CSU General Chemistry Course Redesign Project
1. Preface - Why do we want to Redesign our General Chemistry Courses?
2. Defining the Problem - Characteristics of Unsuccessful Students in General
Chemistry
3. Directing Students into the Appropriate Courses - Placement Exams
4. Meeting the Needs of Unprepared Students in a Preparatory Chemistry Course
5. Improving the Student Learning Experience in General Chemistry
Lectures that engage more student learning
Increasing the efficiency and effectiveness of Laboratory time
Online tools to make student homework more effective
Supplemental instruction to address student challenges
6. Team Members’ Course Redesign Plans to Enhance Student Learning
7. Efficiency Improvements and Cost Savings
1. Preface - Why do we want to Redesign our General Chemistry Courses?
Because of the high D/F/W rates in General Chemistry and its critical role in many
science and technology programs, CSU provosts suggested General Chemistry for a
multi-campus project in Course Redesign. In terms of cost savings, General Chemistry is
an appealing target because of the large enrolments. However, we also note that these
courses are often the most efficient courses in terms of cost per FTE within Chemistry.
Adding emphasis to the need for improvements in General Chemistry success is the role
of this course in the preparation of professionals in science, technology, engineering, and
math (STEM) fields. General Chemistry is a requirement for biology, chemistry, physics,
and earth science majors and for most engineering majors. Technology majors also
require this course or a similarly-structured course. The need for trained professionals in
these fields has been well documented [e.g., in the Nation at Risk website]
The fact that General Chemistry is a required course for all Single-Subject credentials in
math and all of the sciences is also significant[e.g, see this website on Science Teaching
and California's Future]. Students who are frustrated by their experience in General
Chemistry are not likely to build enthusiasm for the content and the applications of the
sciences in general and are thus less willing to consider a career in teaching in these
critical fields. In contrast, a General Chemistry course which models good pedagogy
along with passion for the topics or applications is likely to increase the numbers of
students who might enter these fields of consider teaching as a career choice.
1/16
The Redesign Team included the following CSU faculty:


Karno Ng (San Marcos), Richard A. Paselk (Humboldt), James Postma (Chico),
Herbert Silber (SJSU) and Ray Trautman (SFSU)
Simone Aloisio (Channel Islands), Susan Crawford (Sacramento), Danika LeDuc
(East Bay), Taebohm Oh (Northridge), Lihung (Angel) Pu (Dominguez Hills).
The team engaged in individual research and design work, collaboration in a web-based
project workspace, weekly phone conferences, and two on-site meetings. We decided
upon the following principles for redesigning courses in General Chemistry:



A placement test (or equivalent) should be used to select students into the
appropriate course based upon student background and capabilities.
A Chemistry Preparatory course should be designed for those students with no or
weak backgrounds in chemistry and/or “chemistry skills”.
Chemistry is different from many other introductory courses in that each section
is not a separate entity, but rather subsequent sections are built up from the
concepts already learned. The following approaches were identified as offering
the most promise for enhancing student learning and optimizing resources:





Lecture time should be used to engage students in the course content, to
emphasize key points and complex concepts, and to challenge student
misconceptions.
For course concepts which are difficult for students to visualize (atomic
structure, etc), there is evidence that appropriate computer animation
programs and other tools can enhance students’ understanding.
Courses which include online homework assignments (there are multiple
choices available) can provide cost-effective feedback on student
understanding. The assignments must count for some course credit (5-10%
suggested) to encourage students make a serious effort on the homework.
Team members concluded that significant hands-on lab time is required for
students to succeed in applying general chemistry concepts. However, some
pre-lab work can be carried out via computer-aided instruction to optimize
resource usage and student time in lab facilities.
The use of supplemental instruction (Academic Enhancement Workshops) is
strongly encouraged as it has been shown to increase student grades and
improve retention in chemistry and in science programs more generally.
We will also study the benefits of these course redesigns for potential cost savings, via
larger class sections with more interactive learning, more efficient use of lab facilities,
and reducing section offerings by decreasing the need for students to repeat the courses.
As our individual course redesign plans illustrate, each school and/or faculty member can
combine these recommendations to enhance student performance in the introductory
chemistry courses (and improve retention and success in subsequent chemistry courses.
2/16
2.
Defining the Problem: Challenges Students Encounter in General Chemistry
The redesign team did not consider a revision of the lower-division chemistry curriculum
or changes in the contents of the general chemistry courses. Instructors should be aware
that the American Chemical Society’s (ACS) guidelines for professional development1
define the purpose of the introductory or general chemistry course work for those
students pursuing a degree in chemistry as preparation for the foundation course work.
The ACS divides the chemistry curriculum for the certified major into three categories:
the introductory chemistry experience, foundation course work that provides breadth and
rigorous in-depth course work that builds on the foundation. The introduction ensures
that students know basic concepts such as stoichiometry, states of matter, atomic
structure, molecular structure and bonding, thermodynamics, equilibria, and kinetics.
The challenge of improving the success rate in General Chemistry is significant because
there are a wide range of reasons for failure and a large number of students that are
described by these traits, in some cases with multiple entries. There is also some
diversity in the organizational structure of the lower division Chemistry courses across
campuses (more information on this webpage with summary of different structures).
Given the diverse nature of the CSU student population, a broad-spectrum approach to
reaching this audience is essential. And since many of the root causes of these traits lie in
the students’ K-12 training or environmental factors, the “fixes” for these problems will
not eliminate the problem for future students. A listing of the key challenges follows,
categorized by theme. Then we describe some typical Student Personas, which show how
multiple learner challenges can interact to present obstacles to student success.
Student Preparation – Chemistry
A number of our incoming students do not have the prerequisite knowledge expected
from studying chemistry in high school. In some cases, they did not take chemistry in
high school, or a long time has passed since their high school chemistry courses; other
students had low course grades in high school chemistry. All of these students should not
expect to do well in university-level chemistry courses without extra work. Other
students may not realize that their preparation for university-level chemistry is inadequate.
Some did not take the right High School course (UC Area (d) Course), e.g., they may
have taken an Integrated Science course which was weak in chemistry content. We also
regularly encounter students who received good grades in high school chemistry but still
have gaps in their knowledge – for a highly sequential subject such as Chemistry, gaps in
the foundation must be filled in with extra work before students can succeed.
Student Preparation – Math
Mathematics knowledge and skills are critical for success in university-level chemistry.
In addition to challenges similar to all those cited above for prerequisite chemistry
knowledge, students frequently lack specific mathematics skills such as the ability to
translate chemistry “story problems” into practical mathematics or a lack of capability for
multi-step mathematics manipulations. This underlying mathematics knowledge is
seldom included in the content of introductory chemistry courses, and it can be difficult
to determine students’ readiness in the necessary mathematics beforehand.
3/16
Specific Challenges of the Material
General Chemistry is very often the first course which requires a high degree of
intellectual integration and analytical ability. While there is still some raw memorization
required – and students may have gotten through their high school chemistry based on
ability to memorize – it is also critical that students engage with abstractions and
systematically think through multi-step processes. Many students are unprepared for the
demands of a precise vocabulary (“whatever”) or are challenged by the need to think in
visual and geometric/space-related ways.
The cumulative nature of the chemistry course content requires that students master
material and build on it throughout the course, in contrast to some of their other
introductory courses structured around relatively independent topics. Consequently,
shortcomings in student study habits and work management skills, especially those
typical of first-generation students in higher education2, have particularly damaging
effects early in the course: poor lecture and lab attendance or failure to study
independently outside of scheduled class time in the initial weeks can put students too far
behind to catch up. Interruptions due to external work or family commitments can
magnify these problems, as can cultural factors related to asking for help or
understanding instructors’ speech.
Students who struggle to succeed in General Chemistry typically encounter several
interacting challenges. Here are some of the personas that we developed to capture
common patterns of challenges (although few campuses encounter all of these):
Persona – Biology Major Ben/Briana

Does well in anatomy and physiology; good at memorizing raw facts

Poor math manipulative skills and poor math sense; i.e. is as likely to divide by
1000 as multiply by 1000 in converting mL to L.

Struggles with multi-concept settings, such as limiting reactant, calorimetry, Bohr
Formula energy/wavelength calculations

Not motivated: no link between biology and chemistry other than the requirement.
Persona – Typical Tina/Tim

Comes to lecture but notes are sketchy; usually only writes what is on the board.

Studies by reading the chapters over 2-3 times; highlights important concepts.

Completes homework by working in a study group but cannot work alone.

Studies 20-30 minutes every other day like her roommates (who are humanities,
education, or social science major.
Persona – International Student Ivan/Ingrid

Has had the first 6-8 weeks of General Chemistry in his “high school” course.

Reads English fairly well but audio understanding skills are poor.

Doesn’t come to class most days because he/she doesn’t get much out of lecture.

Works in study group with other international students; homework is always done
well, but cannot do identical problems on the exam.
4/16


Lab attendance is sporadic, but is unaware of grading consequence.
Questions exam grading relative to other students, rather than to the solution key.
Persona – Engineering student Edward/Edwina

Is taking calculus (and or Physics) and chemistry

Has always done well in math and science courses

Has trouble finding enough time for all of the coursework (with demands of other
classes or socializing or both.)

Never had to work this hard in high school

Crams for exams and “pulls all-nighters” to study beforehand. Makes a lot of
small but significant mistakes on exams.

Does well on concrete subjects like stoichiometry, heat calculations

Struggles with abstract topics, such as atomic orbitals, hybridization
Persona – Environmental Science Major Ellen/Edgar

Generally poor math preparation and skills

Does poorly on analytical sections: stoichiometry, heat calculations

Struggles with abstract topics: orbitals, hybrids, heat, energy

Struggles with motivation

Likes to be outdoors; chemistry isn’t (at this level)
Persona – Exercise Physiology Major Erik/Erica

Interested in getting into chiropractic or physical therapy school

Needs grades of “A” or ”B” in chemistry

Did not take significant amounts of math & science in high school

Has difficulty with motivation since chemistry and career seem distantly related
(but chiropractic and PT schools use chemistry for “weeding out” purposes)
Persona – Single Parent Pat

More mature in age and academically than traditional first year students

Clear career goals: has been in the workforce and needs a better paying job

Demands of life create a very rigid study schedule

Usually keeps up well, but no extra time when exams or projects are due

Very susceptible to interruptions, such as personal illness, ill children, childcare
disruptions, family issues
Persona – Repeating Robert/Roberta

Starts course well; turns in homework early on; misses class regularly

When course returns to the previous stop-out point, performance dives.

Generally has not dealt with causes of previous poor performance.

Has not scheduled adequate time for the course when it reaches the stopping-out
point and more effort is needed.
5/16
3.
Directing Students into the Appropriate Courses - Placement Exams
As noted in the previous chapter, many (but not all) of the students who struggle with
General Chemistry do so because of inadequate preparation for the course. If this
shortfall is in the areas of mathematics or chemistry (high school Algebra II and high
school chemistry are prerequisite courses for General Chemistry) then a placement or
advising exam would be a useful tool for redirecting students to an appropriate
preparation path and improve the “efficiency” of the General Chemistry course. To be
most useful, the administration of this exam should be as unobtrusive as possible and
timely for appropriate redirection, as necessary.
We envision placement exams playing an important role as advising tools. At this time
we are not planning to use a placement exam to rule students out of General Chemistry,
because of the many non-cognitive and attitudinal factors which influence student
success in this course3. We also concluded that none of the extant placement tests had
demonstrated success as a diagnostic tool to identify gaps in student knowledge for
remediation4 (although as noted in our web workspace we are pursuing further
investigation of the evolving ALEKS tools for Chemistry).
A placement exam which would be useful in helping students to predict their probable
success in General Chemistry would have the following attributes:
1. Short and concise, < ½ hour administration time
2. An on-line format
3. The exam could be administered and scored prior to each semester and students
could be well-advised prior to registration deadlines.
4. Low- or no-cost for the test
5. No cultural or gender bias (beyond those inherent in General Chemistry success)
6. High reliability (>80%) for D-F-W avoidance
CSU Experience with placement exams:
The Toledo Examination (1998) is a 60-item, 55-minute examination with math and high
school-level chemistry questions. The California Chemistry Diagnostic Test (2006) is a
44-question, 45-minute exam developed by University of California faculty. The paperbased nature of these exams and the time requirements typically limit the use of these
instruments to the first week of class, usually the first lab meting of the semester. This
means that in practice any placement advice cannot be offered until the second week of
classes (at the earliest). Both are available from the American Chemical Society Exams
Institute (http://www4.uwm.edu//chemexams/materials/exams.cfm).
Both of these have been used by several CSU chemistry departments:

Toledo: Northridge, Dominguez Hills, and Sacramento;

California: Fullerton.
6/16
Several campuses have created their own placement exams: Humboldt, Long Beach.
None have definitive studies of the predictive power of the exams, but Sacramento State
has worked on such a study this past year and hopes to report its findings shortly. No one
has an on-line version of an exam, but all acknowledge the usefulness of such a format
for timeliness and cost-savings. One campus has begun to use EPT and ELM scores for
placement advice, but has not yet studied the issues or outcomes systematically.
Project results and ongoing work: The team proposed the following Investigation on
Placement Exams/Instruments, to be led by Jim Postma (CSU Chico):
1. Work with CSU Chico Institutional Research and the information database to
evaluate ELM and EPT scores (or SAT/ACT) as a predictor of D/W/F grades in
General Chemistry (CHEM 111) and General Chemistry for the Applied Sciences
(CHEM 107.)
2. Invite other CSU campuses to initiate a similar study of existing information as
predictors of success in General Chemistry. We have indications of interest from
Simone Aloisio (CSUCI), Susan Crawford (CSUS), Angel Pu (CSUDH) and
Danika LeDuc (CSUEB) for this collaboration.
3. Obtain data and analyses from Susan Crawford (CSUS) about Sacramento State’s
experiences with the Toledo Exam (ACS). Compare notes with Northridge and
Dominguez Hills.
4. Follow up with Fullerton and San Bernardino about their experiences and
analyses of the California Chemistry Diagnostic Test.
5. Explore whether ALEKS or other commercial systems have a test module that
could serve as the basis of an on-line placement exam.
6. Explore the use of an existing online placement test such as the one used at the
University of Iowa5.
7. Research the efforts of University of Iowa, Wisconsin – Madison, Arizona State,
and Maryland – Eastern Shore regarding placement exams. (All have had
significant General Chemistry course redesign projects.) Compare/contrast with
literature and CSU results.
8. Pilot test a placement exam in the fall of 2008 and an online version in spring
2009.
9. Ray Trautman of SFSU plans to pilot test the OWL Prep Chem online course in
Spring 2009 as a complement to placement tests. [link to ppt on Owl Prep Chem]
4.
Meeting the Needs of Unprepared Students - a Preparatory Chemistry Course
For those students who have a weak algebra or chemistry background, several campuses
have developed a Pre-General Chemistry Course. The students who should take this
course are those with weak mathematics skills, those who did not take chemistry in high
school, or those who had their last chemistry course several years before attempting the
first course in General Chemistry. The major advantage is that students who are not
prepared for the General Chemistry course, and who normally fail or withdraw, are able
to establish a foundation for success through the preparatory chemistry course (without
7/16
the detrimental effects of a course failure/withdrawal on their GPA or program duration).
A credit course for Preparatory Chemistry also avoids the problems of voluntary extra
work based on a diagnostic, which typically does not attract the students most in need:
“students of high prior achievement and ability perform better than their achievement
scores would predict. However, weaker or less motivated students did not respond to the
voluntary offerings in the same numbers as the stronger or more motivated students.6”
The topics CSU campuses have found useful include the following:
• Measurement of chemical and physical properties
• Chemical calculations and graphing
• Chemical nomenclature and trends of the Periodic Table
• Predicting and balancing formulae and reactions
• Chemistry on the atomic scale
• Gas behavior and laws
• Solution chemistry, acids and bases, and redox.
These topics are taught at an elementary level, sufficient for the student to remember
terms, definitions and simple calculations, especially in stoichiometry. Nomenclature,
ions and the balancing of equations are important components of this course. The course
can be taught with two lectures and one activity/recitation section each week using active
learning techniques. Weekly quizzes and exams are often necessary to keep the students
working on schedule. Students who engage effectively in the preparatory chemistry
course have been shown to subsequently be successful in General Chemistry7
To facilitate the transition for students who register in the initial General Chemistry
course and find they need to drop it in favor of the preparatory chemistry course, the prep
course should be scheduled at the same time as one of the General Chemistry sections. If
the campus has a short period for formal course drops, adding a mechanism to transition
from the general chemistry into the more suitable prep course after the formal drop period
can go a long way to saving the student one semester in time to graduation.
This course should not be used for credit as part of a science major, or for a course
requiring high school chemistry as a prerequisite. This course yields traditional letter
grades and a minimum grade is typically necessary to go on in Chemistry, although
students getting the minimum will often have trouble with the more advanced material.
Examples of current CSU Preparatory Chemistry courses: San Jose State, CSU
Northridge. CSU Dominguez Hills.
Project results and ongoing work: Team members plan to investigate and pilot test new
preparatory Chemistry courses: Rich Paselk (HSU), Susan Crawford (CSUS). Ray
Trautman of SFSU plans to pilot test the OWL Prep Chem online course in Spring 2009.
8/16
5.
Ways to Improve the Student Learning Experience in General Chemistry
One important conceptual distinction needs to be made between individual teaching
techniques and an instructional strategy. A teaching technique is a discrete, specific
teaching activity. Lecturing, laboratory work, problem-solving in small groups: all of
these are teaching techniques. An instructional strategy, on the other hand, is a set of
learning activities, arranged in a particular sequence so that the energy for learning
increases and accumulates as students go through the sequence.
L. Dee Fink, A Self-Directed Guide to Designing Courses for Significant Learning.
p. 27 (see also L. Dee Fink, Creating Significant Learning Experiences in College
Classrooms, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2003).
The most effective Course Redesigns, those that enhance student learning and optimize
resource use, combine research-based instructional strategies with enhancements to
individual teaching techniques to produce a significant gain in students’ conceptual and
attitudinal development8. In some of the sections that follow, it will be evident how our
redesigns impact the overall instructional approach, e.g., introducing Supplemental
Instruction sessions with undergraduate learning assistants as a follow-up to lecture time.
In other sections, the fit with other course components into a coherent instructional
approach is implicit, e.g., enhancing lectures to be more interactive will be used
differently in an instructional approach where lectures are an initial introduction to
concepts versus a Just-in-Time-Teaching approach (website) where lecture time follows
up on student work9. Some redesign components, such as Process Oriented Guided
Inquiry Learning, can be used either as holistic course approaches or as techniques in
specific lectures.
Team members will be experimenting with the following teaching techniques and
instructional approaches, to enhance student learning and optimize resource use:
 Apply interactive lecture methods to enhance student engagement while allowing
increased sections sizes;
 Optimize time in hands-on labs through pre-lab activities;
 Use online homework and tutorial tools to provide more cost-effective feedback
on student work and individualized mastery learning;
 Provide supplemental instruction led by undergraduate student assistants, to
insure students connect with instructional staff in sections with large enrolments.
A. Lectures that engage student learning
Effective teaching consists of engaging students, monitoring their thinking, and
providing feedback. Given the reality that student-faculty interaction at most
universities is going to be dominated by time together in the classroom, this
means the teacher must make this happen first and foremost in the classroom10.
Lecturing can be a very efficient way to transmit information quickly, but students aren't
always ready to absorb it. As noted above, well-designed lectures work best if they fit
9/16
into a larger instructional approach with effective lead-in and follow-up student activities.
In that context, engaging lectures focus student time on interacting with specific aspects
of the course content, rather on receiving content from the instructor. Making lectures
interactive draws students into the lecture by engaging them in working with the material
through short individual, pair, or small-group activities. For course redesigns which
optimize resource use, interactive lectures can “make large sections seem small”11.
Interactive lectures can accommodate the diverse nature of the General Chemistry student
audience through non-traditional modes of enhancing engagement in lectures. For
example, research has shown that students who passively observe demonstrations in class
understand the underlying concepts no better than students who do not see the
demonstration at all12. Students who predict the demonstration outcome before seeing it,
however, display significantly greater understanding.
Similarly, simulations used in class (and out of class as part of online homework) can
support student understanding by providing visualizations of complex concepts. However,
the simulation must engage students in appropriate cognitive activities:
“simulations can be highly engaging and educationally effective, but only if the
student’s interaction with the simulation is directed by the student’s own questioning”13
Most recently, Classroom Response Systems ["clickers"] have proven to be an effective
tool for interactive lectures when used to engage students in applying and reflecting on
their own conceptual understandings. Examples of effective use of Classroom Response
Systems and a summary of research on how they can support learning are included on the
Classroom Response Systems webpage for this project.
One example of an enhancement to traditional lecturing is the Process Oriented Guided
Inquiry Learning (POGIL) approach. POGIL (website) is a teaching technique that
teaches content and key process skills (such as analytical thinking) simultaneously. A
POGIL classroom or lab consists of students working in small groups on specially
designed guided inquiry learning modules. These learning modules provide students with
data or information followed by leading questions designed to guide them toward
formulation of their own valid conclusions. The instructor serves as facilitator for the
group discussion. POGIL can be adopted for use in a classroom either as a teaching
technique or as part of a larger instructional approach. POGIL can also be used as a
source of exercises for an on-line component. An example of use at CSUSM is described
in our project workspace, which also contains references on research demonstrating the
effectiveness of POGIL with General Chemistry students.
Project results and ongoing work: Rich Paselk (HSU) and Susan Crawford (CSUS)
plan to study the use of Classroom Response Systems to engage students in deeper
learning. Angel Pu will continue her experiments to use Classroom Response Systems in
her general chemistry at CSUDH (more information on her webpage).
10/16
B. Increasing the efficiency and effectiveness of laboratory time
In investigating the role and design of laboratory work, we need to keep in mind that the
lab sometimes works in parallel with classroom activities and sometimes deals with other
important educational issues for chemistry and the other sciences that are not addressed
in lecture. We believe there is compelling evidence of the necessity for significant handson time in laboratory sessions, including the following outcomes for students:


Lab safety and hazardous waste handling/disposal are taught in lab. These topics
need the participatory learning and reinforcement that laboratory work provides.
Industry surveys and feedback from employers identify these topics as vital for
STEM graduates.
We find that our current students have less hands-on engagement with the “real”
world than previous generations, e.g. they are less likely to have engaged in
activities such as automotive repair, cooking from scratch, etc. where they could
experience measurement and the properties of substances etc. They thus have an
even greater need to be exposed to such experiences. We believe that laboratory
work serves as a reality check, where students can see how chemistry concepts are
grounded in the reality of how things behave in the world.
Exemplary practice from within the CSU and elsewhere demonstrates that student
laboratory experience can be made more efficient and effective in the following ways:
1. Insure that students are well-prepared for the lab and understand the key concepts that
are involved in the experiment.


Use pre-lab on-line quizzes, asking specific questions about the procedures of the
experiment in the pre-lab quiz (e.g. what is the name of the acid that is going to be
used in the experiment?, etc.) More on Pre-Lab quizzes from CSU San Marcos.
Highlight important procedures that require special attention at the pre-lab lecture.
2. Students should know the goal of the experiment and how to analyze data collected in
the experiment in order to achieve the goal, e.g., finding the concentration of acetic acid
in commercially used vinegar.

Have students use sample data to illustrate the analysis through an on-line pre-lab
exercise.
3. Help students to see how the concepts and theory learned in the lecture are applied in
the lab to solve everyday life issues.


Co-ordinate the experiment order with the order of the topics covered in the
lecture. This way, the concepts learned in the lecture can be reinforced in a timely
manner in the lab.
Design experiments that are closely related to everyday life issues.
11/16
Project results and ongoing work:: Members of the team plan to test new approaches to
improve the effectiveness and/or efficiency of lab time: Karno Ng (CSUSM), Angel Pu
(CSUDH), Susan Crawford (CSUS). Rich Paselk (HSU) also plans to redesign aspects of
the Discussions sessions introduced in 2007-08 to replace some lab time.
We have more information on our webpage for Making Labs More Effective.
C. Online tools to make student homework more effective
Careful integration of online homework into the general chemistry curriculum may result
in significant decrease in the DWF rate, significant increase in student learning outcomes,
and better utilization of both faculty and student time. Most online homework systems are
mastery learning systems, in which students can repeat assignments, without penalty,
until they get the correct answer. Questions are typically algorithmically generated, with
both numerical and content variations, and individualized to a student. Most systems
provide instant feedback, and several provide tutor-like support to students, for example,
by giving specific feedback to incorrect responses, providing hints to solve a problem,
offering Socratic sub-problems, and using animations and simulations to engage the
student in the learning process.
Our students typically evaluate online homework very positively: They indicate that it
helps structure their study habits, helps them learn chemistry, and that the instantaneous
feedback is particularly useful. Evaluation of student performance is also positive:
Students who complete online homework assignments earn higher exam scores than
students who do not participate in online homework, and a recent study suggests that
students’ long-term knowledge of chemistry is enhanced by online homework activities14 .
Project results and ongoing work: Team members will be investigating, initiating or
enhancing Online Homework as part of the ongoing work in the project: Simone Aloisio
(CSUCI), Danika LeDuc (CSUEB), Rich Paselk (HSU), Karno Ng (CSUSM).
We have more information and an extensive comparison of tools on our webpage: Online
Homework (and also Coordinating discussions sessions with on-line learning modules ).
D. Supplemental instruction to address student challenges
Both SFSU and SJSU have been using Supplemental Instruction in the form of Academic
Excellence Workshops (AEW) in Chemistry for many years with demonstrable success.
These workshops follow a format originally designed to enhance success for minority
students calculus at UC Berkeley15, numerous CSU campuses provide similar program
oriented to special groups16. Extending the Academic Excellence Workshops to other atrisk students has proven to be effective in improving student achievement, retention and
degree attainment. At SJSU students in these workshops average one-half to a full letter
grade difference in chemistry compared to those students not taking the workshops (with
12/16
similar results for calculus and physics courses). According to studies conducted at
SFSU17, the observed grade difference is not due to the top students selecting to enroll in
the course: the AEW students tend to initially have lower grade point averages and scores
on diagnostic exams.
Supplemental instruction has some of the benefits of lab sections (smaller size, greater
student-student and student-instructor interaction, active learning, and a more informal,
relaxed setting), but with a focus on problem solving, specific conceptual bottlenecks or
misconceptions, and peer-to-peer teaching. Lectures can go up to the size of the largest
classrooms, whereas workshops are limited to 25 students or less. The workshops are not
used to do assigned homework: they are “peer cooperative learning programs that embed
study strategy practice”18. Additional problems are provided by the workshop leader.
Students work in groups on the problems, discuss them using active learning, and often
go to the board for a discussion involving the whole workshop.
Practical issues:



Status: At SJSU, we have to make the workshops a formal course (2 units,
CR/NC grades based upon attendance only). Without it being a formal course,
the University will not assign rooms. In addition, for some of our minority
students taking the workshop as a formal course means that their parents allow
them to participate. Otherwise, some students must go home right after their
classes end to assist with the family business or other activities.
Grading: The student requirements in the chemistry workshops are to attend
greater than 70% of them and to be an active participant.
Staffing: SFSU often has faculty running the workshops, whereas SJSU has
undergraduates or graduates running the workshops. The workshops only succeed
if the course instructor agrees to provide information to the workshop leader.
Fringe benefits for faculty include a reduction in students attending office hours.
The workshop leaders at SJSU are often students who recently had CHEM 1A or
CHEM 1B and earned grades of B or better. Our experience suggests that for
many struggling students the support of a fellow student ‘survivor’ is particular
valuable. Minimal training is required for past workshop participants to become
the peer leader. Otherwise, a half-day or full day training session is required.
Project results and ongoing work: Team members will be investigating, initiating or
enhancing Supplemental Instruction as part of the ongoing work in the project: Simone
Aloisio (CSUCI), Angel Pu (CSUDH), Danika LeDuc (CSUEB), Rich Paselk (HSU).
E. Improving instruction on specific topics: our team mandate was to investigate
redesigns with impacts at the ‘whole course’ level. There is also a substantial body of
knowledge and resources about improving learning outcomes at the level of specific
topics, which we were not able to consider in depth. We recommend that future multicampus course redesign initiatives incorporate specific roles for topic-level redesign.
13/16
6. Example Individual Course Redesign Plans
Simone Aloisio’s course redesign plan at CSUCI includes experiments with new
placement tests to correlate with student success in the course, pilot tests of online
tutorial/homework to study the impacts, and an investigation of the effects of the
(currently optional) supplemental instruction offered to students. Webpage
Jim Postma’s redesign activities at CSU Chico are focused on leading the placement
exam project outlined above, and on extending the results of the course design project
into the parallel course General Chemistry for the Applied Sciences. Webpage
Lihung (Angel) Pu's redesign plan for her course at CSUDH focuses on developing a
placement exam that can more effectively identify readiness for general chemistry,
adding more resources to support students’ study skills and enhancing student success by
using mandatory supplemental instruction and on-line pre-lab quizzes. Webpage
Danika LeDuc's redesign plan for her course at CSUEB focuses on initiating and/or
increasing use of online homework, laboratory notebooks, on-line pre-lab modules. The
plan also adds resources to support students, e.g., supplemental instruction, and
diagnostics and schedule changes to direct students into a prep chem course. Webpage
Rich Paselk’s redesign plan at Humboldt State plans to explore the use of on-line
homework and tutorial work (ALEKS), a supplemental workshop modeled on the SJSU
success and the use of Classroom Response Systems to engage students interactively in
lectures. Rich will also be redesigning the Discussions sessions, which were introduced in
2007-2008 to improve student learning and reduce costs. Webpage
Susan Crawford’s outline of course redesign plans for General Chemistry at Sacramento
State [Webpage] includes the following:

Analyze diagnostic test data from the past 5 years in an attempt to identify how
effective the current diagnostic test is in predicting success, and improve the
effectiveness of the test as a diagnostic tool based on the results;

Formalize ideas to convert from two labs per week to one lab + one discussion,
similar to Humboldt State, with a target implementation of Fall 2009;

Seek external funding to support development of a standard preparatory chemistry
course for feeder community colleges and a senior-level high school ACE course;

Assess the use of Class Response Systems to engage students in deeper learning.
Ray Trautman at SFSU plans to pilot-test OWL's ChemPrep, a self-paced online
preparatory course for general chemistry, in Spring 2009. Webpage
Herb Silber at SJSU will introduce online homework into the Chem 1A course in Fall 09.
Karno Ng’s redesign plans for her course as CSU San Marcos include deploying an
assessment test at the beginning of the semester (considering ALEKS for Chemistry and
the assessment test used at SJSU), introducing online homework Mastering Chemistry
associated with the course textbook, and joint work with Angel Pu of CSUDH to
investigate online pre-lab tutorials. Webpage
14/16
7. Efficiency Improvements and Cost Savings
The team examined the Cost Reduction Strategies and Case Studies in General Chemistry
from the National Center for Academic Transformation. Cost savings from Transforming
Course Design involve either Reducing costs per section or Reducing the number of
sections offered. Many of these cost reductions had already been implemented in the CSU.
Reducing costs per section is typically achieved in the following ways, all of which were
considered as part of our team’s work:

Reduce the cost of instructional time through personnel changes

Not applicable: our mandate was to redesign courses that we ourselves teach.

Reduce the cost of instructional assistants

No opportunities were identified to replace graduate students with undergrads

Extensive use of undergraduate learning assistants is included in the plans for
Supplemental Instruction, as outlined above in Chapter 5 Section D.

Reduce capital costs (facilities, equipment, etc.)

Reduce laboratory work: As noted in Chapter 5 Section B, hands-on
laboratory work has significant benefits for students beyond the grades they
achieve, and is frequently identified by students as a source of engagement
and satisfaction. We will investigate a mix of hands-on lab work with selected
computer-based aids, in a collaborative project to be conducted by Angel Pu
(CSU Dominguez Hills) and Karno Ng (CSU San Marcos). Webpage

Reduce the amount of time in particular types of classroom facilities: this
might also be a source of savings, either through avoiding the costs of adding
classrooms to accommodate enrolment or through creating new opportunities
to optimize section size by increasing availability of large classrooms). Team
members decided to postpone further investigation of this alternative, pending
results from projects by the Developmental Math team and our own other
efforts to enhance student learning within and outside of lectures.
Reducing the number of sections offered is typically achieved as follows:

Increasing the number of students in course sections;

Many of the NCAT Course Redesign projects in Chemistry applied this
approach, which can be effective when accompanied by enhanced teaching
and learning designs. Most of the team members reported that their General
Chemistry courses were already held in the largest available classrooms.

Decreasing the number of students who need to repeat the course.

This approach is being followed in course redesigns by all team members.
Given the rate of D/F/W’s typical of this course, there appear to be substantial
savings possible. More information is available on this webpage.
We also noted that some Course Redesign approaches examined above have potential to
generate additional FTES counts at the Department or College level, and some have the
potential to decrease FTES unless new students are enrolled in courses where fewer
students need to repeat the course (e.g., see this cost analysis of AEW at SJSU).
15/16
Other Efficiency Improvements:
A number of the online tutorials/homework outlined above can generate efficiencies in
instructor and student time, e.g., by providing feedback to students on assignments where
time for people to mark the work would be prohibitive, and by automatically monitoring
student time on task and alerting instructors of pending problems early in the term.
References
1
Programs Undergraduate Professional Education in Chemistry. ACS Guidelines and Evaluation
Procedures for Bachelor’s Degree. American Chemical Society, Spring 2008.
2
Collier, P.J. and D. L. Morgan, ‘‘Is that paper really due today?’’: differences in first-generation and
traditional college students’ understandings of faculty expectations, 2008, Higher Education vol. 55,
pp.25–446.
3
House, J.D., Noncognitive predictors of achievement in introductory college chemistry, Research in
Higher Education, Volume 36, Number 4 / August, 1995, pp. 473-490.
4
E.g., Russell, Arlene A. "A Rationally Designed General Chemistry Diagnostic Test," J. Chem. Educ.
1994, 71, 314-317; McFate, Craig; Olmsted, John A. III. "Assessing Student Preparation through
Placement Tests," J. Chem. Educ.1999, 76, 562-565; Pienta, N.J.; Thorp, H.H.; Panoff, R.M.; Gotwals,
R.R. Jr.; Hirst, H.P. “A Web-Based, Calculator Skills Tutorial and Self-Test for General Chemistry
Students,” Chemical Educator, 2001, 6 (5), 365-69.
5
Pienta, Norbert J., A Placement Examination and Mathematics Tutorial for General Chemistry, Journal of
Chemical Education, 2003, vol. 80, Issue 11, p.1244-47. preprint available at
http://genchem.chem.uiowa.edu/chemed/research/placement%20exam%20msc20955.pdf; more on the
diagnostic test is available at http://genchem.chem.uiowa.edu/courses/placement/.
6
Botch, Beatrice; Day, Roberta O.; Vining, William J.; Stewart, Barbara; Rath, Kenneth; Peterfreund,
Alan; Hart, David. Journal of Chemical Education,. 2007, vol. 84, Issue 5, p. 547-560.
7
Chambers, Kent Alan (2005). Improving performance in first year chemistry. Doctoral dissertation, Texas
Tech University. Available electronically from http : / /hdl .handle .net /2346 /1127 .
8
Pollock, S.J., "Transferring transformations: Learning gains, student attitudes, and the impact of multiple
instructors in large lecture classes.", PERC Proceedings 2005. (2006).
9
Slunt, K.M.and L. C. Giancarlo, Student-Centered Learning: A Comparison of Two Different Methods of
Instruction, 2004, Journal of Chemical Education v. 81, n. 7, p. 985-988.
10
Wieman,C., Why Not Try a Scientific Approach to Science Education?, Change, Sept-Oct, 2007. p. 9-15.
11
Wenzel, T.J., The lecture as a learning device, 1999, Analytical Chemistry, v71, p817A-819A .
12
Crouch, C.H., A. P. Fagen, J. P. Callan and E. Mazur, Classroom demonstrations: Learning tools or
entertainment?, 2004, American Journal of Physics, V. 72, N. 6, pp. 835-838.
13
Adams, W. K., S. Reid, R. LeMaster, S. B. McKagan, K. K. Perkins and C. E. Wieman Study of
Educational Simulations Part I - Engagement and Learning”, 2008, Journal of Interactive Learning
Research, In Press.
14
Barbera, J. and C. E. Wieman , "Effect of a Dynamic Learning Tutorial on Undergraduate Students'
Understanding of Heat and the First Law of Thermodynamics" The Chemical Educator, (submitted, 2008).
15
Uri Treisman. (1992). Studying students studying calculus: A look at the lives of minority
mathematicians , College Mathematics Journal, 23, 362-372.
16
E.g., see Mills, Susan. (1999) Academic Excellence Workshops in Chemistry and Physics (Doctoral
Dissertation), Claremont Graduate University, Claremont, CA. (A longitudinal study of Cal Poly Pomona
students in Chemistry and Physics workshops).
17
Peterfreund, A., K. Rath, S. Xenos, and F. Bayliss "The Impact of Supplemental Instruction on Students
in STEM Courses: Results from San Francisco State University", 2008, Journal of College Student
Retention, Volume 9, Issue 4, pp.487 - 503
18
Arendale, D.R., Pathways of Persistence: A Review of Postsecondary Peer Cooperative Learning
Programs, chapter in Best Practices for Access and Retention in Higher Education, I. M. Duranczyk, J. L.
Higbee and D. B. Lundell (eds.), 2004, Center for Research on Developmental Education and Urban
Literacy, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN. pp. 27-40.
16/16