Reflection, Research, Application The on-going Transformation Cycle in Chemistry 121/123

1. Reflection, Research, ApplicationThe on-going Transformation Cycle in Chemistry 121/123

2. Initial conditions Literature Pedagogical decision What are your conditions? What about the pedagogical perspective? Issues we considered: Student response TA response Experience What issues do you need to consider? ongoing Conclusion Reflection Research Discussion recursiveness scaffolding

3. SETTING • 2500 students term 1 (Chem 121 + Chem 154) • 1600 students term 2 (Chem 123) • 35 TAs • 1 laboratory instructor • 2 part-time lab technicians • Alternate week labs

4. ALTERNATE WEEK LABS

5. Let’s look at the incoming students • Surface learning Memorization and repetition (Bloom Taxonomy Lowest Levels) • Difficulties in processing written information • Poor laboratory skills • Difficulties integrating concepts • Poor transference skills: eg. difficulties in contextualizing math for chemistry • Unable to apply acquired skills in unfamiliar situations

6. Deep Structure Learning to be able requires to understand to design synthesis of principles an experiment theory and method Theory Method Application experiential knowledge is required in the Laboratory PEDAGOGICAL PROCESSResult: Guided Inquiry

7. LAB COMPONENTS • Problem: Students need to apply theoretical concepts, become familiar with the techniques and synthesize them to create an experimental design. How could we facilitate students’ lab preparation outside the classroom? • Solution: • Dry Lab Week (outside the lab) Preparation for the Experiment • Wet Lab Week (inside the lab) Performing the Experiment

9. Initial conditions Literature Pedagogical decision What are your conditions? What about the pedagogical perspective? Issues we considered: Student response TA response Experience What issues do you need to consider? ongoing Conclusion Reflection Research Discussion recursiveness scaffolding

10. TRANSFORMATION Example of outcomes: Volumetric Analysis Quiz

11. TAs Preparation • TAG/Skylight workshop in guided inquiry teaching • Practical training for individual experiments

12. One Student’s Comment…. When we had problems in the lab she didn't just give us the answers.  She gave us clues that would lead us to the answers so that we could think for ourselves and derive the answers to our problems on our own.

13. One TA’s Comment…. …. It is, of course, more difficult to teach the inquiry-based program—the teacher needs to think, in order to respond to the students’ questions with something other than a rote answer out of the lab manual. It is also more difficult for the students, but the vast majority of them rise to the challenge—they are not, by and large, in university because they dislike thinking. In fact, it’s delightful to watch the students in the first few weeks of class as they realise that they are not only allowed to question, they are supposed to question.

14. What we see in the lab

15. Initial conditions Literature Pedagogical decision What are your conditions? What about the pedagogical perspective? Issues we considered: Student response TA response Experience What issues do you need to consider? ongoing Conclusion Reflection Research Discussion recursiveness scaffolding

16. CONCLUSIONS • Students are better prepared • Less stress in the laboratory • More interest • More accomplished in the lab • More advanced questions • Synthesis of theory, method and application

17. Not everything is perfect…. • Novice learners • Workload and organization • Taking responsibility for one’s own learning • Help outside the lab

18. Development Team: • Sophia Nussbaum (Director) • Matt Le Page • Joanne Nakonechny (Skylight) • Cyprien Lomas (Skylight) • Students: • Alexei Polishchuk • Zev Thompson • Illustrations: • Elizabeth Varty • Librarian: • Kevin Lindstrom • SUPPORTED BY GRANTS • From • ACADEMIC COMMITTEE FOR THE CREATIVE USE OF LEARNING TECHNOLOGIES (ACCULT) • and • TEACHING AND LEARNING ENHANCEMENT FUND • (TLEF)