has only been officially available from Addison Wesley for about a month , and we were not able to install sufficient copies on general access machines so that we could make realistic student assignments. In the Fall, I anticipate using both the lessons provided with the full version of the software (version 1.5 has 12 lessons) and the simulations being developed for use with the Saunders Chemistry CD-ROM. Students will have the program on the Saunders disk, so access should be dramatically improved. 2. Did you like the packaged lessons? I reviewed the pre-release package for the publisher, and while I liked the simulation software, I was disappointed in the included lessons. I did not feel that they made optimum use of the simulation environment (not that I myself would know how make optimum use of it. ;0) Developing materials for ActivChemistry proved a significant challenge, since the textbook writers in all of us would rather use a thousand words to explain what can be observed in a two minute simulation exercise. As the lesson author responsible for the majority of the lessons included with version 1.5, I can tell you that finding an effective balance of words and simulations is a continuing evolving process. I hope you'll find that the ones we've included in 1.5 are better, but the strength of the software is the ability write lessons that suit the needs of the instructor and his/her students. I'll be doing some demos for Addison Wesley in Dallas, and I plan to discuss different approaches to using it. In particular, the work going on in Bill Vining's lab (by his postdoc, Justin Fermann) at UMASS involves creating short, focused lessons centered around one simulation. Some of their ideas may be more along the lines you are looking for. The lessons in 1.5 might be better viewed as supplements to lab experiments, and that is how I plan use them next Fall. 3. How did your students react to ActivChemistry? Pilot studies I did with very preliminary versions got mixed reviews with my students, but most of their criticisms involved bugs in the software or mistakes in the lessons. Of course, Addison Wesley did extensive testing with students and most of those reviews were very encouraging. I often tell faculty that developing a product for a publisher involves the most intensive review process I've ever experienced, and the lessons we published were edited at least three times by me and Addison Wesleys terrific editors, Margo Otway and Shelley Parlante. 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 [ Part 5: "Included Message" ] Date: Mon, 16 Mar 1998 10:04:43 -0500 From: "Richard O. Pendarvis" Subject: ROP Paper 9 Development Time You mentioned rather intensive time requirements for the development of ActivChemistry and similar materials. I am not familiar with any of the Asymetrix products (considerably too pricey for my "budget"). I wonder if you could give us any more exact figures in terms of man hours per unit or something more quantitative and comment on the "learning curve" for the Asysmetrix systems. Thanks /* Richard */ #include - - ____ | | _ | | Organic Chemistry / \ |_| | | || CAI Programming / \ | | / \ || Pizza / \ / \ | | _||_ Star Trek (_________) (_____) |______| _/____\_ Doberman Pinschers --------------------------------------------------------------------------- | Richard Pendarvis, Ph.D. 3001 W. College Road | | Associate Professor of Chemistry Ocala, FL 32608 | | Central Florida Community College EMAIL: afn02809@afn.org | --------------------------------------------------------------------------- [ Part 6: "Included Message" ] Date: Mon, 16 Mar 1998 13:04:13 -0500 From: Jimmy Reeves Subject: Re: ROP Paper 9 Development Time [The following text is in the "iso-8859-1" character set] [Your display is set for the "ISO-LATIN" character set] [Some characters may be displayed incorrectly] The time required to learn and use a program like Toolbook is significant, because Toolbooks are created using a programming language. This provides great flexibility to your presentations, including the ability to hide and show objects of all kinds, group them together in a wide variety of ways, and control virtually all of the objects attributes, including the action to be taken when the objects is encountered by the mouse. The bad news is that this means that, in principle, every action needs to be programmed. Once some basic commands are learned, Toolbook can be reasonably easy to use, so the learning curve isn't that bad, but significant programming time is still required compared to pre-scripted programs such as Powerpoint. There are more sophisticated programs than Toolbook (which also suffers from the fact that it is only available for the PC) but these programs are typically much more expensive (though current versions of Toolbook are quickly approaching them in price; $500 to $1000 per copy). They are also even more complicated to learn. Toolbook is a good choice if, like me, you're a programmer by nature. To be specific, to prepare two 1 hour and 15 minute lectures every week required somewhere between 20 and 40 hours per week the first time I used Toolbook to deliver all of my lecture material. Once that initial work was done, subsequent semesters required far less time. However, its not until many interations of the process that I might finally create "maintenance free" Toolbooks, since I've still not gotten it completely right after teaching this way for five years. My Toolbooks now have many fewer colors in them, and I'm trying to correct sloppy pages all the time. Part of that is that sloppy changes with each new iteration. Developing lessons for ActivChemsitry also requires learning a mini-programming language, but it can all be done in a text editor and most actions are easy to script. The time involved here, as well as in the other development efforts, comes in deciding how to approach the lesson, and what simulations, video, audio to use to develop the ideas most clearly. Its also possible just to play with an ActivChemistry simulation, but our experience is that this unguided, unrestrictred approach is not useful for most students, who require at least some direction in their learning. Jimmy -----Original Message----- From: Richard O. Pendarvis To: CHEMCONF@UMDD.UMD.EDU Date: Monday, March 16, 1998 9:07 AM Subject: ROP Paper 9 Development Time You mentioned rather intensive time requirements for the development of ActivChemistry and similar materials. I am not familiar with any of the Asymetrix products (considerably too pricey for my "budget"). I wonder if you could give us any more exact figures in terms of man hours per unit or something more quantitative and comment on the "learning curve" for the Asysmetrix systems. Thanks /* Richard */ #include - - ____ | | _ | | Organic Chemistry / \ |_| | | || CAI Programming / \ | | / \ || Pizza / \ / \ | | _||_ Star Trek (_________) (_____) |______| _/____\_ Doberman Pinschers --------------------------------------------------------------------------- | Richard Pendarvis, Ph.D. 3001 W. College Road | | Associate Professor of Chemistry Ocala, FL 32608 | | Central Florida Community College EMAIL: afn02809@afn.org | --------------------------------------------------------------------------- [ Part 7: "Included Message" ] Date: Mon, 16 Mar 1998 14:48:50 -0400 From: Manuel Martinez Martinez Subject: Re: ROP Paper 9 Development Time Whenever I want to work in the area of software design, I have serious doubts about language to use: Toolbook is very good to be used wtih a PC. In the good old days I used BASIC, then Quickbasic, then Visualbasic. Toolbook works with Visualbasic as the support. But the main conclusion for me was: All that time was lost. I need to rewrite everything. Manuel But if the textbooks are going to be used through Internet, we use HTML. Manuel Martinez M. Facultad de Quimica y Biologia Universidad de Santiago de Chile Casilla 40 Correo 33 Fax: (562) 681-2108 e-mail: mamartin@lauca.usach.cl [ Part 2: "Included Message" ] Date: Tue, 17 Mar 1998 07:37:00 EST From: to2 Subject: Paper 9: TOH - development time Jimmy Reeves: "The time required to learn and use a program like Toolbook is significant, because Toolbooks are created using a programming language.... " Manuel Martinez: "...All that time was lost. I need to rewrite everything." This is indeed a problem for all of us. Chemistry is eternal, but computer and development environments are transient. Twenty years ago I was teaching much of the same science I am teaching now, but using computers and languages that no longer exist. How will we run our current developments projects 20 years from now? I'm still using executable code that I complied 10 years ago but that I can't edit and re-compile because the compiler no longer runs! I know of no easy answer. But I would advise thusly: document your developing software carefully. Write out detailed flow charts. Keep the textural material in universal ASCII. Describe the mathematics clearly in common computer algebra notation and with clearly described variables names. Save the graphics in multiple formats and on paper, too. All that will make it easier to port your wonderful creation to a new development environment or operating system when the time comes (as it certainly will). Tom -------------------------------------------------- Tom O'Haver Professor of Analytical Chemistry Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry and Maryland Collaborative for Teacher Preparation The University of Maryland at College Park to2@umail.umd.edu http://www.wam.umd.edu/~toh [ Part 3: "Included Message" ] Date: Tue, 17 Mar 1998 11:42:44 -0500 From: "L. Peter Gold" Subject: Re: Paper 9: TOH - development time At 07:37 AM 3/17/98 EST, to2 wrote: >Jimmy Reeves: >"The time required to learn and use a program like Toolbook is >significant, because Toolbooks are created using a programming >language.... " > >Manuel Martinez: >"...All that time was lost. I need to rewrite everything." > >This is indeed a problem for all of us. Chemistry is eternal, >but computer and development environments are transient. > >Twenty years ago I was teaching much of the same science I am >teaching now, but using computers and languages that no longer >exist. How will we run our current developments projects 20 >years from now? I'm still using executable code that I complied >10 years ago but that I can't edit and re-compile because the >compiler no longer runs! > There is another serious problem associated with the great time and effort required to develop and debug computer-based teaching materials: Once they are developed there is a powerful incentive to use them as they are for a long time because changes, even small ones, require a lot of additional work. One of the great -- and often unrecognized -- advantages of traditional teaching is the flexibility. If you want to introduce a new topic or think you have a better way of teaching an old one you can just go into the classroom and try it. If it seems to work you can tweak it until it works better. If it doesn't work you can discard it. If giving a lecture in a new way means twenty to forty hours of work you are much less likely to try new ideas or make the kinds of continuous changes that keep your presentations current and interesting. And if you have to call in a programmer and an instructional design person... ------------------------------------------------------ L. Peter Gold phone (814) 865-7694 Professor of Chemistry fax (814) 865-3314 Penn State University 152 Davey Lab E-mail: LPG@PSU.EDU University Park PA 16802 ------------------------------------------------------ [ Part 4: "Included Message" ] Date: Tue, 17 Mar 1998 13:38:09 -0700 From: Scott Donnelly Subject: Paper 9 sjd computer instruction... The advertising industry would have all of us believe (thankfully, not all of us buy it) that if it's new it MUST be improved. And if it's improved it MUST be new. Hmmm...curious way of thinking and one used quite effectively and convincingly. Is the chemical education community bitten by this bug as well? I'm still not convinced that students suddenly know more about some molecule of trigonal pyramidal geometry by watching it rotate on a computer screen as opposed to building a ball and stick model. In this instance I'd rather keep to the KISS (Keep It Simple Stupid) principle. Or how about watching a demo on videodisc? My video intoxicated students think nothing of it. In fact, I asked them which demo version would they prefer- video or live? They overwhelming preferred the live demos. What's next- replacing qualitative analysis labwork with computer simulation? Regardless of how good the simulation is, I'll take the real thing- annoying smells and small acid burns et al- anyday. Scott D. Scott Donnelly Email: aw_donnelly@awc.cc.az.us Department of Chemistry Phone: 520 344 7590 Arizona Western College Webpage: http://www.awc.cc.az.us/chem/ Yuma, AZ 85366-0929 "In education it is not enough to be aware that other people may try to fool you;it is more important to be aware of your own tendency to fool yourself." -Paul G. Hewitt [ Part 5: "Included Message" ] Date: Tue, 17 Mar 1998 16:59:48 -0500 From: Jimmy Reeves Subject: Re: Paper 9 sjd computer instruction... [The following text is in the "iso-8859-1" character set] [Your display is set for the "ISO-LATIN" character set] [Some characters may be displayed incorrectly] I think this and the last comment by Peter Gold miss the point. Although a few of us choose to use computers extensively to teach, and make the commitment to develop materials that try to take advantage of new capabilities, no one is suggesting that this new technology by itself will revolutionize anything. What it might do is give us another tool that can help students make sense out of what has been, in my experience, a largely mystifying, far too calculator oriented whirlwind tour of everything any of us ever wanted students to know about chemistry. There is a clear consensus, resounding at every chemical education meeting I've attended, that our current methods in general chemistry leave vast amounts to be desired, and techniques that address their shortcomings, old or new, are worth pursuing. I thoroughly agree that making a model by hand and rotating it is better than seeing the same thing on a screen. The computer is just another way to get a sense of these three dimensional structures. But it is the one that subsequent courses in Chem will rely on. Our organic students use Alchemy to draw and interpret structures in lab; I think that part of my job is to have students rotate the same types of molecules in general Chem, so they will be familiar with them later in organic. Making sense out of the computer generated models is an important skill to teach them in Gen. Chem, and it helps some get the idea. The long development times and the corresponding frustrations are not for everyone. If the materials are developed properly, however, they can be used by others with relatively little work on their part, and they can be made to fit into a curriculum which, like my colleague's here, uses techniques of all kinds to stimulate and illustrate our ideas. I hope that using the WWW as a basis, instructors will be able to pick apps that suit their students needs most, and reject those they find frivoulous. As for the lab, programs have been substituting simulations for some lab experiments for years, with great success. There is no argument that students need to smell the smells, work the balances, observe the color changes, etc, but they also need to be able to extend their findings to systems impractical for the lab, and get the correct result when they do an experiment. It's remarkable to me that adding these new possibilites to lab are, in some people's minds, akin to abandoning our traditional experimental roots. Simulations are used throughout industries, and it makes good sense to me that our students get exposed to them now, especially when there's an educational reason to do it. Jimmy Reeves -----Original Message----- From: Scott Donnelly To: CHEMCONF@UMDD.UMD.EDU Date: Tuesday, March 17, 1998 2:40 PM Subject: Paper 9 sjd computer instruction... The advertising industry would have all of us believe (thankfully, not all of us buy it) that if it's new it MUST be improved. And if it's improved it MUST be new. Hmmm...curious way of thinking and one used quite effectively and convincingly. Is the chemical education community bitten by this bug as well? I'm still not convinced that students suddenly know more about some molecule of trigonal pyramidal geometry by watching it rotate on a computer screen as opposed to building a ball and stick model. In this instance I'd rather keep to the KISS (Keep It Simple Stupid) principle. Or how about watching a demo on videodisc? My video intoxicated students think nothing of it. In fact, I asked them which demo version would they prefer- video or live? They overwhelming preferred the live demos. What's next- replacing qualitative analysis labwork with computer simulation? Regardless of how good the simulation is, I'll take the real thing- annoying smells and small acid burns et al- anyday. Scott D. Scott Donnelly Email: aw_donnelly@awc.cc.az.us Department of Chemistry Phone: 520 344 7590 Arizona Western College Webpage: http://www.awc.cc.az.us/chem/ Yuma, AZ 85366-0929 "In education it is not enough to be aware that other people may try to fool you;it is more important to be aware of your own tendency to fool yourself." -Paul G. Hewitt [ Part 6: "Included Message" ] Date: Tue, 17 Mar 1998 15:58:45 -0600 From: sc18 Subject: Re: Paper 9 sjd computer instruction... Hi Everybody, This comment seems to be negative about CAI. I'm having great success at teaching organic chemistry by using formative tasks, coupled with .avi movies, and formative quizzes that students take before lecture to simply open their minds to what I'm going to say. Their claim is tha it makes the class easier to learn. KR Fountain [ Part 2: "Included Message" ] Date: Wed, 18 Mar 1998 18:53:59 EST From: Lucky bel Subject: Re: -wv- Paper 9 sjd computer instruction... I have mixed feelings regarding Scott's comments. I believe there is a place for both hands on and the computer based materials. My experience indicates that the concrete tactile experience is necessary to start the learning process. This is important because students have tremendous differences in experience. The physical handling of models and real contact give a common starting point for discussion. Once this starting point is established for everyone in the group then more advanced ideas can be developed. The computer modeling of large molecules can be done more easily with Chem3D or similar programs than could ever be done with a model kit. The kits have limited numbers of parts and are cumbersome to use for bigger molecules. What is also true is that the model kits depicit all atoms as the same size, all single bonds as the same length, etc. This ball and stick picture is better than a verbal picture, but it fails to address many significant concepts that present modeling programs easily do. I use modeling activities at all thre levels: sketches, model kits, and computer generated models. I even go one additional step, I use cut out paper models. I have my students make tetrahedral models using paper cut outs. ( This also in the study guide I wrote that accompanies "The World of Chemistry") I'm sure no one wants to discard useul learning tools (experiences) and replace everything done before with computer based materials. The task dictates the tool. We wouldn't want a brain surgeon to work with a chain saw and we wouldn't want a tree surgeon to necessarily work with a scapel. Walt Volland Department of Chemistry Bellevue Community College Bellevue, Washington 98007 425-641-2467 wvolland@bcc.ctc.edu luckybel@aol.com [ Part 2: "Included Message" ] Date: Thu, 19 Mar 1998 06:16:00 EST From: to2 Subject: Re: -wv- Paper 9 sjd computer instruction... >What's next- replacing qualitative analysis labwork with computer >simulation? Regardless of how good the simulation is, I'll take the real >thing- annoying smells and small acid burns et al- anyday. Reality is always a better approximation to reality than a simulation, but that does not necessarily mean that reality is instructionally sufficient. Some simulations seek to go beyond the outer cosmetics of laboratory gear to show the underlying workings that are fundamentally not directly observable in the laboratory. The smells and burns aren't always the most important lessons we're trying to teach. Ideally, one would not need or want to skip the lab just because a simulation is available, but I suspect that economic reality will in some cases modify our idealistic dreams. A safari to Africa is infinitely preferable to watching National Geographic videos, but... Tom -------------------------------------------------- Tom O'Haver Professor of Analytical Chemistry Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry and Maryland Collaborative for Teacher Preparation The University of Maryland at College Park to2@umail.umd.edu http://www.wam.umd.edu/~toh [ Part 3: "Included Message" ] Date: Thu, 19 Mar 1998 06:47:00 EST From: to2 Subject: Paper 9 - TOH: Software development Peter Gold: >There is another serious problem associated with the great time and effort >required to develop and debug computer-based teaching materials: Once they >are developed there is a powerful incentive to use them as they are for a >long time because changes, even small ones, require a lot of additional >work. For this reason I prefer to develop computer-based teaching materials without programming, as far as possible. I do a lot of development using object-oriented spreadsheets, for example. And Web pages do OK for basic multimedia presentation. But I think we need much more powerful and easier high-level development tools. I want something that is so easy and fun to use that I can throw something together the night before a class, then still understand what I did a year later the next time I teach that class. And I want to develop on the platform of my choice, then deliver on the platform of my students' choice, without cost to the student. Most of the current develoment systems are based on really old (for the computer industry) ideas, such as the spreadsheet (1976) or the direct-manipulation software construction kit (Hypercard, 1985). Where are the really new ideas? Tom Tom O'Haver Professor of Analytical Chemistry Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry and Maryland Collaborative for Teacher Preparation The University of Maryland at College Park to2@umail.umd.edu http://www.wam.umd.edu/~toh [ Part 4: "Included Message" ] Date: Thu, 19 Mar 1998 08:13:15 EST From: Donald Rosenthal Subject: Last Day for Discussion of Paper 9 To: CHEMCONF Registrants From: Donald Rosenthal ROSEN1@CLVM.CLARKSON.EDU Re: LAST DAY FOR DISCUSSION OF PAPER 9 It is 8 AM EST (Eastern Standard Time - 1300 GMT) on Thursday, March 19 This is the last day for discussion of Paper 9 - Pulling Out All the Stops: Applying Technology to Every Facet of Introductory Chemistry by James H. Reeves Consideration of Paper 10 will begin at 8 AM EST tomorrow - Friday, March 20 [ Part 5: "Included Message" ] Date: Thu, 19 Mar 1998 08:29:52 -0500 From: George Long Subject: GRL : A new paradigm for evaluation of computer applications ???? At 01:38 PM 3/17/98 -0700, you wrote: >I'm still not convinced that students suddenly know more about some >molecule of trigonal pyramidal geometry by watching it rotate on a >computer screen as opposed to building a ball and stick model. In this >instance I'd rather keep to the KISS (Keep It Simple Stupid) principle. > I think its pretty clear they don't know any more basic chemistry because of using computers. The more I think about this, the more I have become convinced that the current methods used in evaluating the use of technology in education is flawed. Particularly in chemistry. The current paradigm has us use technology with some students, not use it with others, and then tests them on the same conceptual material. But, why should we expect technology to improve conceptual knowledge. Its not really what technology is about. What Technology brings to education is improved access to materials, the ability to produce Higher quality materials, and powerful tools for preforming calculations, data manipulations predictions, etc. These tools are becoming commonplace for the chemistry (and educational) professional. It does not reduce our work, but it does improve our productivity. The thing the typical exam does not measure is how well the student applies these tools to chemical problems, For example, a simulation of titration is clearly not as good as a real titration for teaching how to do a titration. However, it is also likely that many of our students will be asked to use simulations in their workplace to solve a problem, how do we teach this skill (??) of course by doing a simulation. I think the typical study used to determine effectiveness of a type of curriculum is never going to show an advantage for technology. But I also think we are failing to evaluate what technology does add to our students abilities. **************************************************************************** Dr. George R. Long grlong@grove.iup.edu http://www.iup.edu/~grlong/ Department of Chemistry Indiana University of PA Indiana PA, 15705 **************************************************************************** [ Part 6: "Included Message" ] Date: Thu, 19 Mar 1998 09:16:28 -0500 From: Theresa Julia Zielinski Subject: TJZ re: GRL : A new paradigm for evaluation of computer applications ???? At 08:29 AM 3/19/98 -0500, George Long wrote: > >I think its pretty clear they don't know any more basic chemistry because >of using computers. > Although I agree with most of what George wrote about the miss match between using computers in education and the way we evaluate student learning I want to add that in my opinion they do know more about chemistry and I do know more about what they know about chemistry due to computers. Having access to information is a key to learning more. Having opportunities to interact with that information is a second key. What I perceive that is missing is sufficient time in our curricula and class schedules to provide the interaction with the material that would lead to even greater learning. It is the same principle as time on task for any studying activity. Computers increase time on task. They increase data load. They do not teach how to reflect on the data and manipulate it to create understanding. I will try to be brief. There is a balance between information acquisition and information processing. Having lots of information is as useless as memorizing a ton of formulas, algorithms, or chemical reactions. It has to be processed. The processing is the most difficult thing to learn to do and takes the longest time in a student's study day. I think we need to rethink teaching from a means of transfer information, which has been the predominant theme for as long as I can remember, and to switch to teaching processing data, but not just algorithms for plug and chug. How do we teach the students to assess and evaluate information. this is the key to critical thinking that will enable them to learn anything anytime they wish. We leave our selves open to letting students sit passively in our courses and taking notes when we do not engage their minds in an intellectual struggle to draw significance out of the information available to them. We are fortunate that now we have a means to deliver the necessary masses of information for students to practice the skills of assessing and evaluating this information and to draw chemical concepts from it. I know we need a balance but we need also to free ourselves from past pedagogical practices, practices that were suitable for the slide rule age. If one looks for the perfect mix of strategies to arrive on the scene before one tries something new in the classroom, you will wait a long time. Just go and try. The excitement is well worth the risk and the students will learn stuff beyond chemistry. This is after all what a University education is about. And so I will end this post to announce that I am leaving Niagara University. I have accepted the position of Full Professor and Chair of the Department of Chemistry, Medical Technology, and Physics at Monmouth University in West Long Branch New Jersey. My life is in turmoil with moving and leaving a great bunch of students behind. These students boldly followed me where ever I lead. They are a great bunch of guys and gals. I am impressed with their dedication to learning and the vast array of skills and self discipline they bring to their studies. We didn't do every chapter in our pchem text but we did some exciting selections of chapters. What they know they really know. They teach me as much as I teach them. Who ever gets these students in graduate school or medical school is very lucky. I will miss them but I am confident in their skills. Theresa Theresa Julia Zielinski Professor of Chemistry Department of Chemistry Niagara University Niagara University, NY 14109 theresaz@localnet.com http://www.niagara.edu/~tjz/ 716-639-0762 (H - voice, voice mail and fax) 716-286-8257 (O - voice and voice mail) [ Part 7: "Included Message" ] Date: Thu, 19 Mar 1998 11:26:58 -0500 From: Leon Combs Chemistry Subject: Re: TJZ re: GRL : A new paradigm for evaluation of computer applications ???? >I know we need a balance but we need also to free ourselves from past >pedagogical practices, practices that were suitable for the slide rule age. I don't agree with this statement. I was a university student during the slide-rule era and most of my teachers did stress creative thinking rather than memorization. I remember my organic professor saying that he could teach his parrot to say chemical formulas, but he could not get the parrot to develop new mechanisms for product formation from reactants. He continually stressed in the lectures, on homework assignments, in the laboratories, and in office discussions with students that we must learn to apply knowledge and not just memorize. His homework and test questions challenged us to apply concepts to new problems. His teaching methods from 28 years ago are still what I consider ideal. He had no computers, but he challenged us to create solutions in our minds. My point: some past pedagogical practices are perhaps what needs revisiting and only supplementing with current technology. New is not necessarily better. Our country has produced more than its share of Nobel prize winners in a system that stressed understanding, not memorization. A member of the Physics Nobel Selection Committee with whom I have worked has repeatedly directed me to research papers before the era of the computer to learn more about how people reasoned through complex issues without the benefit of computer visualizations and applications. My experience is that most people near my age (59) did indeed have an educational experience which did involve creative thinking. During my 31 years of teaching I have also always strived to continually challenge my students to think, not memorize. Perhaps we need to bring back the slide rule! I still have mine. Leon Leon L. Combs, Ph.D. Tel: 770-423-6159 Professor and Chair FAX: 770-423-6744 Department of Chemistry lcombs@ksumail.kennesaw.edu Kennesaw State University http://science.kennesaw.edu/~lcombs 1000 Chastain Road CARPE DIEM ---- CORUM DEO Kennesaw, GA 30144 [ Part 8: "Included Message" ] Date: Thu, 19 Mar 1998 11:45:29 -0500 From: Carol White Subject: Re: TJZ re: GRL : A new paradigm for evaluation of computer applications ???? Your points are well-made. (I requested a "really good" slide rule as a high school graduation present much to the amazement of my family.) I had several chemistry professors at the University of Georgia who gave tests designed to make the student "learn something from the test." However, I remember being provided opportunities to "think" and apply knowledge to new situations all through grade school and high school. How do we deal with students who don't know how to "think?" Many of my students want to memorize information. They want every step in every lab experiment spelled out in detail. It is very difficult to teach a 20-, 30-, 40-year old student how to think when they have relied on memorization in the past. [ Part 9: "Included Message" ] Date: Thu, 19 Mar 1998 11:39:48 -0500 From: Theresa Julia Zielinski Subject: TJZ A new paradigm for evaluation of computer applications ???? I too still have the slide rule my Dad gave me when I was a Freshman in college back in 1959. The cursor is broken so I can't use it any more. But Leon makes an interesting point. Perhaps consider the intent of what I wrote and not the explicit words. In our head long rush to cover content I think we have lost some of the quality that was present in education back in the slide rule days, and I am only a bit younger than Leon. Back then in the age of giants there were no NMRs or GCs etc. We covered much less content for sure. I agree that critical thinking is important but in physical chemistry before the entry of computers it was necessary to limit the amount of data and quality of the analysis. Problems that students can handle today are more complex and lead to greater insights than before thanks to technology. But then of course we could continue as I was once advised to do, use a DeNouy Tensiometer and do thermodynamics with the data. You don't need more than that. Or perhaps we can continue to do vapor pressure measurements in pchem. This is what is at the core of pchem. Don't innovate. Don't modernize. Let pchem stay as it was 35 or more years ago when the bomb calorimeter was a state of the art piece of equipment. Perhaps we should all go back to do viscosity as a function of temperature. Students should be able to see real relevance to modern physical chemistry in this. Unfortunately I don't think that most courses point to literature for the students. How many of our students can read a paper by R. Hoffmann on Extended Huckel method? Hoffmann writes beautifully and the paper dates back to 1963. Can they read a paper by Warren Hehre or understand the basic concepts underlying the models used in software that is commonly used in the pharmaceutical companies? I think maybe we should do as Leon suggests and add the literature to our courses to focus our teaching and make it relevant. This is a very difficult area for thought and discussion. We can look back or we can look forward. I think we can and should look forward and recrystallize the quality of our educational experiences with fine teachers and create similar experiences for our students using the new tools available to us and the rich sources of data that were never available to us. I guess we need to develop new ways to foster critical thinking growth that responds to the glut of information our students are subject to. They will be working with computers and need to learn critical thinking in a computer age and with computer tools. But then maybe we are running in circles and everything is fine in chemical education land. :) Theresa Theresa Julia Zielinski Professor of Chemistry Department of Chemistry Niagara University Niagara University, NY 14109 theresaz@localnet.com http://www.niagara.edu/~tjz/ 716-639-0762 (H - voice, voice mail and fax) 716-286-8257 (O - voice and voice mail) [ Part 10: "Included Message" ] Date: Thu, 19 Mar 1998 12:31:17 -0500 From: Bill Vining Subject: Re: A new paradigm for evaluation of computer applications Most of what is being said today is true. There are plenty of examples of where computer use can be detrimental to students figuring things out for themselves, doing the hard work that helps make them smarter for the effort. There are, however, things that computers can do that were not practical or possible before. They fall into two catagories: 1. More direct transfer of my mental images of chemical events to my students. I can draw on the board and wave my hands to try to describe how I visualize chemistry on the molecular scale. There is no doubt that I can transmit that better with an animation. As to the question: doesn't it hurt the student to not come up with those images on their own? I reply: part of my job is to describe things to students, and if can do that better with an animation, that's the right thing to do. What matters is the follow-up to that description; asking the students to take those ideas a few steps further. So, they get a good description- better than I could do without the computer- and the mental exercise to make it count. I've never been impressed with the claim "if I explain too well, they won't have to think and won't learn as well." 2. The students can explore and practice taking "data" and drawing conclusions. This seems to me to be the real place where technology can make a difference. One facet of learning science is to understand and be able to apply scientific concepts. The main part of being a scientist is being able to use those tools to take information and come to conclusions about chemical systems. It is this last part that is missing from our courses. We do a little of it in lab, but do the students know that the things they see in their books come from people laying 50 pieces of information out on a table and figuring out how it fits? And then doing all with six different systems to see if it makes sense. They don't learn how to take the data and conclude something about how molecules act. One of our biggest goals is to providing software that allows students to generate data that will allow them to conclude for themselves the rules that they find in their books. As to the root of this discussion, we've been teaching that way for a few years now, the students say they love it but I really have no idea how to quantify it. How do I test exploration skills in freshmen? We're working on figuring out a way, but I'm honestly not sure how to go about it. Bill +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Bill Vining Associate Professor of Chemical Education and Director of General Chemistry Lederle Graduate Research Tower University of Massachusetts Amherst, MA 01003 413-545-2352 Fax: 413-545-5410 http://soulcatcher.chem.umass.edu [ Part 11: "Included Message" ] Date: Thu, 19 Mar 1998 11:56:13 -0600 From: Mike Epstein Subject: Re: A new paradigm for evaluation of computer applications [The following text is in the "iso-8859-1" character set] [Your display is set for the "ISO-LATIN" character set] [Some characters may be displayed incorrectly] -----Original Message----- From: Bill Vining >2. The students can explore and practice taking "data" and drawing >conclusions. This seems to me to be the real place where technology can >make a difference. I would wholeheartedly agree completely with this comment. For example, the standard acid-base titrations done in general chemistry and quantitative analysis involve a buret as the measuring device and the color-change of a pH indicator as the end-point detector. Pretty straightforward stuff. Add technology (i.e. a computer, electronic balance, pH or colorimetric probes, etc.) and you introduce considerably more complexity and the need for exploration, decision-making, and critical thinking. A simple experiment can be turned into an extensive learning experience and you don't lose the chemistry involved. This is the real power of technology for education. ================================================== Mike Epstein Research Chemist, NIST, Gaithersburg, Maryland [Opinions expressed are mine ... not necessarily theirs] PHONE: (301) 975-4114 FAX: (301) 869-0413 Mike_S_Epstein@msn.com Michael.Epstein@nist.gov WWW Home Page: http://www.s-a-s.org/epstein/epstein.html Check out our new Spectrochemical Methods Group Page at NIST: http://www.cstl.nist.gov/nist839/839.01/spectro.htm "Standardization is a euphemism for monopoly" ... Ralph Nader at the Appraising Microsoft Conference, Nov 13-14, 1997 [ Part 12: "Included Message" ] Date: Thu, 19 Mar 1998 13:02:48 -0400 From: "Harry E. Pence" Subject: Re: TJZ A new paradigm for evaluation of computer applications ???? The dialogue between Theresa and Leon reminds me of an experience I had several years ago at an ACS meeting. I went to a symposium on how to teach P Chem. and sat next to a gentleman who was obviously very unhappy with the topic and became more unhappy with each new speaker. I wrote him off as a hide-bound conservative and probably would have forgotten the incident, except that I met him socially later on in the meeting. When I mentioned the P.Chem. talks, he became very agitated. To my surprise, i discovered that the reason for his agitation was not that the speakers were too progressive, but rather the "innovations" they were discussing consisted of methods that he had been using for the past twenty years. For example, he told me that he started every P.Chem. class with a demonstration, then related his lecture to the demonstrations. I responded that if I had been taught in that way, I might even have enjoyed P.Chem. I learned two important things from that meeting. The first was, obviously, don't jump to conclusions. The second is that for many years there have been dedicated teachers who have been using techniques that are similar to what we are talking about today. Unfortunately, there have not been nearly enough of them to make much difference in the overall way that students are learning. Anytime that you begin to believe that everything is just fine in chemistry teaching, read the comments in Sheila Tobias' books about undergraduate science instruction to find out what intelligent adults think about the way much of our teaching looks to them. It isn't enough to quote single examples and say, "Old Doc So and So taught me how to think!" The question is, what fraction of the total number of chemistry teachers are like old Doc So and So! Education is one of the most conservative professions known, and any effort to make change will eventually create massive reaction. I think that we are beginning to see this reaction. The forces pressing us to use the new technologies are becoming very powerful, and to those who argue that the old methods were good enough for Lavoisier, these forces are very threatening. I think that we must learn how to incorporate technology into our courses, or we will be replaced by someone who will. The ground is shifting under our feet. Like every other group of professionals, we must accept the possibility for change. If you think things are confused for us, talk to your doctor. I'm afraid that maintaining the status quo is not an option. Remember the old Chinese CURSE: "May you live in interesting times!" Things are getting more "interesting" by the day. Cordially, Harry ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ | Harry E. Pence INTERNET: PENCEHE@ONEONTA.EDU | | Professor of Chemistry PHONE: 607-436-3179 | | SUNY Oneonta OFFICE: 607-436-3193 | | Oneonta, NY 13820 FAX: 607-436-2654 | | http://snyoneab.oneonta.edu/~pencehe/ | | \\\//// | | (0 0) | |_______________OOO__(oo)__OOO____________________________| [ Part 13: "Included Message" ] Date: Thu, 19 Mar 1998 12:33:53 -0500 From: Theresa Julia Zielinski Subject: Re: A new paradigm for evaluation of computer applications At 12:31 PM 3/19/98 -0500, Bill Vinning wrote: > >As to the root of this discussion, we've been teaching that way for a few >years now, the students say they love it but I really have no idea how to >quantify it. How do I test exploration skills in freshmen? We're working on >figuring out a way, but I'm honestly not sure how to go about it. Here in lies the great question. How do we go about assessing and evaluating what we are doing? This is where the hard research in chemical education lies. I have no answer. What I observed in my students is very unquantifiable by exams. My exams have gotten harder their achievement is better but could be better still. It seems like a moving target. Always the goal posts move with the new levels of learning even in one course. How does one measure the maturity level one sees developing in a student in lecture and lab with respect to how they handle data, approach problems, etc. Even when they stumble I see growth. It is not the stumble of a toddler. It is more like my kind of stumble. How does one quantify that? Difficult. Very difficult. I think we also need to distinguish between assessment and evaluation. Perhaps better articulated goals will help. Theresa Theresa Julia Zielinski Professor of Chemistry Department of Chemistry Niagara University Niagara University, NY 14109 theresaz@localnet.com http://www.niagara.edu/~tjz/ 716-639-0762 (H - voice, voice mail and fax) 716-286-8257 (O - voice and voice mail) [ Part 14: "Included Message" ] Date: Thu, 19 Mar 1998 12:37:52 -0500 From: Bert Ramsay Subject: Re: TJZ re: GRL : A new paradigm for evaluation of computerapplications ???? [The following text is in the "ISO-8859-1" character set] [Your display is set for the "ISO-LATIN" character set] [Some characters may be displayed incorrectly] Leon Combs suggests: > > Perhaps we need to bring back the slide rule! I still have mine. === I suggest we bring in something better: a chemical calculator - which will be more effective at developing chemical conceptual skills! The students who dropped by our booth at the NIExpo at Epcot Center were uniformly enthusistic! Bert Ramsay at c3@BizServe.com or see http://www.BizServe.com/c3 . p.s. Be happy to chat with any of you attending the ACS meeting in Dallas. Will bring along the hand-held prototype (running on a Newton MessagePad), [ Part 15: "Included Message" ] Date: Thu, 19 Mar 1998 12:35:43 -0800 From: "K.R.Fountain" Subject: Re: A new paradigm for evaluation of computer applications Hi, Ican Amen this message thoroughly. In my application the computer stuff occurs before I lecture about it. Then students get to see how I process the data they have gatyhered. Samples of my "prevenient movies" can be viewed at http://www2.truman.edu/~sc18. The good movies are in Wadesem2 and in individual chapter files. Ch 17 contains a gnoson for activation of benzene ring by methyl group. The music has a message for every reaction, and my voice anonation focusses on the point. Check it out. Sincerely, Ken Fountain [ Part 16: "Included Message" ] Date: Thu, 19 Mar 1998 11:42:08 -0700 From: Scott Donnelly Subject: Paper 9 sjd Re: Response to Bill Vining... Dr. Vining recently commented: "How do I test exploration skills in freshmen? We're working on figuring out a way, but I'm honestly not sure how to go about it." I have an exercise that you may be interested in that attempts to introduce and/or test freshmen students' exploration skills. I write a science column for the local newspaper entitled Science Odyssey for which the details of the exercise can be found. The website is http://www.awc.cc.az.us/chem/sciody/. In a nutshell the exercise involves students forming a hypothesis about what influences how fast an ice skater spins based on a single and mostly reliable observation. Most students have seen (especially since the Winter Olmpics were this year) singles figure skating events and have reliably observed that the skater spins faster as the arms (mass) are brought towards the chest, i.e. along the stationary rotational axis. The spin slows as the arms (mass) are in turn moved away from the rotational axis. The exercise asks students to formulate a hypothesis based on that one reliable observation. Some key observations are- the rotational axis is stationary, the mass relative to the rotational axis influences spin rate both positively and negatively, and an initial momentum was present. >From their observations have students formulate a hypothesis about what influences how fast an ice skater spins, i.e. the increase in a skater's rotational velocity depends on where the skater's mass is positioned relative to the stationary axis of rotation. This hypothesis is based exclusively on their observations. Using empty tuna cans and washers have students then devise an experiment that attempts to confirm or refute their hypothesis. How might the experiment be designed? The following is an exerpt from my article. "Let's do an experiment using two empty tuna cans and washers to test this hypothesis. To one can #1 tape several large washers periodically along the inside wall. To can #2 stack the same number of washers as before atop each other. Tape the stack in the inside and in the center of can #2. The axis of rotation is the same for both cans. Can #1 has the added mass distributed away from the axis of rotation. This is equivalent to the skater's arms being away from the body. Can #2 has the added mass centered on the axis of rotation. This is equivalent to the skater's arms being up against the body." Have students make a prediction and determine if the experiment confirms or refutes the hypothesis. Although it's not chemistry I think that this exercise, in some simple way that students can identify with prior to doing the more abstract chemistry labs, introduces freshmen students to exploration, hypothesis generation based on observation, and predicting outcomes based on observations and experimental design. This exercise can be extended to include two skaters (pairs figure skating) who are of different mass and who are both simultaneously and with the same initial velocity about to go into a spin. Which will spin faster- the one with more mass or less mass? This is the next Science Odyssey article topic which will appear this Sunday. At least for me the observation is less reliable. I've seen it before but forgot what I saw since I watch pairs figure skating less than singles. Here is an exerpt from the article. "But we can form a hypothesis based on the following prediction- if one skater spins (rotates) faster, then it must be due to the difference in the masses since this is the only difference that exists between the two skaters. We must also assume that the two skaters have the same shape before and during the spin. Let's do an experiment to test this hypothesis. The experiment includes a stopwatch, an inclined board, and a section each of PVC tubing and lead pipe. The PVC tubing needs to have the same length and diameter as the lead pipe. Time how long it takes for each cylinder to roll down the board. Repeat the experiment a number of times for each cylinder. In summary, for each cylinder the axis of rotation is parallel to the ground, the mass is located the same distance from the rotational axis, and the initial velocity at the top of the inclined board is zero. The lead pipe though is heavier and thus has more mass distributed around its rotational axis. The experimental design then is consistent with our limited observations and is set up to either verify or refute the hypothesis. Remember the hypothesis. If one of the cylinders rolls faster (or slower) down the board, this outcome is due to one of the cylinders having more or less mass distributed around its rotational axis relative to the other cylinder. Notice that the verity of our hypothesis doesn't depend on which cylinder rolls faster but only that one of the cylinders rolls faster." Again it's not chemistry but a good exercise (I think) that "forces" students to combine observation with experimental design with hypothesis generation. Hope this helps. My apologies for it being so long. Cheers! Scott Donnelly [ Part 17: "Included Message" ] Date: Thu, 19 Mar 1998 12:44:47 -0800 From: "K.R.Fountain" Subject: Re: TJZ A new paradigm for evaluation of computer applications ???? Ought we not be looking to our philosophies of education, selecting which give the consonance with how our students (and we) learn and shifting philosphy so as to expoit a new medium?\ Ken Fountain [ Part 18: "Included Message" ] Date: Thu, 19 Mar 1998 12:49:38 -0800 From: "K.R.Fountain" Subject: Re: A new paradigm for evaluation of computer applications Hi, Does anybody listen to how the quality of students' questions chage during the course of a semester ( or lesson, or experiment)? I count on observing a change from "I'm lost" to "if such and such happens, then so and so is the result. isn't it?" This type of shift in quality gives more info in asking the question than is required by the response. I know I'm winning big when this happens. It happens most often with a prevenient experience, modified y subsequent re-representation of that experiniece, followed by a demonstration of expert behavior by the instructor ( see Rief, J. Chem. Ed., ca 1982) Ken Fountain [ Part 19: "Included Message" ] Date: Thu, 19 Mar 1998 13:54:49 -0500 From: "Richard O. Pendarvis" Subject: ROP Re: GRL : A new paradigm for evaluation of computer applications ???? On Thu, 19 Mar 1998, George Long wrote: > The more I think about this, the more I have become convinced that the > current methods used in evaluating the use of technology in education is > flawed. Particularly in chemistry. The current paradigm has us use > technology with some students, not use it with others, and then tests them > on the same conceptual material. But, why should we expect technology to > improve conceptual knowledge. Its not really what technology is about. --snip-- > > I think the typical study used to determine effectiveness of a type of > curriculum is never going to show an advantage for technology. But I also > think we are failing to evaluate what technology does add to our students > abilities. > I agree with you. This is actually true of essentially anything you "study" in chemical education, including "collaborative learning". There is no magic bullet. So much is dependent on the students, type of school, instructors, available resorces etc. IMHO, the process is too complicated to draw much more than generallizations. However, generalizations are sometimes usefull. I guess the key is to determine which generalizations are useful in our own situation. /* Richard */ #include - - ____ | | _ | | Organic Chemistry / \ |_| | | || CAI Programming / \ | | / \ || Pizza / \ / \ | | _||_ Star Trek (_________) (_____) |______| _/____\_ Doberman Pinschers --------------------------------------------------------------------------- | Richard Pendarvis, Ph.D. 3001 W. College Road | | Associate Professor of Chemistry Ocala, FL 32608 | | Central Florida Community College EMAIL: afn02809@afn.org | --------------------------------------------------------------------------- [ Part 20: "Included Message" ] Date: Thu, 19 Mar 1998 15:23:22 -0500 From: Leon Combs Chemistry Subject: Re: TJZ A new paradigm for evaluation of computer applications ???? > We can look back or we can look forward. I think that we should continually do both. I am continually amazed to hear of "paradigm shifts" which actually are a rediscovery of old methods which did NOT work then and, for legitimate reasons, will also not work now. We need to learn from the past and take it toward the future as we develop new techniques. Many techniques from the past are still excellent "paradigms" and don't need "shifting". Some techniques of the past need burying. Some excellent new methods have been developed. I think that my paper, "Creative Learners in Physical Chemistry and Modern Physics" (J.Chem.Ed., p462, vol 70, 1993) also still has some good ideas (and it does use computer technology) involving the basic components writing, reading, computer assistance, group work, and oral presentations. I applaud the many good papers in J.Chem.Ed. and other places which have helped all of us become better motivators of learning. Keep it up, but don't forget the good in the past. As a theoretician, I have seen unbelievable changes in computer technology since I began in graduate school in 1964. I do have a web page supplement to my courses, use computers for data acquisition, am chair of our college technology strategy committee, and my slide rule still works, Theresa! This was fun. Leon Leon L. Combs, Ph.D. Tel: 770-423-6159 Professor and Chair FAX: 770-423-6744 Department of Chemistry lcombs@ksumail.kennesaw.edu Kennesaw State University http://science.kennesaw.edu/~lcombs 1000 Chastain Road CARPE DIEM ---- CORUM DEO Kennesaw, GA 30144 [ Part 21: "Included Message" ] Date: Thu, 19 Mar 1998 15:39:15 EST From: Lucky bel Subject: Re: -wv- TJZ re: GRL : A new paradigm for I enthusiastically agree with Leon's comments. I went through a system that encouraged me and my classmates to be inquisitive and challenge accepted "correct" views. The idea that only new approaches to education can create critical thinking and creative citizens ignores the facts of history. Pauling, Seaborg, and a long string of brilliant scientists have come out of our previous system. A real benefit of new or purportedly new pedagogies is that they may help educate an additional segment of the population that would not have been reached before. Simultaneously, the blend of new and old may improve our ability to communicate ideas and develop critical thinking skills in our students. Memorization is a neccessary part of education for selected facts and definitions. For example, I guess that we want people to know the normal bp of water is 100C or 373K. Never the less, I rarely have my students memorize material. I want my students to think about how properties interrelate. I'm very unhappy when they merely substitute into an equation and spout out a result. They need to be able to explain what the result represents. A controversy over the methods used to achieve our goals is important because the distribution of resources is also at issue. The extent and pace of change is an issue. Wholesale replacement of traditional methods and courses would be prohibitively expensive and unnecessary. It would siphon support away from other programs. I am commited to distance learning and computers in chemical education. I and my students use computers all the time. I support the use of new methods and materials. Old methods work better in many situations. I like simulations linked with wet lab work. I use this approach in my classes. Similarly I introduce ms, nmr and ir to classes without having students use the actual equipment. The data analysis is what I stress rather than the mechanics of operation. I dislike beating up the past to justify changes that have enough merit to be adopted on their own. Walt Volland Department of Chemistry Bellevue Community College Bellevue, Washington 98007 425-641-2467 wvolland@bcc.ctc.edu luckybel@aol.com [ Part 22: "Included Message" ] Date: Thu, 19 Mar 1998 16:02:08 -0500 From: Leon Combs Chemistry Subject: teaching chemistry There is a very interesting article relating to past, present, and future teaching of chemistry in J.Chem.Ed., p 425, vol 75, 1998 by Lagowski for UTAustin which relates to our discussions. Leon Leon L. Combs, Ph.D. Tel: 770-423-6159 Professor and Chair FAX: 770-423-6744 Department of Chemistry lcombs@ksumail.kennesaw.edu Kennesaw State University http://science.kennesaw.edu/~lcombs 1000 Chastain Road CARPE DIEM ---- CORUM DEO Kennesaw, GA 30144 [ Part 23: "Included Message" ] Date: Thu, 19 Mar 1998 16:02:59 EST From: Lucky bel Subject: Re: -wv- Re: A new I agree with Mike, students are supposed to be learning about the relationship between acids and bases when they do an acid-base titration. A simulation can provide the data needed. The mechanics of doing the titration itself are incidental for most students. A future lab technician or chem major will probably need to get hands on practice sometime. I use both simulations and wet labs in my classes. The versatility of the simulations enable my students to study many more systems and conditions than they could ever do with only wet labs. Everyone does not need to do the same activities to learn chemistry. Walt Volland Department of Chemistry Bellevue Community College Bellevue, Washington 98007 425-641-2467 wvolland@bcc.ctc.edu luckybel@aol.com [ Part 24: "Included Message" ] Date: Thu, 19 Mar 1998 16:17:21 -0500 From: Theresa Julia Zielinski Subject: Re: TJZ A new paradigm for evaluation of computer applications ???? Leon, How lucky your slide rule still works. Theresa Theresa Julia Zielinski Professor of Chemistry Department of Chemistry Niagara University Niagara University, NY 14109 theresaz@localnet.com http://www.niagara.edu/~tjz/ 716-639-0762 (H - voice, voice mail and fax) 716-286-8257 (O - voice and voice mail) [ Part 25: "Included Message" ] Date: Thu, 19 Mar 1998 19:39:31 EST From: Lucky bel Subject: Re: TJZ A new paradigm for evaluation of computer applications It is a wonderful thing that the old K & E [ Part 26: "Included Message" ] Date: Thu, 19 Mar 1998 19:52:40 EST From: Lucky bel Subject: Re: -wv- slide rules Leon's old slide rule works because Leon knows how to use it. He knows its limitations. It is environmentally friendly without any batteries, printed circuits, or planned obsolescence. It is a functional tool not a replacement for analysis. ( Of course it is extremely slow. ) :-) Slide rules are tools not consumer products. :-) :-) Walt Volland Department of Chemistry Bellevue Community College Bellevue, Washington 98007 425-641-2467 wvolland@bcc.ctc.edu luckybel@aol.com [ Part 27: "Included Message" ] Date: Thu, 19 Mar 1998 22:24:59 EST From: GILOEB@AMERICAN.EDU Subject: Re: CHEMCONF Digest - 14 Mar 1998 to 16 Mar 1998 I think that the respondents to this list should reconsider the instruction tha t is sent out repeatedly: you only should include enough of the msg you are res ponding to to give the reader a clue. YUO DON"T HAVE TO REPEAT THE WHOLE THING [ Part 3: "Included Message" ] Date: Fri, 20 Mar 1998 14:51:08 -0500 From: Victor Bendall Subject: Re: -wv- slide rules Slide rules are NOT slow particularly for routine multiplication and division. A practised user can easily beat the time taken by a student to perform routine calculations on a computer with the added advantage that miskeying a value into the slide rule is seldom a problem. With my circular slide rule (equivalent to 7O inches long) I can rely on four significant digit accuracy which is enough for all routine calculations in freshman chemistry. The principal difficulty was keeping track of the powers of ten but the practice of having to do that has certainly served me well over the years.