ABOR
Learner-Centered Education
Course Redesign Initiative
Workshop IV
Final Report
April 2, 2009
Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry
General Chemistry
ASU
Pam Marks
Allan Scruggs
Gary Cabirac
General Chemistry Redesign

4 Courses:
2640 + 1800 Enrolled
 CHM 101
Non-science Majors/ Allied Health
 CHM 113 / 116
2-Semester Sequence for Science
Majors
 CHM 114
Course for Engineering Majors
Changes and Results
of the Course Redesign
CHANGES


Problems with old
course design
RESULTS

Cost Savings

Retention
Solutions




Photos of redesigned
collaboration area
New Function of
recitation TAs
Online HW
Prelab Activities


Learning gains known
so far
Survey results
Problems with Old Course Design




Recitation
 Each lab TA ran a recitation for 50 minutes at the
beginning of the 3-hr lab.
 Nothing cohesive among TAs – inconsistent activities
 Sometimes little TA preparation or taught “on the fly”
Homework
 Not graded so only some students did the homework
Lecture – okay (Many faculty use a learner-centered
approach with consistent coverage across sections.)
Lab – Guided inquiry, but students had trouble making
connections to lecture concepts
Underlying Factors
Students did not know how to use out-ofclass time effectively.
 Poor long-term memory of concepts
 Students had difficulty connecting lecture
and lab concepts
 25-40% DFW rate
 Some lab TAs didn’t know what was
happening in the lecture class; couldn’t help.

Solutions




Designed a new recitation room
Developed structured weekly guided
inquiry activities for all courses.
Incorporated online homework in all
courses
Added a pre-lab component to the lab
Solutions
The Redesigned Recitation Room
 We overhauled a poor-quality octagonal
classroom/low ceiling
 Traded it for our previous monopoly of six
smaller classrooms (w/capacity of 24)
 Our Redesign $$$ leveraged 10x more
from university and Steelcase Company.
 Built a quality, multimedia, collaborative
learning room to accommodate ~70
students
Solutions
New Guided-Inquiry Recitation Activities
 Structured activities written by faculty and
facilitated by 2 instructors / 60-70 students
Activities designed to develop concepts for deeper and
longer-term understanding and for visuallization.
 “Recitation Instructors”: a graduate TA or faculty
instructor devoted to facilitating 6-8 recitations of 50
minutes.


Reason for Success with Fewer TAs w/ 72
students (2 not 3)


Collaborative work in tables of 6 promoted discussion
among students.
The “scripted” guided-inquiry activity was written by a
faculty member of each course.
Solutions

“Lab TAs” can teach more:
Less time/lab and no prep for recitation
 Not required to attend lecture
 From 6 hr to 8 hr (from 2 labs to 4 labs with
no rec.)
 Fewer Lab TAs needed

Old Recitation Room
FULL
IMPLEMENTATION
The New Recitation Room
Soln: Recitation Instructors Function as
Facilitators
Student Impressions
New Classroom

It’s different... the layout.
Nice seating and visual
aids. It’s cool to work
across the table and
interact with everyone and
learn from each other.
Interview- Student
Old Classroom
 In the traditional
classroom, students did
not sit in teams, which
made it difficult for
them to engage in peer
learning.
Student Impressions
New Classroom

We can throw our stuff up
there [digital projection on
the wall] if we want to.
Interview- Student
Old Classroom


It’s very different from the
other recitations. [In the
previous recitation classroom] it
was just the TA talking, then
everyone working on their own
instead of working in a group.
-Interview- Student
Online Homework

Introductory Chemistry (nonscience majors)


ARIS/CONNECT Online Homework
 5-10% of grade
General Chemistry and Engineering Chemistry

MasteringChemistry Online Homework
 9-12% of grade
Laboratory Modifications



Lab is now a 2-hour block with no recitation.
Pre-lab activities are now assigned to
students.
Pre-lab activities include:
 Online research
 Problems that help students make
connections to lecture
 Student’s proposal for a procedure
Cost Savings
Due
to a change in the way recitation occurred:
 2/3 as many TAs needed for recitation in new format
 24% decrease in overall number of TAs (101 to 77)
TA Cost: Salary + tuition + benefits
$33,421 x 24 TA lines = $802,000 saved annually
Substituting
5 full-time “instructors” at the Master’s level
for 8.5 TAs working 50% time.
 We gained equivalent of + 1.5 TAs annually
 At savings of $40,500 annually.
 Cost of 5 instructors’ salary + benefits = $51,400 * 5
= $257,000 for instructors vs $297,000 for TAs
Total Annual Cost Savings: $802,000 + $40,500 = $842,500
Reduction of teaching assistants
was important and desirable
The shortage of chemistry graduate students had
resulted in hiring some graduate students
outside our department to staff the general
chemistry program.
This situation provided uncertainty
in quality control of teaching assistants
for students enrolled in our introductory chemistry
courses.
Student Retention
Measured with DFW rate
W defined: (# taking 1st exam – # grades given).

Non-Science Majors’ Course (CHM 101)


No pattern of retention
 DFW Averaged 31% over 3 semesters of
Traditional, Pilot, and Full Implementation
 Recorded change in population from 40% nursing
and kinesiology to below 30% due to Downtown
course increased enrollments
Science Majors Sem I Course (CHM 113)

DFW dropped 4%
 From 24.1% in Traditional to 19.9% in Redesigned
Course
Student Learning
as measured by common exam questions


Non Science Majors
 No pattern over three semesters of traditional,
pilot, and full implementation
Science Majors
 No common exam questions in the Traditional
 First implementation semester
 Only 30-45% of students answering correctly
on four of the eight questions
 Questions selected Fall 08 too factoriented rather than highly conceptual
Student Surveys Show
Positive Response to Changes
Student Surveys


Evaluation of Recitation Activities
 Understanding Content: Good; ScMaj Course 
 Working in Groups: Good; no difference
 Use of Technology, Software, & Physical Objects Good
 Recitation TAs: Good;
ScMaj Course 
Survey about Online Homework:
 time/wk, attempted, % completion
 Non-ScMaj Course 
Implementation Advantages and Challenges


Advantages
 Faculty know what students are learning in
recitation
 More efficient use of student time / Active learning
 Increased sense of community inside and outside of
class.
 Better student attitudes / good feedback
 Cost savings
 Consistency across courses
Challenges during pilot and start of full implementation
 Administering new design
 Computer issues
 Changes to lab
 Some TAs and students were resistant to change
The Future



Modify laboratory experiments and renovate
laboratories to create a more collaborative
environment.
Improve prelabs
 Online
 Interactive / videos / animations
Continue to modify recitation activities to take
advantage of multimedia environment.
The Team
Janet Bond-Robinson – Project PI, Clinical Professor
Ron Briggs – Coordinator of General Chemistry
Pam Marks – Principal Lecturer
Shelly Seerley – Faculty Instructor
Allan Scruggs – Lecturer
Gary Cabirac – Lecturer/ General Chemistry Lab Coordinator
Richard Bauer – Senior Lecturer, Phoenix campus
Holly Huffman – Lecturer, Polytechnic campus
Recitation Faculty Instructors
Shelly Seerley
Heidi McIllwraith
Brandon Forest
Jim Klemaszewski
Sidd Sreekaram
Acknowledgements
Steelcase / Polyvision
Walsh Bros.
University Architects Office (UAO)
Pedro Chavarriaga – Project Manager (UAO)
Dominique Laroche (UAO)
Judy Case (UAO)
Frank Davis – Chemistry Electronics
Jim Allen – Department Associate Chair
Bill Petuskey – Department Chair
ABOR