1 / 26

Group Size and Workshop Effectiveness

This study examines the effect of group size on the effectiveness of workshops in chemistry education. It analyzes feedback from students and leaders, as well as grade comparisons for large and small groups. Results suggest that group size can influence the helpfulness of workshops.

pclay
Download Presentation

Group Size and Workshop Effectiveness

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

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Group Size and Workshop Effectiveness Lucille B. Garmon University of West Georgia Presented at the 19th Biennial Conference on Chemical Education Purdue University August 3, 2006

  2. What a Workshop is Supposed to Be • ”In the PLTL Workshop model, the class is divided into groups of six to eight students. . .” • The basic idea of PLTL workshops, as stated in numerous PLTL publications. • “The PLTL Workshop model engages teams of six to eight students . . .” • http://www.wci.ccny.cuny.edu/~chemwkshp/WhatIsPLTLDefinition.html

  3. What It Is (sometimes) • ”I have two groups this semester: one with three students and one with sixteen.” • From a peer leader at another institution

  4. Why Not Follow the Model? • Larger groups look like an obvious money-saving device. • Hours to pay a peer leader stay the same while “productivity” goes up. • Other resources may be strained. • The supply of leaders may be limited. • Time and space constraints may impose need for fewer total workshop sections. • Fewer sections is seen as a way to reduce administrative workload.

  5. Workshop Chemistry at UWG

  6. What Happened at UWG • In Fall 2005 the average size of workshops in 1st-semester general chemistry was 8.1. The largest group had 9 students; the smallest had 6. • In Spring 2006 the average size of workshops in 2nd-semester general chemistry was 10.9. The largest group had 13 students; the smallest had 8.

  7. Did It Make a Difference? • Three ways of evaluating the effect of workshop size were examined. • Feedback from students in workshop • Feedback from leaders • Grade comparisons for large and small workshop groups

  8. Midterm Workshop Survey • An attachment to the second in-class exam asks students to fill out a simple survey. • _____ How helpful have the workshops been up to now in learning chemistry? (A) a big help (B) somewhat helpful (C) OK, but not as helpful as I thought they’d be (D) more confusing than helpful (E) I can’t say; I’ve missed most of the workshops. • Students are then given an opportunity to add whatever comments they wish.

  9. Feedback from Students • This past spring two additional questions were added for 2nd-semester students. • _____ Is the size of your workgroup this semester noticeably different from the size of the group you were in last fall? (A) No, there are about the same number of people as last semester. (B) Yes, there are more people in my group this semester. (C) Yes, I am in a smaller group this semester. (D) Not applicable. I wasn’t in a workshop last semester. • If the size is noticeably different this semester, has this made a difference in the helpfulness of the workshop experience? Explain.

  10. Results of Survey on Size • 161 responses received. • About half (82) perceived WS size as “about the same.” • Could be because of lower attendance. • 52 said was noticeably larger. • 10 said was smaller. • 17 had not been in a workshop the previous semester.

  11. Perceptions of Larger WS • Of the 52 students who were in a noticeably larger group, • 8 (15%) thought this was a positive. • “More people to think up a way to explain.” • 20 (38%) thought it was a negative. • “Too many unprepared students hold everybody else up.” “Leader can’t keep group in focus as easily.” • Remainder didn’t think it made any difference.

  12. Perceptions of Smaller WS • Of the 10 students who were in a noticeably smaller group, • 4 (40%) thought this was a positive. • 1 (10%) thought it was a negative. • Remainder didn’t think it made any difference.

  13. Workshop Evaluations • Given at end of semester • Parallel course evaluations given in all courses, with modified questions. • E.g., “The instructor explains clearly.” is changed to • “The leader elicits explanations from the group, summarizing and clarifying them if necessary.” • Scored on 1-to-5 SD-D-N-A-SA scale. • All question worded so that 5 is good.

  14. Results from These Evaluations • In Fall 2005 the average score was 4.38. • 210 students each responding to 27 questions. • In Spring 2006 the average score was 4.09. • 292 students each responding to same 27 questions.

  15. End-of-Semester Evaluations, Last 3 Years • Group Evaluation Size N Average 4 or 5 27 4.41 6 or 7 86 4.25 8 or 9 67 4.21 10 or 11 32 4.22 12 or 13 11 4.15

  16. Exam Scores • The average in-class exam score (4 exams) of students in 1st-semester general chemistry was compared with the average exam score of the same students in 2nd-semester general chemistry (also 4 exams). • The change was correlated with the change in size of workshop that student was in.

  17. Changes in Workshop Size, Exam Average, and Grade • Change in Avg Exam Avg. Grade Group Size N Change Change • -2 or -1 10 -4.6 -0.20 • 0 or 1 36 -13.3 -0.64 • 2 or 3 41 -13.6 -0.44 • 4 or 5 14 -17.0 -0.69 • 6 or 7 13 -17.5 -0.83

  18. Leader Opinions • Informal poll got responses from twenty leaders. Most had strong opinions. • Consensus was that 4 is too small and 12 is too big. • Ideal was 8. • “7 to 9” • “7 or 8” • “8 or 9”

  19. Leader Comments • “11 seems too much. People don’t feel as much at ease with each other. Five is too small. One person often takes over. Eight works really well.” • “With bigger groups, 11 or 12 or 13, there’s more hang-ups because one or two people don’t catch on to something.” • “My largest was 11 and my smallest was five. 8 is perfect.” • “Sometimes I had too few. 2 or 3 is not enough to get cooperative learning going.” • “It is hard to keep everyone focused with 10 or 12.”

  20. More Comments • “The largest group I had was 12 and I wouldn’t want any more. The smallest was 4 which makes it more personal but harder because you frequently have to give a LOT more guidance because you are less likely to have someone who understands enough to get going on a problem.” • “Smaller workshops seem to work more effectively. However, I had one group of 12 that I loved because they seemed to work so great together. I also had a group of 5 that I loved. If you have a group of six and half don’t wanna participate and couple more don’t usually show up, then of course that small group sucks.”

  21. Still More Comments • “As a student I was one of eight. As a leader I had six students. Both times I have had the best experience ever. I truly believe that small groups are much better than large groups. HOWEVER, I sat once to look at ____’s workshop last semester. She had 13 and it looked great. She made it look easy though I now know that working with that many students is not easy; it takes a lot of practice. I would not recommend it for myself or any of the new workshop leaders.” • “You can be effective with a group of 4 or a group of 14. It just takes using the right techniques.”

  22. Conclusions • Students respond better to small groups. • Large groups did not seem to be as helpful to students in 2nd-semester general chemistry as their smaller groups in 1st-semester. • While some leaders can do well with larger or smaller groups, leaders perceive the ideal as 8. • Institutions implementing PLTL would be well advised to set an upper and lower limit for group size. Based on recommendations from experienced leaders, 6 should be the lower limit and 12 should be the upper limit.

  23. Acknowledgements • National Science Foundation Grant 9950575, which got chemistry workshops started, • Colleagues Sharmistha Basu-Dutt, Farooq Khan, David Boatright, Megumi Fujita, and Shane Kuykendall, who shared exam data from their first- and second-semester general chemistry students, • All the peer leaders who responded with decided opinions on workgroup size.

More Related