Enhancing retention in introductory chemistry courses: teaching practices and assessments

Enhancing Retention in Introductory Chemistry Courses: Teaching Practices and Assessments......Page 2
 Enhancing Retention in Introductory Chemistry Courses: Teaching Practices and Assessments......Page 4
  Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data......Page 5
Foreword......Page 6
Reflection Activities in General Chemistry Laboratories: An Active Learning Strategy to Connect Laboratories with Lectures......Page 8
Subject Index......Page 9
 Current State and the Quality of STEM Education......Page 10
 Student-Centered Teaching Practices......Page 11
 Instructors’ Role in Improving Retention......Page 12
 Adjusting Teaching Practice and Assessment: Effort That Needs  Good Intention and Courage......Page 13
 Chapter 3: Implementing Metacognitive Writing in a Large Enrollment Gateway Chemistry Class: Uma Swamy and Jennifer Bartman......Page 14
 Chapter 4: Improving First-Semester General Chemistry Student Success Through Retrieval Practice: Saul R. Trevino, Elizabeth Trevino, and Mary Osterloh......Page 15
 Chapter 6: Adaptive Learning Technology in General Chemistry: Does It Support Student Success?: Jessica M. Fautch......Page 16
 Chapter 8: Preventing Mole Concepts and Stoichiometry from Becoming “Gatekeepers” in First Year Chemistry Courses: A. M. R. P. Bopegedera......Page 17
 Chapter 9: Adaptation and Assessment of a Gradual Release of Responsibility Model for a Large-Enrollment General Chemistry Course: Nicole Lapeyrouse and Cherie Yestrebsky......Page 18
 Chapter 11: Changing Instructor Attitudes and Behaviors to Support Student Learning and Retention: Supaporn Kradtap Hartwell......Page 19
 Conclusions or Looking Forward?......Page 20
 References......Page 21
 Introduction......Page 24
 The Big Fish-Little Pond Effect (BFLPE) and Individual Relative Deprivation (IRD) Effect in Gateway Chemistry Courses......Page 26
 Addressing the Issue of College Preparation: A Brief Literature Review on Preparatory General Chemistry Courses......Page 27
 Types of Preparatory Courses and Teaching Strategies......Page 30
 University and Student Profile......Page 33
 General Chemistry at HPU......Page 34
 Metrics for Identifying At-Risk Students and Placement in Bridging Course......Page 35
  Figure 1. AI histogram of students enrolled in GC-I Fall 2014 - Fall 2016. Mean AI = 78.0, N = 623.......Page 36
  Figure 3. Final GC-I grade as a function of AI, Fall 2014 - Fall 2016. (R2 = 0.356, N=623). Linear regression and variance are shown. Vertical line is located at AI = 78 used for advising into PS-C. Horizontal line is located between C- and D+ grade showing progression to General Chemistry II. W grades have been arbitrarily assigned GPA = 0.1 and shown as open circles.......Page 37
 Teaching Strategies Used in Bridging Course and Approaches to Measuring the Impact of Those Strategies......Page 38
 Data Collection and Analysis......Page 40
 Research Question #1......Page 41
  Figure 6. Sankey diagram of PS-C student outcomes from students enrolled Fall 2017 and Spring 2018 (left) to Fall 2018 GC-I (right).......Page 43
  Figure 7. Fall 2018 percent grade distribution of students enrolled in GC-I Only compared to PS-C followed by GC-I.......Page 44
  Figure 8. Fall 2018 semester 2009 First Term General Chemistry ACS examination percentile score as function of final course GPA for GC-I Only compared to PS-C/GC-I. Linear regression shown for each data set.......Page 45
  Figure 9. Growth Mindset instrument results from the beginning (pre) and end (post) of the semester. Average scores can range from 0 to 6. Error bars are standard error of the mean.......Page 46
 The Grand Challege of Gateway Courses......Page 47
  Figure 11. Self-concept instrument results from the beginning (pre) and end (post) of the semester. Average sub-scale scores can range from 0 to 100%.......Page 48
 Conclusions, Limitations, and Future Work......Page 49
 References......Page 50
Implementing Metacognitive Writing in a Large Enrollment Gateway Chemistry Class......Page 58
 Metacognition and Self Regulation......Page 60
 Introducing Students to Metacognition and Self Regulation......Page 62
 Using Writing to Promote Learning......Page 64
 The Second Set of Prompts—Reflection on Preparation for the First Midterm......Page 68
 The Fourth Set of Prompts—Starting to Reflect on Their Performance after the First Midterm......Page 69
 The Fifth Set of Prompts—Reflecting on Their Performance as a Whole after the First Midterm......Page 70
 Instructor Notes and Final Thoughts......Page 71
 References......Page 73
 Method......Page 78
  Figure 1. Sample of the study sheet containing 11 polyatomic ions and 4 unit analysis tools.......Page 79
  Figure 2. Round 1 Test Sample.......Page 80
 Retrieval Practice Experience Metacognition Follow-Up......Page 81
 Limitations of the Study......Page 82
 Concluding Remarks......Page 83
 References......Page 84
 Introduction......Page 86
 Course Approach......Page 87
 In-Class Group Solution of Fundamental Chemistry Multiple-Choice Questions......Page 88
 Slides, Graphics, PhET Simulations, YouTube Videos......Page 89
  Figure 1. Page 1 of Class Notes 4 on Chapter 4: Chemical Quantities and Aqueous Reactions. Answers are in italics. Students draw the particulate view of the dissolved species.......Page 90
 Voluntary Learning Team Meetings Facilitated by the Instructor for Extra Points......Page 91
 Chapter Quizzes......Page 92
 Cumulative Final Exam......Page 93
 How Much Has All This Helped?......Page 94
  Figure 2. Correlation, as percentage, between 140 students’ course outcomes (Passed, Failed/Dropped), Pre-Test Grades (A, B, C P-Test), and 1st Advisory Grades (A, B, C or D-F, on bars) for six CHM 221 sections.......Page 95
 References......Page 97
 Introduction......Page 100
  Figure 1. Fall 2017 enrollment in General Chemistry I (CHM 134) by major. A total of 279 students enrolled at the start of the semester, with engineering students comprising nearly half of the population.......Page 101
 Adaptive Learning......Page 102
 Data Collection......Page 103
 ALEKS: Adaptive Experience......Page 104
  Figure 2. Performance on chemistry content questions at the start (pre) and at the end of the semester (post). The ALEKS group is in pink/red (n=10) while the non-ALEKS group is in blue (n=41).......Page 105
 Student Opinion Surveys......Page 107
  Figure 3. Self-reported survey responses on a scale of (1) strongly disagree to (7) strongly agree. The ALEKS group is depicted in pink/red (n=10) and non-ALEKS is in blue (n=41). The error bars indicate the standard error of the mean, while the difference in pre-post opinion is noted by the delta values to the right of the bars. For Q4, the ALEKS population had response that changed significantly.......Page 108
 Final Grade Distribution......Page 109
 Student Experience: Comparison between ALEKS and Non-ALEKS Homework......Page 110
 Conclusions......Page 111
 References......Page 112
 Introduction: Specifications Grading......Page 114
 The Specifications Grading Philosophy......Page 115
 The High-Stakes Unit Quiz......Page 116
 There Are Multiple Opportunities for a Student to Demonstrate Mastery on a Unit......Page 117
 Course Details......Page 118
 Defining Final Grades......Page 119
  Figure 1. Key components from a General Chemistry I syllabus that uses specifications grading. A) Essential and ordinary learning outcomes, B) Exposition of unit quizzes, C) Exposition of quiz retakes, D.) Incorporation of exams, laboratory work, and participation.......Page 123
  Figure 2. Most students (28/30) in Spring 2018 achieved Mastery on enough Unit Quizzes to earn their percentage-based final grade. Many students (15) achieved Mastery on more Unit Quizzes than necessary.......Page 124
 Transitioning to a Fully Specifications Grading-Based Course: Fall 2018 and Spring 2019......Page 125
 Define Mastery to Encourage Deep Learning......Page 126
 Conclusions......Page 127
 References......Page 128
Preventing Mole Concepts and Stoichiometry from Becoming “Gatekeepers” in First Year Chemistry Courses......Page 130
 Designing the First Worksheet......Page 131
 Advantages of the Worksheets......Page 132
 The Learning Environment......Page 133
 Forming Student Teams......Page 134
 Evidence of Success......Page 135
  Figure 2. Students working in teams of two on mole concepts and stoichiometry worksheets in a tiered lecture hall (above) and in a computer laboratory (below).......Page 136
  Figure 4. Comparing students’ performance in MC&S problems in the ACS General Chemistry Standardized Exam with their overall performance in the same exam. Data are from a chemistry major’s course.......Page 137
 Future Work......Page 138
 References......Page 139
 Motivation......Page 146
 Framework......Page 147
 Course Description......Page 148
 Adaptations to the GRR Framework......Page 149
 Student Academic Performance......Page 150
  Figure 3. Overall grade comparison between Traditionally- (white) and GRR- (grey) taught courses.......Page 151
  Figure 4. Divergent graph of gender grade distribution: Female (grey) and male (polka dots).......Page 152
 Survey Results......Page 153
 References......Page 154
 Introduction......Page 156
  Figure 1. Schematic representation of student perceptions on laboratory and lecture content before, during, and after the reflection activities.......Page 157
 Reflection Activities to Promote Higher Level Thinking......Page 158
 Lab Notebook......Page 159
 Quizzes......Page 160
 Teaching Assistants......Page 161
 Results and Discussion......Page 162
 Quizzes......Page 163
 Demonstrations......Page 164
 Teaching Assistants......Page 165
  Figure 3. Flash cards based on student discussions. Students connected the laboratory experiment with various concentration units and pH of the solutions. Important notes from students (a) molarity uses volume (of the solution) and molality utilizes mass (of the solvent) and (b) not all salts are neutral.......Page 166
 Spring 2018......Page 167
 Synchronized Laboratory and Lecture Content......Page 168
 Student Attitudes towards Synchronized Laboratory and Lecture Content......Page 169
 Performance of LS Students in Lecture Courses......Page 170
 With Reflection Activities......Page 171
  Figure 4. Lab grades vs. final exam scores for LS and LD students during Spring 2014, Spring 2015, and Spring 2016 semesters. Reflection activities were not implemented in the laboratory courses for the LS students.......Page 173
 Lab Grade vs. Final Exam Score......Page 174
 Tips for Reflection Activities......Page 175
 Acknowledgments......Page 176
 References......Page 177
Changing Instructor Attitudes and Behaviors to Support Student Learning and Retention......Page 178
 Rationale: Why Should We Change?  Shouldn’t It Be the Students Who Change?......Page 179
 Influences of Instructor on Student Retention......Page 180
 The Process of Change in Teaching Attitudes and Behaviors......Page 181
 Self-Examining and Developing of Compassionate Mindset......Page 182
 Teacher Empathy and Affective Attitudes Inventory......Page 184
 Sharpening Interpersonal Communication and Presentation Skills......Page 185
 On the First Day of Class......Page 186
 During Each Class......Page 187
 Giving and Grading Assignments......Page 188
 Implementing and Maintaining New Teaching Behaviors and Practice......Page 189
 Conclusion......Page 190
 References......Page 191
Strategies to Prevent Cognitive Overload: A Team-Based Approach to Improving Student Success and Persistence in a Gateway Introductory Chemistry Course......Page 196
 Introduction......Page 197
 Adjunct Faculty as a Team......Page 198
 Cognitive Overload......Page 199
 Lecture Class Structure Management Techniques—The Study Cycle 3......Page 201
  Figure 1. The study cycle outline utilized to assist in CHEM 101 course design, starting in Fall 2013. Reproduced with permission from reference 3. Copyright 2013 American Chemical Society.......Page 202
 Study......Page 203
  Figure 2. Example worksheet problem utilizing stoichiometry frameworks to guide the students to solve the problem 8.......Page 204
 Data Analysis......Page 205
  Figure 3. The percentage of students successfully completing CHEM 101 with an A, B or C grade, in a traditional classroom setting from Fall 2012 through Fall 2018 Semesters.......Page 206
 Conclusion......Page 207
 References......Page 208
 Supraporn Kradtap Hartwell and Tanya Gupta......Page 210
 Tanya Gupta......Page 212
Indexes......Page 214
Author Index......Page 216
 G......Page 218
 R......Page 221
 S......Page 222