Final Report for FTAD Seed Grant: Interactive Recitation Sections
Principle Investigator:
John Parson
Vice Chair for Undergraduate Studies
Chemistry Department, The Ohio State University
100 W. 18th Ave., Columbus, OH 43210
phone: 614-292-1204, fax: 614-292-1685
email: parson@chemistry.ohio-state.edu
Other grant personnel:
Patrick Woodward
Assoc. Professor Chemistry
Responsible for: development of materials, Lead GTA training
Andrew Heckler
Assistant Dean MPS
Responsible for Lead GTA training, development of materials, analysis of assessment
data
Matthew Stoltzfus
Graduate Student in Chemistry
Lead GTA
1. Description of Program
The overall goal of this project was to increase student learning by introducing
interactive learning activities in Chemistry 121 recitation sections and training the GTA’s
to facilitate these activities effectively. The idea was to actively engage students in
problem solving during the recitations. They could thereby gain an immediate feedback
on whether they were developing the skills required for the course. By having the
students work in groups, they would be encouraged to build their own learning
communities. The recitation instructor’s role would be to guide the students to apply key
concepts that had been introduced in lectures and labs. This approach toward learning
stresses concepts rather than specific facts, and allows the course to link naturally to
societal issues. Three steps were taken to carry out this transformation of the course:
i
Identify and train a “Lead GTA” in interactive learning techniques.
The Lead GTA was chosen to be Matt Stoltzfus in Spring 2004, based on his
previously superior performance as a TA in this and other courses in general
chemistry. His training began in Summer 2004, and was conducted by John Parson
and Andrew Heckler. It included reading of science education materials, discussions,
and experience in mentoring new graduate students enrolled in Chemistry 701,
Seminar in Teaching College Chemistry.
The principal skill that the Lead GTA developed was being able to conduct an
interactive recitation section in which the students solved carefully designed
problems in small groups.
ii
Identify and/or develop materials for use during recitation sections.
The materials used in the recitation sections were chosen to maximize group
interaction, conceptual understanding, and learning of general problem solving skills.
Prof. Patrick Woodward had already developed some materials for use in recitation
sections. Other materials were developed by the Lead TA and instructors who were
lecturing in Chemistry 121 in Autumn 2004.
iii Assign the Lead TA to observe and advise other GTA’s on effective practices.
The Lead GTA had half of the normal teaching assignment in Autumn 2004 and
Winter 2005. He was assigned two recitation sections of Chemistry 121 to teach
himself, but spent considerable time helping the instructors refine the activities,
preparing and distributing solutions to all of the activities, and observing other GTAs
while they discussed the activities in groups. Those discussions took place in weekly
Chemistry 121 meetings that were attended by the instructors and all of the
recitation GTA’s. They provided a means of assuring that every GTA in the course
was prepared to use the activities in her/his own recitation sections. Also, faculty
could obtain feedback from the GTA’s as to which activities were effective, which
needed improvement and where students were having difficulties.
The focus in Autumn 2004 was in writing new activities and having the GTA’s practice
them before using them in their recitation sections. All 6 lecture sections of Chemistry
121 participated in the project in Autumn 2004. In Winter 2005, the activities that had
been developed were refined, largely by the Lead GTA. All 4 lecture sections that
quarter participated in the project. The weekly meetings were devoted mostly to giving
specific advice on how to use the activities but also to gather feedback from the GTA’s.
Most of the GTA’s involved had already been trained in the use of the activities in
Autumn 2004. It had been hoped that the activities would be adopted for use in the two
lecture sections of Chemistry 121 taught in Spring 2005, but the faculty teaching then
chose not to require that their GTA’s use the activities for group work in their recitation
sections. Also, Matt Stoltzfus was not available to assist with Chemistry 121 then.
However the instructor for the lecture section of Chemistry 121 taught in Summer 2005
has chosen to use the same style of interactive recitation sections that were used in
Autumn and Winter quarters. In fact she was one of the GTA’s that had taught in the
course in those earlier quarters.
The results of this GTA training program were publicized in a few ways: a report on the
effectiveness of the teaching method was made to the Chemistry Department
Committee for Improving General Chemistry Instruction, chaired by Dr. Woodward. This
committee consists of 5 other faculty members and 2 staff members. Dr. Parson
reported on results of the GTA training at the OSTEP meeting on Feb. 5, 2005, and also
at the OSTEP Reception and Poster Session on May 25, 2005.
2. Itemized Budget
Item
FTAD provided
½ of Lead GTA salary for
two quarters
$5000
Dept of Chemistry
provided
Tuition and fees for Lead
GTA
The money available from FTAD was insufficient to employ a Lead GTA for the whole
year. It would have been especially useful to have an additional $2500 to cover half of
the salary in Spring 2005 for the Lead GTA, as the faculty assigned to teach Chemistry
121 in Spring 2005 were reluctant to adopt the use of interactive recitation sections
without his assistance.
3. Assessment of Project
Two forms of assessment were carried out. One looked at changes in students’
conceptual understanding of chemistry problems before and after taking the course.
The other approach was to see how the students and GTA’s responded to this style of
running the recitation sections.
i
Chemistry concepts test – pre- and post-course results.
The American Chemical Society has published a set of concept exams which have
been widely used for students who have taken high school level chemistry courses.
They emphasize a student’s ability to visualize the underlying chemical ideas rather
than to recall specific facts. Ten of these questions were selected which require the
types of thought processes called for in the Chemistry 121-122-123 sequence. Since
all of the Chemistry 121 sections adopted the new format for recitations, there was
no control group of Autumn 2004 students available for comparison. However in an
earlier study carried out by Dr. Heckler on two lecture sections of Chemistry 121, this
same set of questions had been given to students before the course, and then
several of the questions were imbedded in the final exams for the course. Those
Chemistry 121 sections did not use the group activities in recitation sections and
hence served as a good control group. One problem in making a comparison of
results across different sections was that no common exams are used by the various
instructors for the course. So different questions from the original set of ten were
selected by instructors for use in their final exams. A table showing the outcomes
from the concepts tests is given in Appendix A. A copy of the set of ten questions
that were used can be obtained from Dr. Parson upon request. Six of the same
questions were used in the control group and in the Autumn 2004 final exams, and
five of the same questions were used in the control group and in the Winter 2005
final exams. Below is a summary of the results.
•
Traditional Recitations (control group)
– Pre Correct 23.9% (6 question set); 24.7% (5 question set)
– Post Correct 47.4% (6 question set); 46.3% correct (5 question set)
•
Interactive Recitations AU 2004 – 6 question set
– Pre Correct 21.2%
– Post Correct 57.3%
•
Interactive Recitations WI 2005 – 5 question set
– Pre Correct 18.7%
– Post Correct 51.8%
It is apparent that students experiencing the interactive recitations ended up doing
better on these questions. This happened even in Winter 2005 when students at the
outset of the course were less prepared to answer the questions correctly.
ii Evaluation of the recitation format by students and GTA’s.
Two questionnaires were designed to assess the response of students and GTA’s to
the interactive recitation sections. The questionnaire for students consisted of nine
multiple choice questions, which are shown along with the results in Appendix B. By
and large students responded favorably to the recitation format. For example the first
question: “How much did working with other members of your group on the in-class
activities help your learning?” had the following responses: (first percentage is for
AU 2004 and second is for WI 2005)
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
18%, 16% helped a great deal
29%, 24% helped a good deal
27%. 25% helped some
17%, 18% helped a little
9%, 17% was of no help
The questionnaire for GTA’s queried the same aspects of the recitations as the
student survey, and in addition, it asked other questions such as: “Would you want
to teach in this recitation format again?” Responses from 19 of the 37 AU 2004
recitation GTA’s were the following:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
7 definitely
10 I would prefer this method
2 I am neutral
0 I would prefer the other method
0 definitely not
This is a significant outcome since many of the GTA’s questioned also had
experience teaching with the traditional recitation format. The complete
questionnaire for the GTA’s is shown as Appendix C. In addition to the multiple
choice questions, there were questions calling for written evaluations of various
aspects of the course. The written responses of the GTA’s were distributed to the
grant personnel and the lecturers involved in the course. They were discussed at a
meeting on restructuring the General Chemistry curriculum organized by Dr.
Woodward. Even though the same questionnaire was sent out electronically to the
GTA’s in WI 2005, unfortunately no responses were obtained for that quarter.
However, the weekly meetings with the GTA’s had allowed the grant personnel and
lecturers ample opportunity to obtain feedback from them throughout the quarter on
various aspects of the recitations.
4. Reflections on the Future
i
Continuation of the program.
The GTA training program in the use of interactive recitation sections was judged to
be a success. The activities which were developed will be used in the Chemistry 701
class that new Chemistry graduate students are currently taking. Faculty assigned to
teach Chemistry 121 will be encouraged to make use of the activities in their own
classes, and to develop new activities. One of the faculty members, Dr. Heather
Allen who lectured in Chemistry 121 Autumn 2004, has already developed and
tested a set of activities for Chemistry 122, which most of the science majors are
required to take after Chemistry 121. Faculty will have to call on their own assigned
GTA’s for help with refining and solving the activities, as Departmental support is not
available to hire a Lead GTA on a continuing basis. However, the teaching
expectations in the Department may be modified to include a mentoring requirement
for graduate students after they move out of GTA positions. For many graduate
students in Chemistry the transition from being a GTA to becoming a GRA can take
place as early as the second year.
ii Recommendations for changes.
Several changes were already made in moving from the autumn to the winter
quarter offering of Chemistry 121. These were done largely in response to concerns
that were brought to the faculty’s attention during the training sessions and from the
GTA questionnaire. One problem was that the take-home quizzes used in Autumn
2004 made it possible for cheating to go undetected. Even though warned not to
work on the quizzes with the help of others, some students could very well have
been doing just that. So in Winter 2005, a brief quiz was used in most of the
recitations, but it was made short enough to allow ample time for the group activities.
Also, students were assigned homework that now had to be handed in. Since
students were permitted to work together on the homework, papers was checked
mostly for effort rather than content.
5. Lessons Learned


It is preferable to train GTA’s thoroughly just once in the use of a new component
such as interactive recitations. If they are asked to go through training more than
once, they will become bored and less open to change the second time they are
involved.
GTA’s who have helped previously with a course should be retained in future
offerings of that course as long as possible, or at least they should be required to
serve as mentors to GTA’s who are new to the course.


GTA’s can be expected to run recitation sections according to a specific protocol, as
long as the procedure they are to follow is thoroughly explained and justified.
Students will not generally do unfinished class activities on their own unless some
credit is allotted to them for doing so. Students should be expected to complete
activity pages and hand them in at the next recitation section. In that way groups that
were unable to complete the activities during a recitation would be strongly
encouraged to work on them individually or in learning communities before the next
recitation.
Appendix A
Q1
Q2
Q3
Q4
Q5
Q6
Q7
Q8
Q9
Q10
AVE
#4-9
#4-6,8-9
0.258
0.446
0.189
264
0.828
NA
NA
0.704
0.781
0.077
264
0.373
0.378
0.004
264
0.193
0.468
0.275
264
0.137
0.335
0.197
264
0.197
0.549
0.352
264
0.391
0.618
0.227
264
0.142
0.515
0.373
264
0.296
NA
NA
0.352
0.51
0.212
264
0.239
0.477
0.238
0.247
0.463
0.216
Autumn 2004
Ave correct (pre)
Ave correct (post)
post - pre
sample size for post
0.29
NA
NA
0.80
0.874
0.07
276
0.66
NA
NA
0.23
0.668
0.44
442
0.20
0.528
0.33
442
0.12
0.543
0.42
736
0.25
0.440
0.19
166
0.33
0.709
0.38
439
0.14
0.613
0.47
1057
0.31
0.471
0.16
166
0.3
0.606
0.31
466
0.212
0.573
0.361
Winter 2005
Ave correct (pre)
Ave correct (post)
post - pre
sample size for post
0.26
NA
NA
0.77
NA
NA
0.62
NA
NA
0.2
0.38
0.18
420
0.18
0.56
0.38
226
0.12
0.4
0.27
194
0.23
NA
NA
0.29
0.64
0.35
194
0.15
0.62
0.48
420
0.3
NA
NA
0.310
0.518
0.33
291
Control Group
Ave correct (pre)
Ave correct (post)
post - pre
sample size for post
0.187
0.518
0.331
Appendix B
Student survey on quizzes and recitation activities. First percentage is for
AU 2004, second for WI 2005
53. How much did working with other members of your group on the in-class
activities help your learning?
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
18%, 16% helped a great deal
29%, 24% helped a good deal
27%. 25% helped some
17%, 18% helped a little
9%, 17% was of no help
54. How much did following suggestions of your TA in working on the activities
help your learning?
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
21%, 20% helped a great deal
38%, 30% helped a good deal
27%, 31% helped some
10%, 10% helped a little
3%, 9% was of no help
55. How much did asking questions of your TA that were not directly related to
the activities help your learning?
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
17%, 17% helped a great deal
35%, 33% helped a good deal
31%, 31% helped some
11%, 12% helped a little
6%, 8% was of no help
56. How much did studying the solutions to the activities that were posted on the
Web help your learning?
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
20%, 17% helped a great deal
28%, 29% helped a good deal
32%, 31% helped some
12%, 12% helped a little
8%, 11% was of no help
57. How much did working the take-home quizzes help your learning?
1. 27%, 14%* helped a great deal
2. 42%, 26%* helped a good deal
3. 24%, 33%* helped some
4. 5%, 12%* helped a little
5. 2%, 16%* was of no help
*not applicable since quizzes were in-class
58. How did you feel about the number of questions on the in-class recitation
activities?
1.
2.
3.
4.
13%, 13% was just the right number
35%, 44% was about the right nmber
47%, 36% was usually too many
5%, 7% was usually too few
59. How well did the recitation activities reflect the material covered in the
lectures?
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
21%, 18% they correlated very well
40%, 39% they were frequently related to each other
28%, 31% they were related sometimes
8%, 10% they were seldom related
2%, 2% they were never related
60. How would you rate the level of the questions asked in the recitation
activities?
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
17%, 14% the level was just right
64%, 64% the questions were challenging but mostly fair
9%, 10% the questions were a little too easy
2%, 3% the questions were much too easy
9%, 9% the questions were way too difficult
61. When you were not able to finish the questions asked in the activities, how
frequently did you continue to work on them outside of class?
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
8%, 10% always
13%, 19% usually
23%, 25% sometimes
25%, 22% rarely
31%, 24% never
Appendix C
Survey questions of Chem 121 GTA’s on recitation activities
1. How much do you think that working with other members of a group on the inclass activities help students’ learning?
1. 3 helped a great deal
2. 9 helped a good deal
3. 5 helped some
4. 2 helped a little
5. 0 was of no help
2. How much did your offering suggestions to students on the activities help
their learning?
1. 6 helped a great deal
2. 9 helped a good deal
3. 4 helped some
4. 0 helped a little
5. 0 was of no help
3. How much did answering your students’ questions that were not directly
related to the activities help their learning?
1. 9 helped a great deal
2. 4 helped a good deal
3. 7 helped some
4. 2 helped a little
5. 0 was of no help
4. How much did studying the solutions to the activities that were posted on the
Web help students’ learning?
1. 1 helped a great deal
2. 7 helped a good deal
3. 6 helped some
4. 4 helped a little
5. 0 was of no help
5. How much did working the take-home quizzes help students’ learning?
1. 3 helped a great deal
2. 6 helped a good deal
3. 6 helped some
4. 2 helped a little
5. 1 was of no help
6. How did you feel about the number of questions on the in-class recitation
activities?
1. 2 was just the right number
2. 10 was about the right number
3. 7 was usually too many
4. 0 was usually too few
7. How well did the recitation activities reflect the material covered in the
lectures?
1. 4 they correlated very well
2. 9 they were frequently related to each other
3. 5 they were related sometimes
4. 1 they were seldom related
8. What was the impact of doing recitation activities before the material was
covered in lecture?
1. 2 often helpful
2. 7 sometimes helpful
3. 3 little impact noticeable
4. 3 sometimes detrimental
5. 5 often detrimental
9. How would you rate the level of the questions asked in the recitation
activities?
1. 5 the level was just right
2. 11 the questions were challenging but mostly fair
3. 3 the questions were a little too easy
4. 0 the questions were much too easy
5. 0 the questions were way too difficult
10. When students were not able to finish the questions asked in the activities,
how frequently do you believe that they continued to work on the questions
outside of class?
1. 1 always
2. 0 usually
3. 7 sometimes
4. 8 rarely
5. 2 never
11. As pertains to student learning, how do you think this recitation method works
compared to the traditional method?
1. 3 much better
2. 8 better
3. 4 about the same
4. 2 not as good
5. 1 much worse
12. How would you rate the training/preparation that was provided to teach the
recitation sections?
1. 5 excellent
2. 5 good
3. 6 about right
4. 2 somewhat inadequate
5. 1 completely inadequate
13. How much training do you think that new graduate students should have been
given specifically for this method of teaching the recitation sections?
1. 1 none
2. 7 a little more than currently given
3. 7 about the same as currently given
4. 2 somewhat more than currently given
5. 0 a lot more than currently given.
14. Would you want to teach in this recitation format again?
1. 7 definitely
2. 10 I would prefer this method
3. 2 I am neutral
4. 0 I would prefer the other method
5. 0 definitely not
Please help us plan for future offerings of this course by also responding to these
long-form questions.
1. How did your students respond to working in groups? What are your thoughts
about the size of the groups and process of assigning groups?
2. During the quarter various types of questions were tried on the recitation
activities, ranging from simple application questions (i.e. plug and chug, such
as what is the shape of this molecule, balance this reaction, what is the
theoretical yield of this product, etc.), to concept questions that were meant to
test the underlying principles (i.e. filling in the reaction box with the right type
and number of molecules, etc.), to problems that linked chemistry to real
world processes (i.e. rocket fuel problem, etc.), to open ended chemistry
questions with more than one answer. Which types of questions were the
most useful and what type of mix would you consider to be ideal for future
recitations?
3. Do you think it would be useful to take some time at either the beginning or
the end of the recitation to go over the basic concepts covered on the
activities? If so when would you do it and how long would you spend on this
activity?
4. To what extent do you think students left recitations with unanswered
questions that could have been covered if you were able to spend most of the
time addressing the students as one entire group?
5. What was your overall impression of this format for the recitations?
6. What was your biggest frustration with this format for recitations?
7. Please comment on the value of having the Friday sessions for TAs in which
the next week’s activity was reviewed.
8. Do you have any additional comments/suggestions for improving the
recitations?