Teaching philosophy and practices among chemistry faculty attending the MID project workshops

Teaching philosophy and practices among chemistry faculty attending the MID project workshops

Material Information

Teaching philosophy and practices among chemistry faculty attending the MID project workshops implications for reform in chemistry
Barker, Beverly Dee
Place of Publication:
[Tampa, Fla]
University of South Florida
Publication Date:


Subjects / Keywords:
Faculty development
Undergraduate chemistry reform
Teaching conceptions
Pedoagogical content knowledge
Teaching practices
Faculty demography
Dissertations, Academic -- Chemistry -- Doctoral -- USF
bibliography ( marcgt )
theses ( marcgt )
non-fiction ( marcgt )


ABSTRACT: Over the past decade over 600M in funding has been devoted to bringing about reform in science education, but little is known about who is implementing reform, the extent of reform implementation and how educational contexts differentially impact reform innovations. This dissertation explores the results of the Multi-Initiative Dissemination Project (MID Project), a national curriculum reform program that was designed to propagate reform pedagogy among undergraduate chemistry faculty in faculty development workshops. We analyzed data from surveys, in-class observations and faculty interviews to explore the relationships between the participant faculty demographic features and their pedagogy and teaching philosophy before and following exposure to the workshops. We found interesting demographic characteristics that distinguish the participant faculty from the academic chemistry faculty responding to the ACS 2000 census. Also, our study uncovered relationships between the participants' demographic features and their conceptions of teaching and practices that may mediate the impact of pedagogical interventions such as curriculum reform workshops. This dissertation describes these relationships and their implications for policies supporting reform efforts
Dissertation (Ph.D.)--University of South Florida, 2006.
Includes bibliographical references.
System Details:
System requirements: World Wide Web browser and PDF reader.
System Details:
Mode of access: World Wide Web.
General Note:
Title from PDF of title page.
General Note:
Document formatted into pages; contains 272 pages.
General Note:
Includes vita.
Statement of Responsibility:
by Beverly Dee Barker.

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of South Florida Library
Holding Location:
University of South Florida
Rights Management:
All applicable rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier:
001796847 ( ALEPH )
156908836 ( OCLC )
E14-SFE0001612 ( USFLDC DOI )
e14.1612 ( USFLDC Handle )

Postcard Information



This item has the following downloads:

Full Text
xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8 standalone no
record xmlns http:www.loc.govMARC21slim xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.loc.govstandardsmarcxmlschemaMARC21slim.xsd
leader nam Ka
controlfield tag 001 001796847
003 fts
005 20070723110322.0
006 m||||e|||d||||||||
007 cr mnu|||uuuuu
008 070723s2006 flu sbm 000 0 eng d
datafield ind1 8 ind2 024
subfield code a E14-SFE0001612
1 100
Barker, Beverly Dee.
0 245
Teaching philosophy and practices among chemistry faculty attending the MID project workshops :
b implications for reform in chemistry
h [electronic resource] /
by Beverly Dee Barker.
[Tampa, Fla] :
University of South Florida,
3 520
ABSTRACT: Over the past decade over 600M in funding has been devoted to bringing about reform in science education, but little is known about who is implementing reform, the extent of reform implementation and how educational contexts differentially impact reform innovations. This dissertation explores the results of the Multi-Initiative Dissemination Project (MID Project), a national curriculum reform program that was designed to propagate reform pedagogy among undergraduate chemistry faculty in faculty development workshops. We analyzed data from surveys, in-class observations and faculty interviews to explore the relationships between the participant faculty demographic features and their pedagogy and teaching philosophy before and following exposure to the workshops. We found interesting demographic characteristics that distinguish the participant faculty from the academic chemistry faculty responding to the ACS 2000 census. Also, our study uncovered relationships between the participants' demographic features and their conceptions of teaching and practices that may mediate the impact of pedagogical interventions such as curriculum reform workshops. This dissertation describes these relationships and their implications for policies supporting reform efforts
Dissertation (Ph.D.)--University of South Florida, 2006.
Includes bibliographical references.
Text (Electronic dissertation) in PDF format.
System requirements: World Wide Web browser and PDF reader.
Mode of access: World Wide Web.
Title from PDF of title page.
Document formatted into pages; contains 272 pages.
Includes vita.
Adviser: Jennifer Lewis, Ph.D.
Faculty development.
Undergraduate chemistry reform.
Teaching conceptions.
Pedoagogical content knowledge.
Teaching practices.
Faculty demography.
Dissertations, Academic
x Chemistry
t USF Electronic Theses and Dissertations.
4 856
u http://digital.lib.usf.edu/?e14.1612


Teaching Philosophy and Practices Among Chem istry Faculty Attending MID Project Workshops : Implications for Reform in Chemistry by Beverly Dee Barker A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Department of Chemistry College of Arts and Sciences University of South Florida Major Professor: Jennifer Lewis, Ph.D. Kirpal Bisht, Ph.D. Donilene Loseke, Ph.D. Maralee Mayberry, Ph.D. Mike Zaworotko, Ph.D. Dana Zeidler, Ph.D. Date of Approval: April 19, 2006 Keywords: faculty development, undergraduate chemistry reform, teaching conceptions, pedoagogical content knowledge, teachi ng practices, faculty demography Copyright 2006, Beverly Dee Barker


Dedication This work is dedicated to Bruce David H ougan, my husband, who helped to carry this load over the long haul.


Acknowledgements As happens in a project that has an interdisciplinary outl ook and approach, the inspiration and completion of this work has come about through enormous assistance and advice from others. Dr. Jennifer Lewis, my advisor in Chemistry and creator of the Chemical Education program at USF, inspir ed her group and me by her example to think carefully about relationships of practice and thinking as th ey pertain to the world of chemists and chemistry. Dr. Dana Zeidler, my mentor and director of the Science Education Program in the College of Education at USF, taught me to value pedagogical content knowledge, maintain a sense of humor in the face of failure, and to value my undergraduate degree in philosophy. Dr. Jeff Kromrey, in the Educational Measurement Program in the College of Education at USF who taught me the finer points of statistical applications in education and who continued to be very open to provide much needed advice, long after I left his classroom. My gratitude to Le ila Amiri, who helped organize the paperwork needed to complete my dissert ation at USF when I was away in Alaska and to Dr. Mary Snyder, Dean of the College of Education at the University of Alaska, for her careful reading of the text and critique. And last but far from least, the rest of the committee who took the time to offer their pers pectives and critique of this work: Dr. Mike Zaworotko, chairman of the Chemistry Department, Dr. Donileen Loseke and Dr. Maralee Mayberry, both teachers and mentors in Sociology and Dr. Kirpal Bisht, natural product chemist at USF and a willing deliberator of Chem ical Education research.


i TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES............................................................................................................. iv LIST OF FIGURES........................................................................................................... vi ABSTRACT......................................................................................................................v ii I. INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................1 An Invitation to Academic Chemists...........................................................................1 THE HISTORICAL CONTEXT.....................................................................................3 THE PROBLEM: SCIENCE LITERACY..........................................................................4 REFLECTIONS IN CHEMISTRY....................................................................................7 (1) The problem of science literacy in chemistry................................................8 (2) The role of chemical education for the science and society: policy tensions and faculty perceptions..................................................................10 (3) Promoting the process of learning: The problem of content transmission and its inherent philosophy....................................................16 SUMMARY...............................................................................................................27 THE SOLUTION: PROPAGATING REFORM.................................................................30 (1) The MID Project...........................................................................................30 (2) The MID Project in a larger context: The Model of Reform Dissemination..............................................................................................37 SUMMARY...............................................................................................................44


ii II. THE STUDY RATIONALE........................................................................................46 PRIOR MIDP EVALUATION AND RELEVANCE OF THIS WORK..................46 RATIONALE FOR THE METHODOLGY USED IN THE CASE STUDY...........49 The effects of the institutiona l level on teaching conceptions...........................50 The effects of the discipline on teaching conceptions.......................................52 The effects of personal teaching conceptions on practice.................................54 III. RESEARCH QUESTIONS AND THEIR JUSTIFICATION....................................59 Justification for the Research questions.....................................................................59 Justification 1.....................................................................................................59 Justification 2.....................................................................................................62 IV. METHODOLOGY.....................................................................................................65 Trustworthiness..........................................................................................................66 QUANTITATIVE METHODS.....................................................................................69 Instruments of Assessment and Analysis Methodology............................................69 Pre-Workshop Survey........................................................................................69 Post-Workshop Survey......................................................................................71 Inventory Survey................................................................................................72 QUALITATIVE METHODS........................................................................................74 Sample selection........................................................................................................74 Sampling Population Criteri a and Population Matrix........................................76 Interviews...................................................................................................................81 Field observations......................................................................................................84


iii V. RESULTS AND FINDINGS.......................................................................................87 RESEARCH QUESTION 1..........................................................................................87 RESEARCH QUESTION 2........................................................................................108 RESEARCH QUESTION 3........................................................................................121 RESEARCH QUESTION 4........................................................................................139 SUMMARY.............................................................................................................149 VI. SYNTHESIS.............................................................................................................151 A Model of Reform..................................................................................................151 REFERENCES................................................................................................................158 APPENDIXES.................................................................................................................175 APPENDIX A: CHEMICAL THINKING ACTIVITY..................................................176 APPENDIX B: SURVEYS..............................................................................................184 APPENDIX C: RUBRIC OF INTERVIEW QUESTIONS SEMI-STRUCTURED...........................................................................214 APPENDIX D: CODING RUBRIC................................................................................215 APPENDIX E: CLASSROOM RUBRIC FOR LEARNING PROCESSES AND TEACHING PRACTICES....................................250 APPENDIX F: INTERVIEW TRANSCRIPTS AND QUOTES....................................260 ABOUT THE AUTHOR.......................................................................................End Page


iv LIST OF TABLES Table 1. Comparison of two teaching paradigms (41) .......................................................24 Table 2. The role of the instructor (41) ..............................................................................25 Table 3. The role of the student (41) ..................................................................................25 Table 4. Categories and crit eria for trustworthiness (142) ................................................67 Table 5. Population Matrix based on the 6 step criteria....................................................77 Table 6. Demography of the Case Study Participants......................................................81 Table 7. Institution Level Participation (%)......................................................................90 Table 8. Sex Distribution (%)............................................................................................90 Table 9. Race/ethnici ty Distribution (%)...........................................................................91 Table 10. Tenure Status-Multiple Categories (%).............................................................93 Table 11. Teaching Experience (Years).............................................................................94 Table 12. Class Size (Number of Students).......................................................................94 Table 13. Demographic profile summ ary-predominant characteristics.............................96 Table 14. Host Educational Institution and Carnegie Designation..................................100 Table 15. Workshops held at National Meetings and Intensive Workshops...................101 Table 16. Participants Familiar with MID Pedagogy Prior to Workshop (%).................103 Table 17. Post Survey (N= 89): Partic ipant Dissemination of Innovations.....................106 Table 18. Pre-survey results about technique s used in Lecture Section (N=745)........110


v Table 19. Case study facultys pre-works hop survey lecture section techniques responses (Kim, Cindy & Vern gave no rankings).........................................111 Table 20. Observed Practices in the Case Study..............................................................113 Table 21. Questioning Practices......................................................................................115 Table 22. Analysis of Variance test be tween case study facult y and other MIDP participants a nd facilitators.............................................................................124 Table 23. Multiple Comparisons Table of differences between case study faculty and other MIDP particip ants and facilitators..................................................126 Table 24. Comparison of the Teaching Appro aches Inventory Results and In class observations among the Case Study Faculty...................................................128 Table 25. Comparison Between Case Study Faculty and MIDP workshop Facilitators on Teaching Appr oaches Inventory Survey.................................130 Table 26. Case Study Participant Learni ng Concept and Practice Comparison..............133 Table 27. Comparing Responses Pre/Post MIDP Intervention (N=89)...........................141 Table 28. Post Survey (N = 89): MIDP Influence on Asse ssment Practices...................141 Table 29. Inventory Survey: Changes in T eaching Strategies Ascribed to MID.............143 Table 30. Inventory Survey Reported Benefits (N= 207)................................................144 Table 31. Uptake of reformPost Survey Responses: Questioning Techniques...........148


vi LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. The Learning Cycle...........................................................................................20 Figure 2. Historical Devel opment of the MID Project.....................................................29 Figure 3. Model of Reform in undergra duate chemistry based on a model of reform for K-12 Statewide Systemic Reform (81) .............................................39 Figure 4. Gess-Newsome Model of Reform (34) .............................................................43 Figure 5. Map of MIDP Workshop Locations................................................................102 Figure 6. Workshop Participant Familiarity with Initiatives and Materials...................104 Figure 7. Model of Reform.............................................................................................157 Figure 8. Verns Classroom............................................................................................255


vii Teaching Philosophy And Practices Am ong Chemistry Faculty Attending Mid Project Workshops: Implications For Systemic Reform In Chemistry Beverly Barker ABSTRACT Over the past decade over 600M in fundi ng has been devoted to bringing about reform in science education, but little is known about who is implementing reform, the extent of reform implementation and how educational contexts differentially impact reform innovations. This presentation e xplores the results of the Multi-Initiative Dissemination Project (MID Project), a nati onal curriculum reform program that was designed to propagate reform pedagogy am ong undergraduate chem istry faculty in faculty development workshops. We analyzed data from surveys, in-class observations and faculty interviews to explore the rela tionships between the participant faculty demographic features and their pedagogy a nd teaching philosophy before and following exposure to the workshops. We found inte resting demographic characteristics that distinguish the participant f aculty from the acad emic chemistry faculty responding to the ACS 2000 census. Also, our study uncovered relationships between the participants demographic features and their conceptions of teaching and practices that may mediate the impact of pedagogical interventions such as curriculum reform workshops. This


viii dissertation describes these re lationships and thei r implications for policies supporting reform efforts.


1 INTRODUCTION AN INVITATION TO ACADEMIC CHEMISTS Reform in chemistry education holds the promise of encouraging a wider public to effectively participate in environmenta l, pharmaceutical, medical, and industrial chemistry choices. It holds the potentia l to increase public understanding and appreciation of the varied ethical perspectives that comprise the contex t of these choices. Through stimulating a better understanding of how science functions, the reform in chemistry education demands greater competen ce in the critical ev aluation of chemical applications. It claims that by bringing diversity, understanding and awareness to its practices through reform, new approaches in chemical education can change not only the face of the science, but its objectives and as pirations. Therefore it is appropriate for chemistry faculty involved in undergraduate inst ruction to consider th eir participation in the reform movement; to consider fost ering its progress by learning about and understanding its history, its current direction and object ives and how to overcome obstacles to its development. Reading and thinking about these issu es presented within this dissertation is an opport unity for such consideration. This study is unique because it develops an analysis of the response to reform in undergraduate chemistry, through an investigation of teaching approaches implemented


2 within the context of the history of the refo rm movement. It includes a brief overview of reform in chemical education and reveals how conceptions about reform evolved in undergraduate chemistry education by describing key perspectives and events leading to its current state. Eminent organizations su ch as the National Sc ience Foundation (NSF) and the American Chemical Society (ACS) ev aluated the need for reform and the place that chemical education research has in its development. These organizations generated a discourse on themes that influenced polic y on undergraduate chemistry programming. This dissertation explores these themes a nd reveals crucial tensions that may have unintentionally affected the development of th e reform program in chemistry. Last, this work provides both a qualitative and quantitat ive analysis of the dissemination of the current reform movement in undergraduate chemistry through an investigation using survey and case study data collected from participants of the Multi-Initiative Dissemination Project (MID Project). Because stimulating a change in teaching stra tegies is one of the primary goals of the reform in chemistry, directly explor ing and understanding chemistry facultys practices and conceptions about teaching and learning is warra nted. Hence, this study investigates the teaching pract ices of academic chemists af ter their exposure to reform pedagogy presented in the MID Project workshops. The goal of this investigation is to uncover crucial features of th e dissemination process, such as how and to what extent implemented teaching practices are linked to instructors personal conceptions about learning and teaching chemistry. To proceed to ward this goal, four specific research questions are explored in the MID Project data:


3 1. In what ways are chemistry faculty at tending a reform workshop (such as the MIDP workshops) different or similar to the general population of academic chemists? 2. What are the in-use and espoused teaching conceptions (e.g. beliefs and intentions) that academic chemists a ttending the MIDP workshop have about reform approaches? 3. What teaching conceptions appear to ha ve the greatest influence (impinge the most) on their observed practices and on their adoption of reform? 4. How do their specific contexts (faculty de mographic characteristics and teaching environment) influence both their teac hing conceptions and practices and their adoption of reform? While chemical education research genera lly describes the successes or failures of particular educational projects or approach es, this study is distinctive because it is intended to complement and expand our unders tanding of the discourse on reform and its impact on undergraduate chemistry. Furthe rmore, it is unique because data from a reform dissemination program and the literature discourse are integrated together to propose a new model of reform to be develope d further in future studies on reform in undergraduate chemistry. Last, interested read ers of this dissertati on have an opportunity to assess this model and the progress of refo rm in chemistry and how they might best serve its future development. THE HISTORICAL CONTEXT There are many ways that the history of current reform can be conveyed. The approach taken in this disse rtation mirrors the discussion in the early reform policy documents, namely, the problem of science ill iteracy is described fi rst. The section on


4 the problem includes a deta iled presentation of a few of the policies that reformers recommended to resolve the problem of scie nce illiteracy. The reform policy documents presented reform as a remedy but omitted available supportive data to substantiate their claims. As this historical di scussion is recounted, this section reveals how this omission might have led to unintended outcomes in f acultys perception of reform and describes data that could have been used to support re formers claims. Then the following section describes the solution, where the reform pr ogram that was established is presented as the reformers construct to resolve the problem and fulfill the recommendations of the policy papers. As such, the historical c ontexts of both the problem and solution are intertwined, and on occasion in this dissertation, references to reform remedies are mentioned in the discussion of the problem of science illiteracy. Risking redundancy, the following section on the solution begins with a brief recap of the historical context of the issues as they were perceived in unde rgraduate chemistry. This approach was intended to help the reader establish relati onships between content presented in both sections. THE PROBLEM: SCIENCE LITERACY The events that gave rise to the current programs in chemistry education occurred in the late 1980s. Reports documented a crisi s in the US science education system that acquired the momentum of a national issue. According to this literature, the American public was scientifically illiterate. (1-3) One report described a survey conducted in 1988 that probed the science literacy of 2000 Americans .(1) Reponses to the survey


5 revealed only 6% of the respondents met the cr iteria to be considered scientifically literate. The researchers also found that a college level science course was the predominant, single most important predictor of science literacy rather than a general college education or science in high school. Thus the implication of this study and other reports similar to it was that the lack of scie nce literacy in the American public can be mitigated by enrolling the American public in college level science courses. However there was an underlying caveat: co llege level natural sciences courses had great difficulty attracting and keeping enough students to ma ke a difference at the national level .(4-6) As a consequence of reports such as th e above, remedial action was taken by the National Science Board to create an ad ministrative structure having undergraduate education as its first priority .(3) This effort led to the formation of what is now NSFs Division for Undergraduate Educ ation. One of the earliest actions taken by this new administration in 1988 was the funding of pr ojects in the Unde rgraduate Faculty Enhancement (UFE) program to encourage fa culty to adopt reform. Other reform projects or initiatives that were eventually funded in the late 1980s and early 1990s include projects in the Course and Curriculu m Development (CCD) program, Research in Undergraduate Institutions (RUI), Undergraduate Resear ch Participation (URP), Advanced Technological Education (ATE) and early reform dissemination projects, such as Comprehensive Improvement Project (CIP ) and the Engineering Education Coalition (EEC). Funding support for these programs also in creased in this period. The NSF FY 1987 budget for all of undergraduate programming was $17.8M (Million). (3) By FY


6 1992 NSF awarded 52M to undergraduate progra mming and 16M for systemic reform (k12 and post secondary). (7) From 19881996 NSF awarded 102M to undergraduate science course curriculum developmen t and 46M to faculty development in undergraduate science programs. (8, 9) In 1995 NSF awarded 10M to chemistry undergraduate reform program development. (10) By 1998 NSF spent over 600M on systemic reform in science education which included 14M on chemistry undergraduate reform program development. (11, 12) Other organizations also contributed to developing reform in undergraduate sc ience education. For example in 2003, the Howard Hughes Medical Institute awarded 20 science faculty 1M each over four years to develop new modes of science teaching. (13) In all, this substantial in crease in financial support since 1988 demonstrates that educational agencies and NSF placed considerable value on the development of reform in chemistry and other sciences. While increasing student learning was the ultimate goal of these early reform programs, program visionaries considered subs tantiation of student achievement to be too distal or affected by too many differe nt factors to be a fruitful objective. (14, 15) Consequently, programs such as UFE approach ed reform by engaging faculty in activities to improve instruction with the assumption th at improved instruction leads inevitably to improved student achievement. However by the mid to late 1990s the sustained problems with science literacy and the dwind ling capacity of the US to maintain science leadership at the international level called into question whether the goals and activities of the earlier reform programs served the public need. (16-21) The unresolved condition of a scientifically il literate public and the uncertainty about the US future science


7 leadership indicate either complacency and/or a lack of understandi ng of how to create the change needed in the scie nce educational system. Theref ore these conditions justify a study into the complexity of reform in undergraduate science education and warrant investigating specific factors in its deve lopment using the reform in undergraduate chemistry education as a model case. REFLECTIONS IN CHEMISTRY The discussion on reform in chemistry evolved as the current reform was implemented and developed in the mid to late 1990s. Similar to the reform developments in science education, the concer n to have a public th at was literate in chemistry was a central feature in the initial discussion .(3, 4, 22, 23) Reformers in chemistry sought ways to alleviate the high attrition rate among promising students. With support from national organizations, they encouraged the development and implementation of new pedagogy to increase and maintain higher enrollments and greater diversity of students in introductory chemistr y courses. But over time, the focus of the discussion in chemistry education literature sh ifted to considerations about the role of faculty development as a means to institu tionalize permanent changes in chemistry education. (3, 9-15, 22-26) ACS and NSF made several recommendations to institutionalize these changes in chemistry and the other sciences, calling for a complete reform in the educational system .(3, 10-12, 14, 22-28) These recommendations can be organized into three essential areas encouraging particular actions in undergraduate chemis try: (1) Literacy in


8 chemistry must be increased among diverse lear ners. (2) Chemistry instructors need to fully understand and engage in the integrated f unctions of chemical education that serves both science and society by a dopting programming that produ ce creative, effective and conscientious scientists, teachers and technici ans. (3) Chemistry instructors need to adopt practices that fulfill the reform object ive of facilitating the process of learning rather than adhering to tradit ional practices of content tran smission. The sections that follow explore these areas more fully and reveal how the development of the reform mandate triggered the sponsorsh ip of projects such as the Multi-Initiative Dissemination (MID) Project to undertake faculty development. (1) The problem of science literacy in chemistry In the late 1980s and earl y 1990s the impetus to develop reform in the field of chemistry came from studies claiming a significa nt attrition rate in second year university students who had expressed interest and aptitude in this field .(4, 5) Additionally, reports from the American Chemical Society (ACS), the ACS Committee on Professional Training, as well as NSF indicated that the chemistry curriculum wa s neither successful in contributing to a scientifically literate wo rk force nor able to ge nerate broadly trained industrial and political leaders .(19, 22, 23) The national concern over this decline grew because competition in the global market re quired the production of diverse, innovative chemical ideas and products and it appeared that the chemistry academy was unable to increase the number and variety of graduates to meet these demands. (24) Therefore the


9 mandate stated in a NSF grant progra m announcement to encourage reform in undergraduate chemistry was: This initiative was launched to e nhance the learning and appreciation of science through significant changes in chemistry instruction. Supported projects have been designed to make fundamental changes in the role of chemistry within the institution including better integration with curricula in related disciplines such as biology, physics, geology, materials science and mathematics. The included changes are expected to affect all [emphasis added] levels of undergraduate instruction. (25) This quote conveys the importance given to implement reform at all levels of instruction, to ensure a systemic reform in chemistry. This was a vision of reform that sought to give undergraduates at all instituti onal levels the opportunity to acquire the knowledge and skills necessary to allow conti nued learning for producti ve lives including informed decision-making. Despite the drive to create systemic reform, the institutional infrastructure was not in place for conti nuous improvement of curricula and teaching methods within research/doctorial un iversities and undergraduate colleges. (26) Assessment and evaluation at many institutions occurred perfunctorily, involving only student evaluations of teachers and standardized examinations of the students at the end of the semester. (26) Anecdotal evidence rather than ri gorous systematic evaluations were used to determine the value of teaching tools. (26) In summary, teaching and evaluation paradigms in undergraduate chemistry were ineffective, prompting NSF to fund the launching of sweeping reform in chemistr y using wide-spread dissemination programs such as the Multi-Initiative Dissemination (MID) Project. (12)


10 (2) The role of chemical education for the science and society: policy tensions and faculty perceptions Coincident with this drive to undergo a systemic reform, and some might argue because of it, the subfield of chemical education research grew. While chemical education research had been published for over 35 years, only in 1992 was a task force called by ACS to examine and explicitly identify this research as a sub-discipline within the science of chemistry .(27) The mandate for supporting its growth parallels that of the reform itself. The task force identified the mandate of chemical education research in the following statement: There was a time when the needs of chemists and society in general were well served by the small minority of citizens who studied chemistry and understood it. That is not so toda y. Without the understanding of how chemistry can be taught and learned that derives from research in chemistry education, the entire field of chemistr y is impoverished and its contribution to humanity is reducedchemistry e ducation operates at the interface between chemistry and society. It helps chemists determine what knowledge society needs and investig ates how chemistry is learned by chemists-to-be and society in general. (27) These statements expressed by the ACS Ch emical Education Task Force contain claims that echo those made by the ACS Committee on Professiona l Training described above. The claims of both organizations t ogether suggest that th e health and economic well being of the society depends on: (1) the ability of capable workers and professionals across science fields to understand chemistr y (2) the expert knowledge of chemical education researchers and (3 ) an educated citizenry cap able of making responsible informed political and funding choices on chemis try-related issues. If these claims are true then it stands to reas on that a society that is not capable of generating such a workforce requires remediation in the form of a major, systemic effort. And conjoined to


11 these claims is the need for a sub-discipline, in this case chemical education, which facilitates not only the trajectory of the reform effort in chemistry education but also the responsiveness of the science itsel f to fulfill the needs of society. National organizations such as ACS and NSF used these claims to negotiate the institutionalization of a pedagogy that serves a broader clientele of students. To accomplish this task, they convened educationa l committees to identify the new clientele, the new pedagogy and how the new pedagogy coul d best serve the interests of this clientele. In 1993, NSF sponsored 48 educator s in the field of chemical education to construct an agenda for reform in chemis try undergraduate education. A document of their findings was presented to NSF entitle d Innovation and Change in the Chemistry Curriculum. (28) One recommendation for reform outlined in the executive summary identifies the clientele and the new pedagogy: We must give all our students, whet her they will become scientists or not, a sense of professionalism an d involvement, an appreciation of the scientific method and how it imp acts on public discourse, and an understanding of research and the excitement of exploration and discovery.We recommend that facu lty open up their classrooms and laboratories to problem based instruction that allows students to participate in the kind of open-ended consideration of data that characterizes our researchWe urge the National Scien ce Foundation to su pport initiatives that develop means of intera ctive learning for students... (28) This quote recommends changing classroom operations so that all students are engaged, regardless of their goals in sc ience, in discovery learning processes characteristic of open-ended processes occu rring in professional rese arch. In the past, traditional teaching approaches honed the technica l skills of future scientists. However the assertion in this quote refers to a client ele that is more inclusive, and specifically


12 recommends an orientation toward a more so cial learning enterprise they describe as interactive learning. These views were reiterated again in a later document, Shaping the Future, published in 1996, describing the goal of all science educa tion to expressly involve all undergraduate students in a discovery pr ocess of learning which they label as inquiry. (3) Inquiryalthough there is disagreement about the meaning of the term science literacy and doubt about whet her agreement is possible on a list of facts everyone should know, there is no disagreement that every student should be presented an opportunity to understand what science is, and is not, and to be involved in some way in scie ntific inquiry, not just a hands on experience. (3) Thus, Shaping the Future recommends both lite racy, what science is and is not and a pedagogy that engages students in challenging ro les of inquiry characteristic of professional research. Furthermore, this pr oposed learning experien ce is contrasted and elevated above just a hands-on experience wh ich is described later in this document as cookbook experiences that do no more than teach students to a dhere to a set of prescribed steps. (3) The views expressed in Shaping the Fu ture had a significant impact on the direction of the reform movement in chemistry and across the sciences .(29) The production of the document itself involved in terviews of 200 leader s and faculty in the scientific and industr ial community, includi ng professional societies such as ACS and other federal agencies. It also culled the views of focus groups made up of parents, students, graduates, disciplinary faculty, inst itutional leaders, and ex ecutive employers of science graduates. Therefor e this report was the result of an extensive process of


13 consultation and review taking place over a pe riod of two years, and expressed the perspectives of a significant swath of scienc e education leadership and stakeholders. For these reasons and because of the impact it had on educational policies supported by ACS in chemistry, it is appropriate to take a cl oser look at the views it expresses about the proposed reform. Both Shaping the Future and Innovation and Change in the Chemical Curriculum reported that the previous emphasis in science education to produce scientists incurred a neglect of non-science majors. This aff ected an important clientele, particularly, the future teach ers of the K-12 school system. (3, 28) Both reports accentuated the importance of a broader agenda for undergraduate science education that would provide more support to the prep aration of teachers and technicians. But virtually every participant in the review work of this committee has expressed concern over the wa y the undergraduate SME&T [science, math, engineering & technology] educa tion community is working in the preparation of teachers. (3) (p45) However, the language of these documents, pros cribing a shift to serve a broader student clientele, juxtaposed the needs of different stakeholders and brought covert tension into the discussion about the goals of science a nd chemistry education. The primacy of the production of scientists and its concurrent educational practi ce is juxtaposed with and appears to vie for importance with the need to produce effective teach ers. Consequently, the readership of these documents might interpret the proposed reform program as serving the interests of a particular clientele separate from future scientists. This is substantiated by the growth of additional introductory science courses to serve this clientele rather than a change in existing courses. (3, 21, 30)


14 The context for possible varied interpretati ons about the intent of the reform can be observed in Shaping the Future. Th is report acknowledged that the former educational practice of produc ing scientists developed ta lent among a pre-determined class of individuals who intended to pursue a career in science. (3) (p14) Alternatively, groups traditionally under-represented in scie nce, such as women, minorities and persons with disabilities, mu st now be given attention a nd the opportunity to learn these subjects by direct e xperience with the methods a nd processes of inquiry. (3) (p13) While this document affirms that the form er pedagogy was oriented to the production of scientists, how the reform pedagogy was expected to be different is alluded to in this quote: We know that the diverse communities or cultures from which our students come have different values norms and expectations about the educational process; learning is inhib ited when those culturally determined norms clash with what the instruct or is doing. Research in sociology suggests that working in groups in a cooperative setting produces greater growth in achievement than strivi ng for relative gains in a competitive environment. (3) (p15) In this context, reform pedagogy involving a group-oriented colla borative form of inquiry, while not defined in detail, is pr esumed to be capable of more inclusive sociological effects than the conventional approach. Here the emphasis on group cooperative learning provides a more specific operational definition of the interactive learning processes described in Innovations and Change in the Chemical Curriculum. However in Shaping the Future, the disc ussion juxtaposes the former pedagogy with the needs of diverse studen ts and ascribes to the former and proposed pedagogies different goals and effects. Therefore the proposed change does not entail encouraging


15 under-represented, non-traditional student groups into the continuing stream of education. Rather, the proposed change was to recast the machinery of education itself into a new form that serves a more diverse clientele. We can no longer alter students to fit the abilities of educational institutions; we must alter the institutions to fit the needs of students. However the discus sion about serving a broader clientele leaves mute whether group cooperative learning would sufficiently serve all stakeholders including science majors and whether it is sufficient to overc ome hegemonic practices in chemistry and the other physical sciences. There are indications that faculty perceive the proposed pedagogy as antithetical to educational rigor and the effective de velopment of science majors. While NSF describes the reform pedagogy in Shaping the Future as one of th e goals of teaching scholarship, apparent resistance to the re forms necessary to create this type of scholarship in chemistry and other disciplines have been reported. (3, 8, 26, 27, 31-33) Reform researchers have proposed that the r eaction to avert educational reform derives from the challenge it poses to the cultural traditions of institutions and disciplines. (34) However, they may also be a reaction to the unintended tensions inherent in the reform policy documents. Hence, overcoming th ese hindrances may require the strong endorsement of senior faculty or their admi nistration to encourage an appreciation for reform practices and to assure faculty that institutionalizing reform pedagogy serves not only science literacy but the development of scie nce and of future scientists as well. But an argument drawing an unequivocal resolution of the covert tension implied in these documents between the two objectives of chem ical education, science literacy and the


16 production of scientists was not presented. Neither the reform campaign documents nor contemporaneous research showing the exis tence of a common means for effective learning were used to resolve these tensions. Instead, reformers in Shaping the Future and other reform documents appeared to expect their readership to accept apriori that the proposed reform pedagogy (e.g. group-oriented cooperative inquiry) would be able to serve both goals and all students. (6) The outlook presented in this dissertati on does not expect the reader to accept apriori that the proposed reform serves inte rests of diversity, sc ience literacy and the development of science and of future scientis ts. Rather, a brief argument based on data is presented in the next section showing how group collaborative learning can be used to progress toward both these goals when specific steps are taken to promote specific social and learning processes in the teaching practice. (3) Promoting the process of learning : The problem of content transmission and its inherent philosophy As described above, reformers promoted teaching approaches that emphasized processes of learning within collaborative groups and drew a corollary between these learning processes and the social processes of doing exploratory sc ience research. In some documents these processes are described as learning operations distinctive from the acquisition of content know ledge. For example, the National Science Education Standards state: The responsibility of science faculty members is to develop not only the science knowledge of our student s, but also their understanding of the nature of science, their ability to understand and use scientific ways


17 of thinking, and their ability to make connections and apply what they know to the world outside the classroom. (p. ix). (35) This quote suggests that meeting the goals of the national science education standards requires faculty to provide not only content knowledge but to engage students in the processes of science. However, the adhere nts of reform took the argument further and claimed that reform inquiry pedagogy involve s processes of discove ry and that both discovery and understanding must take precedence over acquiring specific content described as the product of science .(34, 36-38) Elaborating on this argument, both S haping the Future and Innovations and Change in the Chemistry Curriculum docum ents describe the proposed pedagogy as a form of inquiry linked with the process of sc ience rather than the content of science: One important trend reported in the design and delivery of innovative SMET coursesone that places greater emphasis on concepts and processesand less emphasis on factsis generally considered to be a positive antidote to the deadening effects of rapidly and broadly covering a large range of course material (3) (p54) In chemistry we test for facts and ex ercises.This focus robs our courses of research, inquiry, expl oration, and discovery. (28) (p6) It will be possible to deve lop criteria for the better preparation of teachers if the goals of student learning and in structional innovation are defined to include more than mastery of course content. (28) (p15) the Handbook of Research in Te aching has argued that content knowledge is necessary but not sufficient. (28) (p15) Both groups [majors and non-majo rs] need an appreciation of how [emphasis added] scientific knowledge comes into existence (28) (p10) The curriculum is knowledge for adva nced studies. (I might argue it is knowledge for what used to be advan ced studies). And yet 90% of these students will not be chemists.The textbooks are large collection of


18 facts. What I see really missing fr om these textbooks is the process of science. (3) These views have been reiterated in subseque nt policy designed specifically for future chemistry scientists (e.g. chemistry majors). For example, the ACS policy document, Guidelines and Evaluation Procedures in Undergraduate Professional Education in Chemistry, states: Enhancing the learning of how to solve problems may lead to less emphasis on coverage of content an d to greater emphasis on projects (39) In the context where this quote was found, the m eaning of projects appears to coincide with collaborative-discovery based learning approaches. Embedded in their description of problem solving are terms such as t eam work, undergraduate research projects and effective communication. And all of th ese quotes, above, show a perspective that places a high value on the learning proce ss beyond mastery of course content. Furthermore, they express a view that appear s to encourage the fac ilitation of the inquiry process in both the lecture and lab classrooms. (30, 39-44) However, an argument presenting data that links the preferred learning process to collaborative learning approaches with the intention of persuading chemistry faculty to adopt reform in all their classes (for majors and non majors) was not ar ticulated in these policy documents. An argument that presents this data is given here. The substantiation that might persuade fa culty to adopt the co llaborative learning process into their lecture class comes from research and theory in cognitive science. (4550) Several of these papers were written pr ior to the reform policy documents. This research indicated that the model that best describes the learning pr ocess is the learning


19 cycle model as shown in Figure 1. The first step in the learning cycle is a phase of exploration. Students are exposed to a new s ituation or environment and are encouraged to explore together, through ac tivities and exposure to new ma terials, ideas or concepts (which are not necessarily exp licitly stated ora lly or in text) on their own without instructor intervention and without specific expectations on the part of the instructor. During the exploratory phase, learners inco rporate the new experience into their preexisting framework of knowledge. The sec ond step involves concept invention or introduction. The new ideas or concepts wh ich the students previous ly explored on their own are then given formal definition eith er via the instructor, through their own collective invention, or through their text or other medium. However, the way that the concept is introduced is crucia l so that students learning processes are not undermined. The concept is introduced in such a way to he lp the student form a pattern of reasoning to map the (possibly abstract) concept to thei r concrete experiences. Students can then compare the new concept with their recent exploratory experiences. The final step involves applying the new knowledge. This pha se increases the learners understanding when they apply the concept to new situa tions. Importantly, th is phase involves both instructor and peer interacti ons, which reinforce what the authors call self-regulation a form of self-assessment to determine for themselves whether they understand the concept and its applications.


20 Figure 1. The Learning Cycle When students undergo this sequence of learning, cognitive research indicates that understanding is greatly enhanced. (45-50) The learning cycle is focused on the students learning experiences and social /educational context for learning. The teacher/instructor has a minimal role in in troducing the students to the new concepts. Instead the students form, through their pe rsonal, social, active explorations, an understanding of a new concept or idea that is being introduced and they are given opportunities to apply the con cept themselves to increase their understanding. The mental process promoted through this sequenc e creates a change in the organization of conceptions that is likened to Piagets notion of a paradigm shift and is described as conceptual change in educational theory. (36) This approach is endorsed by Exploration Concept Invention Application Inductive Deductive What did you find? Is there a pattern in the data? What does it mean? Organizes info Predict/hypothesis Test hypothesis Higher level of thinking What did you do? Data Ac q uisition


21 constructivist theory because it situates knowledge/understa nding acquisition within the context of the students experience. (41) Thus, emphasis on the learning cycle itself rather than the acquisition of content knowledge distinguishes the proposed reform practices from traditional approaches because it explicitly holds the scientific acts of discovery and understanding on equal or higher footing with the confirmatory proce sses that merely test content knowledge. (51) (p25-26) The results of cognitive science res earch suggest that using the learning cycle in undergraduate chemistry lecture classe s can potentially improve learning among students whether they are preparing to be t eachers or scientists. Hence data obtained from implementations that incorporate the le arning cycle can be used to confirm their positive effects on student outcomes and resolve the tensions in the discourse about the goals of science (and specifi cally chemistry) education. Such studies investigating the use of the learning cycle specifically in undergraduate chemistry classes were later documented by Farrel et al .(43) For example, a reform approach called, process-oriented guided inquiry learning (POGIL), that combines the learning cycle with group lear ning activities has been successfully implemented for nearly a decade in general chemistry classes. (43, 52) [Note: an example of a full activity is provided in Appendix A] Research on student achievement using POGIL found that student achievement impr oved with more students achieving As (~5% increase) and Bs (~7.5% increase) relative to a traditional lecture class taught by the same instructor.


22 A second investigation carried out by Le wis and Lewis in a large class setting (264 students total, 178 control and 86 expe rimental conditions) using peer leaders combined with POGIL substantiates the versatility of this approach in multiple settings. (42) These authors controlled for prior sc hooling in chemistry and SAT scores in their analysis which served to corroborate that the improvement in student achievement can be attributed to the learni ng activities and not to extraneo us factors relating to student background preparation. These findings might be useful to resolve the unintended tensions of the reform policy documents and mitigate interpretations emphasizing separate pedagogies for different clientele. However, data and ar guments to encourage implementation of the learning cycle may not be sufficient to establis h reform. Reformers wa rn that instructors using reform teaching materials without understanding the philosophical principles inherent in this pedagogy might unintentionally encumb er the students learning process. (41, 44) Chemistry education reformers have noted that the learning process is undermined when faculty use student assess ments that emphasize the perpetuation of authoritative or normative content: Our [student assessment] examinati ons focus on the kinds of questions for which there is a single correct answer, rather than those for which the correct answer is unknown, or wh ich have more than one correct answer. As a result, we construct an arbitrary boundary between what we do as scientists and what we as k our students to do in science courses. (28) Reformers link the reliance on authoritative content to a perspective which separates learning from generating knowledge and privileges the combined authorities of teacher and text .(34, 53) In contrast to this outlook, the prin ciples of the reform derive from a


23 student-focused perspective that values the learning process and student-generated models of knowledge indicative of the learning cycle. Hence, effective implementation of a practice with such a radically different focus requires a new conceptual framework. Reform-interested faculty espousing a more tr aditional view about teaching practices, might be revealing their reticence and need to undergo fundamental conceptual change. One of the reformers associated with POGIL, James Spencer, describes the conceptual openness to adopt the new perspective as a chan ge in paradigms, similar to the cognitive outcomes expected of student-learners. Thus effective implementation of the reform in undergraduate chemistry requires that faculty move both philosophically and behaviorally along a continuum from a teacher -focused approach to a student-focused active learning approach (SFAL). The overarching vision of the New Tr aditions Project is that we can facilitate a paradigm shift from faculty-centered teaching to studentcentered learning throughout the chemis try curriculum, such that students obtain deeper learning experience, improve their understanding and ability to apply learning to new situat ions, enhance their critical thinking and experimental skills, and increas e their enthusiasm for science and learning. The principles of these differing philosophi es (or paradigms) are contrasted in Table 1 and a description of how these princi ples are manifested in the classroom is presented in both Tables 2 a nd 3. Briefly, the learning valu es presented in the studentfocused column in these tables are based on the learning cycle a nd on the constructivist theory that learners constr uct their own knowledge from what they already know.


24 Table 1. Comparison of two teaching paradigms (41) Positivist/Objectivist Paradigm Constructivist Paradigm Truths are independent of the context in which they are observed. Learner observes the or der inherent in the world. Aim is to transmit knowledge experts have acquired. Exam questions have one correct answer. Knowledge is constructed. Group work promotes the negotiation of and develops a mutually shared meaning of knowledge. Individual learner is important. The ability to answer with only one answer does not demonstrate student understanding.


25 Table 2. The role of the instructor (41) Traditional Teacher-focused Student-focused Lectures Explains concepts Provides definitive answers Tells the students they are wrong or right Explains to students step-by-step how to work out a problem Acts as a consultant for students Asks probing questions of students to derive concepts Elicits responses that uncover what the students know or think about the concept Provides time for students to puzzle through problems Allows students to assess their own learning and promotes open-ended discussion Refers students to the data and evidence and helps them look at trends and alternatives Encourages students to explain other students' concepts and definitions in their own words Table 3. The role of the student (41) Traditional Teacher-focused Student-focused Asks for the "right" answer Has little interaction with others Explains possible solutions or answers and tries to offer the "right" explanations Tries alternate explanations and draws reasonable conclusions from evidence Has a margin for related questions that would encourage future investigations Has a lot of interaction and discusses


26 Traditional Teacher-focused Student-focused Accepts explanation wi thout justification Reproduces explanation given by the teacher/book alternatives with other companions Checks for understanding from peers Is encouraged to ask questions such as Why did this happen? What do I already know about this? Is encouraged to explain other student's explanations Tests predictions and hypotheses Uses previous information to ask questions, proposes solutions, makes decisions, and designs experiments Conversely, the traditional role of the teacher is a transmitter of subj ect content (i.e. of their knowledge of the subject matter). This ap proach is considered ineffective or inoperable because, according to th e constructivist view, knowledge cannot be transmitted. Because transmission-oriented pedagogy has long been the traditional approach in the physical sciences, its philo sophical influences on practice may not be readily apparent. And it may not be obvious that difficulties in implementing reform might be linked to the hybridi zation of practices that belong to competing philosophies. Therefore, for an effective adoption of reform it is essential that faculty understand the distinctions between the philo sophies that underlie their cu rrent practice and that of reform. Furthermore, in order to have the ab ility to discern and appr eciate a practice that integrates the process of l earning with generating knowledge, they must be willing to expunge a perspective which va lues authoritative knowledge. Table 3 continued


27 SUMMARY The development of the current reform program in undergraduate chemistry was stimulated by a larger movement taking plac e across all the sciences in undergraduate education. Prior to development of the cu rrent reform, undergraduate science education emphasized approaches that were not su ccessful in increasing public literacy or encouraging diverse learners or graduates in science. (1, 2, 3, 14, 16-21, 23, 27, 28, 30, 32) The current reform program is underway to change these conditions. As shown in Figure 2, a graphical synopsis of the de velopment of the MID Project, several organizations and federal agencies took part in creating an effective reform campaign. These organizations included the Nationa l Science Foundation (NSF), the National Science Board (NSB), the National Research Council (NRC), the American Association of the Advancement of Sciences (AAAS), a nd the American Chemical Society (ACS). Their efforts coalesced into the formation of the Department of Undergraduate Education (DUE) sponsored by the National Science F oundation. One mandate of DUE was to propagate reform in undergraduate science e ducation through funding initiatives. As a result, several reform programs were devel oped in the sciences including chemistry. Initially, five consortia of institutions teach ing undergraduate chemistry were funded to create new pedagogy and materials for chemis try. After achieving this goal, the MID Project was then funded to disseminate the reform teaching approaches and materials nationally. At the core of this reform movement are key perspectives promoted by the catalyst organizations, which derive from a constructivist paradigm. This paradigm


28 situates knowledge construction in the mind of the learner. Both teaching approaches and materials promoted by the reform program abide by this paradigm. The preferred teaching approaches of reform emphasize lear ning processes that emulate processes of doing science rather than the amount of factual subject c ontent. They also engage students in both the learning cycle and group le arning which help students to assess their understanding while exploring new concepts. Bu t, the way that the reform goals has been described and promoted in seminal reform literature might be misinterpreted by faculty, particularly those who do not understand th e constructivist paradigm. Furthermore concerns expressed in the earlier reform litera ture about encouraging greater participation of non-majors in science classes can be mi sinterpreted to mean that the new pedagogy supports mainly these learners. Therefore to encourage the implementation of reform in all undergraduate classes, it is necessary to demonstrate with data that the new pedagogy effectively helped students w ho were entering the discipline as well as those who were not. However, the presentation of supportive data demonstrating that reform methods improved student learning generally, was l acking in both reform policy documents, Shaping the Future and Innovation and Cha nge in the Chemistry Curriculum. Such persuasive presentations coul d have been used to help convince more faculty of the merits of reform and clarify its goals. In summary, these documents claim that implementing reform is more than just a pplying new methods and materials in classes intended for students who are not planning to enter the discip line. Rather, implementing


29 Figure 2. Historical Devel opment of the MID Project Reform Discussion Science Literacy Shaping the Future 1996 ACS NSF NRC AAAS FACTS: Problems with Literacy Economic Globalization/Global Competition Lack of Diversity in Sciences Lack of Diverse Products/solutions Environmental Crises InnovationIn Chemistry 1993 Analysis to Action 1996 National Science Education Standards 1996 Polic y Publications Callin g for Reform in Science Benchmarks for Science Literacy 1993 Publish & propagate recommendations & policies NSB DUE Chem Ed Task Force CPT ACS Academic Professional Guidelines Standards for Science Undergraduate Education Funding for Reform Pro g rammin g Influence of Organizations and Policies Funding for Reform Programming CCD ProgramCourse & Curriculum Development UFE SSIs (k-12) Other Undergraduate Science Programs New Traditions Peer-led-teamlearning Molecular Science ChemLinks Modular Chemistry Consortium Other SMET Initiatives Funding for 5 Chemistry Initiatives MID Project ChemConnections Influence of Reform Publications & Recommendations National Organizations involved in Science Educations Reform Funding for other initiatives Initiatives coalesce to disseminate & facilitate Systemic Reform


30 reform entails understanding and embracing a ne w paradigm that is radically different from the traditional positivist paradigm, and applying methods associated with this new paradigm in core classes of the discipline. THE SOLUTION: PROPAGATING REFORM (1) The MID Project History: As mentioned earlier in this acc ount of the reform movement in chemistry, the discussions on reform in the la te 1980s and early 1990 s culminated in the propagation of large-scale reform programs in the sciences. By 1995, NSF funded the Undergraduate Education Cour se and Curriculum (CCD) program to develop reform pedagogy specifically for chemistry .(26) Several consortia of academic chemists employed in institutions ranging from co mmunity colleges to research/doctorial institutions designed curricul um innovations and began refo rm implementation. As their work became known to the wider academic co mmunity, and as the need for a concerted systemic propagation of reform became apparent, NSF funded the banding of these consortia into a unified dissemination program called the Multi-Initiative Dissemination Project. The name refers to the reform initiatives (or consortia) that had been originally and independently established and funded by N SF. The mandate of the MID Project was to propagate the innovative t eaching approaches and material s of these initiatives to chemistry faculty across the nation in workshops from the years 2000-2004 .(54) The MID Project workshops presented to faculty the pedagogy and materials of four consortia who named their respectiv e reform programs: ChemConnections,


31 Molecular Science, New Traditions, and Peer-Led Team Learning. (54-59) Each of these four consortia undertook a slightly different approach to developing innovations in the undergraduate classroom. ChemConnecti ons (a combination of the ModularCHEM Consortium and the ChemLinks Coalition) developed new curricular materials and methods to enhance the learning and apprec iation of chemistry through the use of modules. Each module consisted of a current topic of interest to promote understanding and solving of real world problems, for exam ple, how to build an automobile airbag system or understanding the chem istry involved in global warming. (57) Molecular Science established an online delivery of assignments and assessments in order to integrate telecommunication a nd technology into inst ruction and allow students to selfteach instructional materials such as data, molecular models, and to engage in collaboration as well as to learn how to write about chemistry. The New Traditions project developed interactive pedagogies for the classroom with a focus on shifting the emphasis from a faculty-centered teaching approach to a student-centered learning approach. An additional focus was the development of inquiry-based labs. (58) Last, the Peer-Led Team Learning consortium preser ved the lecture format but introduced an additional weekly two-hour workshop and tr ained undergraduate leaders to run chemistry problem-solving discussion se ssions with their peers. (55) Objective: The guiding objective of all of th ese initiatives was to change the teacher-centered classroom pedagogy to a student-centered pedagogy summarized in Tables 2 and 3. Their approach incorporat ed activities to support the learning cycle described earlier. (60, 61) These activities included: providing class time to allow


32 students to collaborate to so lve problems, to engage in whole class and small group discussion and brainstorming, and to answer conceptual questions. (62) For the most part, this pedagogy incor porated several common themes from different theories of learning. (63) In addition to using a con structivist perspective that characterizes the acquisition of new knowledge as a process occurring within the existing knowledge base of the student, this pedagogy sets the pre-conditions for conceptual change, a process occurri ng in the learning cycle. (63, 64) Therefore, the learning approaches that were promoted in the MI D Projected were designed to move students through a discovery and analysis process of the learning cycl e in which their conceptions undergo holistic reorganization, as described in conceptual change theory. Their pedagogy also integrates Novaks Theory of Meaningful Learning approach in which students develop learning skills in all domains (cognitive, social, affective and psychomotor). (36, 65, 66) Last, this approach adheres to ethical principles confirming the unlimited potential in each learner, of learner ownership and empowerment to possess knowledge of the subject matter. (67, 68) The pedagogy also entails the use of di fferent assessment tools which encourage higher levels of engagement with the proce ss of learning rather th an the use of rote memorization. (69) Examinations with closed-ended que stions are seldom used. In active learning, assessment methods that model the a ssessment process for students are used to help learners develop thei r own capacity for self assessment using metacognition (thinking about their thinking). Student generated concept models, concept mapping, learning assessment journals, portfolios, activ ity sheets and peer-assessment activities are


33 examples of preferred assessment strate gies over algorithmic questions and answers. (63, 70-72) The initiatives, therefore, fulfilled their objective by creating specific alternatives to the traditional form of teaching chemistry. The traditional paradigm, in which students listen to an instructor lectur e, watch the instructor perform demonstrations and solve problems, and do individual homework outside the lecture setting is referred to as a teacher-focused/transmission (or pa ssive-learning/didactic) strategy. In order to disseminate these reform pr actices, the four init iatives received 1.1 million in funding together as the MID Proj ect to co-present workshops for college chemistry faculty at colleges and universitie s around the country. Presentations of a 1.5 day workshop on all four of the reform initiatives were conducted during the academic year and a three day, single project immersion workshops conducted during the summer. Each workshop provided the participants with in -depth exposure to curricular materials, learning activities, research findings on teaching and lear ning, assessment tools, and curriculum implementation strate gies. The purpose of these workshops was to give the participants sufficient experience to integr ate reform learning techniques into their current teaching practices. Facilitators funded through NSF and trained by the MID Project organized and led th ese workshops, and the host si te provided the rooms and technical facilities. Dissemination practices : In order to fulfill the mandate for the dissemination of a systemic reform, the co-PIs of the MID Proj ect put considerable effort into soliciting and reaching as many academic chemists as possible at every designated location for a


34 workshop. Workshop locations were selected based upon the sites of previous workshops, the locations of current requests for workshops, the density of institutions in a given area, and the location of institutions that serve minority faculty and students. Co-PI conferences were held to st rategize the appropriate works hop location and to consider accepting invitations from institutions that requested a workshop at their site. And last, if a geographical area had not been served, the co -PIs sent requests to colleagues in that area to serve as local hosts. Once a site had been chosen, American Chemical Society Academic Chemists data bases and web site data bases were used to locate community colleges, colleges, and universities. Using the American Chemical Society membership for solicitation is warranted in part because ACS represents one of the largest societies of scientists worldwide (a world wide membership of 160,000) and is the largest society of chemists in the U.S. And because of the size of its constitu ency, it represents a significant influence in chemical and science affairs in the U.S. And last, the ACS organization has provided several task force papers in support of reform in undergraduate chemistry. (22, 23, 73) The region of solicitation was identified beginning in the city of choice and expanding outward to a radius of approximately 200 miles in all directions. Then using the data bases described above, e-mail addres ses of chemistry faculty and chairs were gathered in that region. Approximately 400500 faculty were invited to attend any given workshop. Each individual was sent an e-ma il invitation with the goa ls of the workshops, information about the individual projects, a generic workshop agenda, information about the location, times, registration procedures and contact information. Faculty were


35 invited to register on-line at the project web site and they were sent a confirming letter with hotel information, room and building locations, a campus map, directions to the hosting campus, and parking information. This protocol differs some what from other disseminati on projects such as the NSFs Undergraduate Faculty Enhancement (UFE) program. (9) In contrast to UFE, which involved a faculty app lication/selection process a nd provided funding to science faculty (including chemists) wishing to at tend faculty enhancement workshops, the MID Project did not have an application process for individual participants and did not fund attending faculty. All chemistry faculty f ound in the databases within a region were contacted and invited. Usi ng a first come first serv e approach, all faculty who registered were admitted in the workshops until full capacity (60 faculty) was reached. As a result, the strong motivation to part icipate in MIDP workshops without MIDPderived funding suggests that the attending faculty had a ge nuine interest in learning about MIDP or had other (exter nal to MIDP) incentives to engage in reform oriented workshops. Over the four years, 26 workshops were he ld within all levels of post-secondary institutions and several workshops in regional and national ACS meetings. Consequently, a total of approximately 15,000 faculty were directly contacted. Hostinstitutions were widespread and located in all of the majo r geographical regions in the US mainland. The majority ( 22/26) of the hosting institutions that met the selection criteria for central locations were institutions with graduate schools. Seventeen of the hosting institutions with gra duate schools have the exten sive institution Carnegie


36 classification. Consequently large Ph.D. granting institutions were more highly represented as hosts relative to lower level in stitutions. Nevertheless, attendance at each workshop varied between 30 and 50 academics re presenting all institutional levels as described in more detail in the data section. In addition to soliciting individuals, the MID Project workshops were advertised and articles describing MIDP initiatives were published in peer-reviewed ACS journals such as Chemical and Engineering News, and the Journal of Chemical Education. (55-59, 74) Last, many symposia on MIDP workshops or on the implementation of the four initiatives through MIDP, have been presente d by MIDP facilitato rs, PIs and faculty participants at national and regional ACS meetings and at the Biennial Conferences of Chemical Education. In summary, the MID Project was a succe ssful dissemination program insofar as soliciting academic chemists from all underg raduate institutional levels and promoting reform through a highly active campaign among academic chemists. The majority of the faculty attending the workshops had little or no familiarity with the MIDP materials and initiatives and thus represent interested faculty who have had no previous involvement in the project. Furthermore, reports from the participants in the ear lier workshops (20002002) suggest that, following the workshop, participants engaged in voluntary dissemination (i.e. for which they are not paid ), which is an integral component of the dissemination process for a successful project.


37 (2) The MID Project in a larger context: The Model of Reform Dissemination The earlier reform projects in science education that had been launched in the early 1990s were independent projects within isolated institutions th at did not, according to the advisory committee to NSF, meet the magnitude and organization of reform needed. (17) Therefore, NSF and other federal ag encies supported a subsequent reform strategy that would involve th e entire network of educati onal organizations from preschool to post graduate work: The various parts of this continuum are interdependent; undergraduate SMET [science, math, engi neering and technology] education depends on the students who come from grades K-12, relies on faculty coming out of the graduate programs and prepares teachers for the K-12 system and students for graduate school The kinds of programs offered to graduate students have significan t implications for the future of undergraduate educationSo these sector s have mutual obligations to each other, and the fulfillment of those obligati ons is essential for the health of the whole. (3) To meet the new goals of a broad-scale educational reform in science, several national dissemination programs were established in the late 1990s. (75) These dissemination programs brought together isolat ed reform projects in to collective bodies that would be propagated across all levels of academic institutions, and supported by professional organizations and the science i ndustry. Hence, the primary objective of these national dissemination programs was to create a comprehensive change in science education described as systemic reform. These large-scale programs were designed to propagate reform pedagogy among faculty no t only across institution levels, but to reinforce a more unified, responsive educationa l structure across disciplines, and between faculty and students in their classrooms. (18, 76)


38 To realize the goals of systemic refo rm, dissemination activity has aimed at overcoming barriers primarily at two broad orga nizational levels: (1) at the individual and institutional levels and (2) at regional and policy making levels .(3, 30, 77-81) A diagram that depicts dissemination activity in a model of reform is provided in Figure 3 (below). The model shows a unidirectional flow infl uence in the apex of the pyramid from teachers to classrooms and then to student out comes such as student achievement. Other factors enter into this flow such as the institutional and/or community context of the classroom and available resources such as curr icular materials also have a bearing on the classroom experience. Below the apex a bidi rectional flow of infl uence occurs between the institution and teacher level and the larger regional level of educational governance that is organized by policy and provides support to the classroom experience through funding and setting educational standards. Th is model predicts that significant changes in curriculum and achievement cannot be made without affecting policy .(80) Furthermore reform researchers have found th at dissemination activities that only focused on the foundation/policy levels appeared to have very little measurab le effect on student achievement outcomes. Therefore, effective dissemination is a two-pronged enterprise providing information and activities to facilitate adoption of reform at both organizational levels.


39 Figure 3. Model of Reform in undergraduate chemistry based on a model of reform for K-12 Statewide Systemic Reform (81) At either organizational level, dissemi nation activities may be generalized as having two roles: reform propagation and ma nagement. Dissemination activity at the apex entails propagation, providing faculty the resources for pedagogical change, and management, giving faculty the means to sust ain reform through structural changes in their institution. Thus to achieve the objectiv e of reform at the apex of this model, dissemination involves faculty development, o ffering access to the tools and skills needed to bring about pedagogical and institutional change within their ed ucational system. (31, 82-84) Faculty Resource Colle g e Communit y Classroom Ex p eriences Student Outcomes Guiding Vision/Standards Institutional Collaboration & Leadership Policy Human & Material Support Incentives for Reform Public & Professional Suppo rt Reform Activities Teaching Practices


40 Strategies that have been successful in reform propagation mirror the very structure that they encourage. Rather than a top-down approac h, current dissemination approaches such as those used in the MID Project promote change in teaching practices through faculty development program s facilitated by experienced peers. (15, 31, 82, 8486) Faculty development programs may take different forms such as seminars, shortterm workshops, and outreach programs between institutions. The successful use of workshops as a mode of pedagogical dissemination in education has been well documented and is used by several dissemination programs including the MID Project for science faculty. (82) However, the long-term success of workshops (or any dissemination program) is c ontingent upon the existence of a structure of support including administrators, colleagues and other stakeholders within and across educational organizations .(3, 15, 30, 34, 82) Hence, a necessary part of the workshop content, as provided in the MIDP workshop, is discussion in how to manage and foster a supportive organizational structure and how to access funding for collaborations .(87) The content of dissemination programs also places emphasis on changes in the management of classroom social organization. (34, 86) The curricular models presented in the MIDP workshops and other reform programs call for a classroom practice that regards the instructor and student as partners in the educational endeavor .(3, 21, 31, 85, 86) In contrast, the traditional/normative ap proach in the American system places the responsibility of the educationa l enterprise entirely on the teacher. In the pedagogical models that the reform initi atives support, the student b ecomes an active agent in the learning process, and the creator of her/his knowledge, while the role and eminence of the


41 instructor as the holder or transmitter of knowle dge is diminished. Therefore, the current model of reform provides the means for struct ural changes not only in the institutional structure external to the classroom but also the social structure (and interactions) within the classroom. The successful implementation of this in-class structural change is dependent on the willingness of the individua l instructor and the organizational support of colleagues and administrators within a site to maintain a change in the classroom dynamic. (15, 16, 34) Regardless of how well reform is manife sted in the social structure of the classroom, it cannot be effectively supported in an environment of isolated institutional sites .(3) Previous (non-systemic) reform efforts have shown that in-c lass social structure requires a supportive struct ure across institutions. (15) Because student learning and development requires movement of the student between levels of institutions and because accomplishment in later courses in the sciences is heavily dependent on the quality of early learning, articulation between institutiona l levels is crucial.[30] Hence, managing structural support for reform requires a disse mination program that fosters partnerships between institution levels to build an integrated educational enterprise .(77, 87) Returning to the model of reform in Fi gure 3, to encourage articulation between levels of educational institutions requires dissemination activity at the regional level. Using the MID Project as an example, this can be accomplished by bringing the dissemination activities to multiple institutiona l sites that serves all major geographic areas in the nation. But such articulation must also be fost ered through policy in the form of feedback reports generated for the sponsor ing organization such as NSF. Therefore,


42 communication and articulation between institu tional levels can be enacted through the presentation of reform experien ces and practices to all interest ed stakeholders in regional professional conferences. Despite the call for a systemic reform that bridges institutional levels, documented differences in cultures and structure between le vels of institutions indicate that such endeavors may be difficult to achieve. (3, 31, 77, 88-90) On account of these historical differences, dissemination programs must inform pa rticipants to the nature of the vertical organization of the current educational system and to the extent that articulation between levels has been achieved in order to manage and sustain systemic reform. Clarifying the influences of institutiona l cultures for the purposes of propagating systemic reform in chemistry requires a c oncerted probe into th eir specific social contexts. It has been pointed out in organizational learni ng theory that organizational learning is not simply the sum of each members learning, rather, organizations maintain learning systems that have a reciprocal in fluence on their members, that transmit organizational norms and histories to others. (91) Thus, organizations develop worldviews and ideologies: Members come and go, and leadership changes, but organizations memories preserve certain beha viors, mental maps, norms and values over time (91) Although an organizations structure may play a cruc ial role in dissemination, research indicates that organizational culture may have an even greater role. Defined as the overriding ideologies, shared beliefs and norms, organizational culture is tied closely to and partially determines the strategy and directi on of organizational change. (91)


43 Gess-Newsome et al have derived a differe nt model of reform shown in Figure 4. (34) This model links the specific organizational cultural context with the facultys teaching conceptions and reform implementation. Whereas the previous model focused on the propagation of broad-scale reform acro ss institutional contexts, this model might be considered a representation of reform with in a single context. In this regard, GessNewsomes model might be construed as a blo w-up view of the f aculty section of the pyramid in the previous model. Figure 4. Gess-Newsome Model of Reform (34) Mismatch of personal practical theories and instructionalpractice Changed Instructional Practice (Instructional complacency) Personal Practical Theories= teaching practices (instructional complacency) Personal practical theories Knowledge, beliefs, and pedagogical skills Dense contextual barriers Porous contextual barriers Critical Intervention Pedagogical dissatisfaction Critical Intervention Knowledge Beliefs Pedagogical content knowledge Critical Intervention Contextual dissatisfaction


44 Gess-Newsome uses this model as a means to depict the relationship of teaching conceptions and dissatisfaction with reform implementation. According to conceptual change theory, dissatisfaction arising from specific learning contexts, necessarily precedes and enables conceptual change and learning. When faculty have such dissatisfaction in their teaching approaches th ey are no longer compla cent regarding their teaching practices, they seek change whether in their environmental context, in their pedagogy or both. Therefore, in contrast to the model introduced by Zucker et al, the model that Gess-Newsome et al propose suggest s that facultys teac hing conceptions play a major role in the implementation of re form practices within the classroom. Furthermore, their findings co rrelate well with a substantial body of research focused on faculty conceptions and their potential influence on pedagogy that is not accounted for in the pyramid model. (Because this body of research is extensive and constitutes the rationale of this study, it will be described in greater detail in the following chapter.) The intriguing distinctions in these models and their potential overlap will be used in combination with the observati ons in this study to determin e whether either (or neither) model or some combination of them may best describe the cu rrent status of reform as observed among the MID Project participants. SUMMARY The MID Project was a dissemination progr am with the mandate to propagate the reform pedagogy of four consortia: Che mConnections, Molecular Science, New Traditions, and Peer-Led Team Learning MID Project workshops were conducted


45 from the years 2000-2004 as part of this na tional effort to disseminate systemic reformreform at all levels of instruction. To ensure such propagation, the practices of dissemination entail helping faculty to build institutional infrastructure to support reform practices and philosophy across institutional levels. Therefore the MID Project workshop participants were exposed not only to ne w pedagogy for the classroom but also to discussions and information on build ing institutional support for reform. Because very few models of reform di ssemination have been constructed in the literature on reform, it is pertinent to e xplore the impact of the MID Project as a component in a model of reform. While two ve ry different models of reform have been presented in the literature, as observed in Figures 3 and 4, th ere has not been a discussion in the literature concerning ro le of the MID Project workshops in a model of reform. Therefore this dissertation will fill this ga p by constructing a model that will incorporate the data obtained in this study and will be co mpared and contrasted with the two models given previously in the literature.


46 II. THE STUDY RATIONALE PRIOR MIDP EVALUATION AND RELEVANCE OF THIS WORK During the formation of the MID Project in year 2000, the five consortia that would comprise the MID Project were evaluate d together by internal evaluators and by an external evaluator, SRI Inte rnational. This work culminated in a workshop to discuss the respective evaluations as a collective endeavor and to generate a report for NSF. (26) Because the reform programs were on-going at that time, the evaluators proposed that the evaluation be considered a form of feedback to the MID Project PIs about its progress. Given that the time required to observe longterm impact extended beyond the initiatives termination dates, these evalua tors proposed that a future separate, ex-post evaluation of the MID Project should be conduc ted to explore the combined effect of these initiatives. The intention of this study, however, is not solely to pr ovide more feedback about the success or failure of its ope rations. Instead, this analysis generates a snapshot of the reform effort itself, exemplified in the MID Project within th e broader context of systemic reform in chemistry, by linking the obs erved impact of the MID Project back to the broader social/cultural antecedents th at instigated programs similar to it. To achieve this objective, this dissert ation critiques and expands the current understanding of the model of reform us ing constructivist a nd critical theory. (79, 92-97)


47 Using the constructivist stance, this proposed study will examine the present reform and dissemination effort within the socially constructed realities of policy makers, dissemination facilitators, faculty and st udents. Hence the context of reform dissemination and impact will be framed w ithin a socially constructed context among stakeholders. To complement this approach, critical theory will be used to critique the current reform effort as observed in the MID Project context. This theory asserts that social change arises within th e tensions, paradoxes, or contradi ctions of social relations or institutions. Such tension can be instrument al to making discoveries because it can reveal interfaces within organizations of social relations. The assu mption in this view is that social reality has multiple layers and what seems immediately apparent may be superficial to a deeper structure or mechanis m that with careful, directed questioning can be uncovered. (95, 98) The justification for this theoretical approach in th is study can be found in the report generated by the previous evaluators of the five initiatives of the MID Project. (26) The internal evaluators indi cated that their work was influenced by the principle investigators who did not always appreciate their expertise. The evaluators claimed that this lack of appreciation na rrowed the role they could play in identifying, isolating, and measuring intervening variables. These variables include factors that can potentially mediate pedagogical implementation such as faculty beliefs about teaching, or specific demographic (contextual) barriers to reform ef forts. Therefore this dissertation, having greater independence to investigate these inte rvening variables, can provide more insight into potential solutions to the barriers of reform dissemination and implementation.


48 Intervening factors can be chosen that are re levant not only for the MID Project but have broader implications useful to other disse mination projects in the sciences, and to audiences within and outside the chemistry community. The initiatives evaluators also discovered that participating chemistry faculty had difficulty appreciating that the desired syst emic change entailed more than just curriculum development. (26) To increase faculty part icipation and willingness to undergo the fundamental conceptual changes requ ired in reform prac tices the evaluators suggested NSF use funding, rewards and rec ognition as incentives. However prior research into college science classes has s hown that when controlling for institutional incentives such as funding and time for pedagogi cal change, intervening variables such as the instructors teaching conceptions mitigate the capacity to enact reform .(34, 61, 99101) The findings of these studies suggest that faculty must first be open to change by experiencing dissatisfaction w ith their practice and curriculu m goals (conceptual change model). (36) However the investigators asserted that further evidence must be obtained using a variety of methodologi es and data collection tool s in a variety of teaching contexts. This dissertation will fill this gap through analyzing instructors teaching conceptions using multiple methodologies and to ols applied to faculty working in varied institutional levels and depart ments. Hence, this study w ill analyze the undergraduate chemistry instructors response to reform in the dynamic of their teaching conceptions as they are enacted and espoused within multiple contexts, searching for commonalities and contextualizing differences as an approach to understand educational reform. This


49 information is best acquired using qual itative methodology. Therefore the following section provides greater depth into the rationale for using th is methodology in this study. RATIONALE FOR THE METHODOLGY USED IN THE CASE STUDY In order to provide the data needed to ascertain dissemination impact beyond faculty survey reports, this investigation colle cted field observations of teaching practice, and triangulated this data with faculty interviews and survey da ta. The goal of this case study is to explore academic chemists c onceptions (Note1) a bout their classroom practices and reform pedagogy in order to i nvestigate how and to what extent their conceptions are embedded within th eir actual classroom practice. The data from this case study will be richer and more informative than prior work because it explores beyond the usual limits of surveys by investigating faculty educational goals and views as they are embedded in what they do and where and who they are. If faculty percep tions and practices are shaped by the institutiona l organization, or by socio-economic and environmental pressure s, they may not be aware or be capable of articulating the extent of these relationshi ps. However by explori ng these relationships through interviews in conjuncti on with in-class observations the deeper meanings of their perceptions and practices may be reveal ed. Prior work has shown that surveys are too limited because the intended or implicit meanings of respondents are not always revealed. (98, 100, 102, 103) Their interpretations of survey questions may not correspond to the interpretati ons of the researcher, and mu tual meanings within the framework of surveys cannot be negotiated betw een researcher and pa rticipant because of


50 their separation in time and plac e. However, in a case study, such as that proposed here, mutual meanings can be negotiated because of the dialogic nature of face to face, semistructured interviews and the interactive nature of in-field (e.g. within institution and inclass) observations. The effects of the institutional level on teaching conceptions The effects of institutional/organizati onal structures upon facultys perceived authority and their practice of reform pedagogy in undergra duate classrooms have not been thoroughly investigated. As a result, reform dissemination and faculty development programs emphasized academics instructi onal skills without addressing their prior perceptions or the institutional environmen ts in which their new skills would be applied. (84, 104) Criticism has been raised within reviews of investigations on reform implementation because both the investigative evaluation and the reform program itself focused on understanding individu al faculty performance, without exploring the greater context and influences from organizational, socio-economic, and environmental factors on academics perceptions. (104-107) the educational context of a particul ar school or college, the goals or strategies of a university, or the stage of the university or college in its own organizational life cycle may influen ce the performance or perception of faculty members. (105) (p.55) These critics argue that because institutions of higher e ducation are not organized by a common view of governance and curriculum, assessments of faculty perceptions and performance must probe their practic es and perceptions within their specific social contexts in order to understand them. (84, 104, 105, 107-109) This case study will fill this


51 gap in prior research by explor ing how faculty perceptions and practices are influenced at different levels of undergraduate institutions. In prior investigations, surveys have been conducted to characterize the demographic distribution of faculty, how ever, the reported findings provide a nonspecific profile of undergraduate academic chemists. (110-113) Only a few studies have drawn correlations between university faculty (not specific to th e sciences) demography and their teaching practices using survey data. (114, 115) Their findings revealed that the capacity to adopt reform t eaching strategies may differ across institutional levels, between females and males and between et hnic groups in the post-secondary academic population. (105, 110-113, 116) For example, Kenan and Kenan found that faculty constructed their own definitions of what is required in their respective situations and the authority they believed they possessed to implement educational policies varied depending on the kind or size of their instit ution, their rank and sex. Similarly, another report claims that faculty in different Carneg ie-based levels attach different levels of importance to different goals for undergraduate education. (117) This differentiation in perceptions of educational goals by institutions at the three undergraduate levels may have deeply embedded so cial roots. Social analysts report that K-12 schools foster and reward capacities among students that support the requirements of the social division of labor. (79, 93, 94, 106, 118-120) Specifically, schooling must produce and reward the appropriate personal characteristics in students relevant for filling various positions in society and must enc ourage a perspective among students that not only accepts but supports this differentiation. Similar to the levels in the economic


52 hierarchy, students are categorized into various hierar chal levels: lower levels that stress rule-following and close supervision by author ities, middle levels with more independent activity and less overall superv ision, or higher levels wher e students are expected to internalize the norms of their potential role in the economic system. This differential pattern is not perceived as coerced upon student s, rather it emerges as a reflection of the educational expectations of th e school administrators, parents, teachers and the students themselves. Accordingly, schooling levels reflec t the values and relations relevant to the social backgrounds of both the teachers and students who populate them. The studies that substantiate this view also yield implications fo r undergraduate reform. They corroborated that the curriculum appears to be differentiated by institutional levels serving needs corresponding to different comm unities of production in society. This study will explore these issues in the data collected to determ ine whether they are observed among the institutions in this study. The effects of the discipline on teaching conceptions In a case study described by Gess-Newsome et al, three faculty from two disciplines co-teaching an integrated (int roductory biology and phys ics) science course presented various degrees of reform-oriented pedagogy. (34) Interestingly, the faculty member who was most articu late at espousing reform teaching philosophy was least engaged behaviorally in reform implemen tation than a younger and far less pedagogically informed colleague. The authors claimed that a combination of contex tual dissatisfaction (e.g. dissatisfaction with infrastructural support in their institution) and pedagogical


53 dissatisfaction affected the enactment of refo rm, as depicted in the Gess-Newsome model in Figure 4. However the authors specifically noted that distinctions in disciplinary background may also have differentially a ffected reform implementation. They encouraged future studies to explore th e relationship between teaching beliefs and practices by making such comparisons in a variet y of environmental contexts to facilitate the building of a better reform model that will account for contextual limitations on reform. These views are echoed by other rese archers cited above who encourage future studies to probe the interaction between disc iplinary culture and institutional culture and their mutual effects on teaching perceptions and practices .(121, 122) Researchers, Justi and Gilbert, discover ed that while teachers acknowledged the importance of giving students an understandi ng of the nature of science, including its reliance on models to develop and test ideas, this belief did not transfer into class practice (123) When comparing teachers from di fferent disciplines, chemistry, physics and biology teachers, the chemistry teachers appeared to have the most difficulty implementing practices designed to fulfill the need for students to learn to generate models as part of their learning experience. Roehrig and Luft discovered that teachers with the highest degrees in chemistry us ed the most traditional pedagogy (didactic transmission) in thei r case study of 10 high school science teachers .(124) While a reluctance to have students build their ow n models of knowledge has been reported among teachers in high school, there has not been a study that explicitly investigates the ties of a specific teaching ph ilosophy to the chemistry di scipline at the undergraduate level. Therefore this case study will explore whether there are links between the teaching


54 conceptions found among chemistry faculty a nd the presence of a ph ilosophy specific to the discipline and how often students are en couraged to create their own models of chemical phenomena. The effects of personal teac hing conceptions on practice While there are a significant number of st udies on K-12 teacher beliefs and their influence on teaching practice, comparable stud ies at the university level are substantially fewer and generally have not benefited fr om the research on school teacher beliefs .(100, 125, 126) A recent review of research conducted at the undergraduate level during the 1990s claims that these studies show a remarkable degree of commonality across three English speaking countries, (England, US, and Australia). (125) The reviewer asserts that this commonality indicates that th is research is credible and valid because the findings were obtained independently and publishe d in a time frame that gave the authors little opportunity for re plication. The reviewer also cl aims that categorizations and meanings that these researchers used to ch aracterize the range of teaching conceptions also have a high degr ee of correspondence .(125, 127) For example, nearly all these studies report the existence of four or five categories of teaching perspectives. These beliefs were placed in a continuum ranging fr om the extreme of a didactic-transmission perspective to a learning process facilita tion (learning-cycle/conceptual change) perspective. The extremes in this continuum have also been labeled as teacher-oriented and student-oriented respectiv ely. The review and the rese arch findings alike indicate that instructional innovations at the undergra duate level will likely have varied uptake


55 among faculty based on their conceptual orient ation. These findings also corroborate the issue raised in the introduction of this dissertation regarding the impact of traditional teaching philosophy on facultys assessment of students and their acceptance of studentgenerated modeling that do not reflect authoritative views. Other reviewers have a different perspect ive on the same research. For example in their critique Kane et al cite the plethora of terms used to describe teaching notions and claim that they do not all signify the same construct. (100) To reduce the ambiguities of prior research, they proposed a new model to describe faculty teaching conceptions, Espoused Theories of Action and Theories in Use. This model juxtaposes teaching conceptions and practice, respectively. The title of their paper, Telling half the story is suggestive of their primary outlook, which is th at much of prior re search only partially revealed the reality of teaching practice. Th ey claimed that the research described above examined espoused theory of action but not theories in use They proposed as remedy that case studies explore both teac hers espoused theories and their theories in use through observations of classroom practice. All reviewers concur that the model of teaching conceptions that the earlier re search described had not had sufficient substantiation. (125, 127) They called for case studies th at would bring to light: (1) how the categories of teaching conceptions relate to each other (e.g. are they discrete or continuous with transitional conceptions?), (2) how institutional mandates can influence conceptions, (3) how the conceptions relate to observed classroom behaviors (4) how the orientation of departments influence the conceptions of their faculty (5) how the facultys conceptions infl uence the uptake of al ternative teaching methods.


56 These issues will be addressed in this study through the triangulation of the responses in the inte rviews with the in-c lass observations and by using the constant comparison method to discover patterns of c onceptions that may suggest discrete or continuous categories. The emerging categorie s in this study will then be compared to the conceptions categories described in the research described above. If conceptions uncovered in this case study appear to match well the categories in prior research, then an exploration into how the categ ories relate to each other wi ll inform that gap in prior research. Even if the categories are not we ll matched with the categories described in prior research, this case study can still inform the gap in prior research regarding how they differ. In addition, th e other questions will be a ddressed such as how their conceptions relate to observed classroo m behaviors, by comparing the conceptions presented in the interviews ( both espoused theories of action and theori es in use) with observed teaching practices. Last this study will explore wh ether facultys conceptions are influenced by their environment both in the institutional and disciplinary levels and whether they affect the uptake of reform chemistry pedagogy. In contrast to the teaching conceptions model described above which appears to not have an explicit, explanatory theory base some researchers have categorized teaching beliefs using the Theory of Planned Behavior. (128, 129) Investigators use this theoretical foundation and accompanying methods to cate gorize a whole belief system of the individual. In this theory, beliefs about some object are categorized by a hierarchy of levels of strength. For example Haney et al, used the theory and methods to describe the likelyhood that teachers (k-12) would have a positive orientation toward Science


57 Education Reform in three of their studies. (130-132) In two of these studies they triangulated their survey findings with in-cla ss observations. They reported that their study confirmed that there is a relationship be tween what teachers believe and what they do in their classroom. Furthermore they found that those teachers who espouse constructivist perspectives are more likely to implement science education reform practices. Last, they assert that the envir onmental context is crucial to develop beliefs favorable to implementing reform practices. These findings are helpful in illumina ting possible relationships that may be found among faculty at the undergraduate level. However, this case study will fill the gap in prior research by di rectly investigating what faculty believe and do in undergraduate classrooms. Because prior rese arch indicates that their environmental context may be important, this case study will explore the impact of chemistry academics social/institutional contexts to observe possible relationships between their contexts and faculty beliefs and practices Also, instances where faculty espouse particular learning theories such as the cons tructivist learning th eory, or the learning cycle, or conceptual change will be noted a nd will be compared to their orientations in their practice to look for consistencies or inco nsistencies. However in contrast to Haney et al, my case study will not a ssume the importance of a partic ular theory of beliefs in advance of data collection a nd analysis to allow for the development of data grounded theory. Such constructed theory will be supported with the data from this case study, from prior research and with comparisons a nd references to established theoretical foundations. The decisions and rationale taken in the development of this theory will be


58 documented and explicitly reported to ensure credibility of the work. In this regard this study fills the gap in th e literature because a theory about academic chemists propensity to implement reform pedagogy based on their be liefs and practices developed within their specific contexts has not yet been found. Note 1: It is prudent to discuss the meani ng of the term conceptions that has been used interchangeably in the literature wi th terms such as: beliefs, perceptions, perspectives, presumptions, orientations , approaches, intentions and personal epistemology. Despite the plethora of terms, their usage in the literature indicates they have very similar meaning (125, 127, 133) although some researchers comment that the diversity of terms causes confusion. (100, 134, 135) The most common term used in a wide number of studies is the term conceptions .(125) The meaning intended here comes from Pratt (1992). (136) Conceptions are specific meanings attached to phenomena which then mediate our response to situa tions involving thos e phenomena. We form conceptions of virtually every as pect of our perceived world, and in so doing, use those abstract represen tations to delimit something from, and relate it to, other aspects of our world. In effect, we view the world through the lenses of our concep tions, interpreting and acting in accordance with our understanding of the world. (pg.204)


59 III. RESEARCH QUESTIONS AND THEIR JUSTIFICATION General Null Hypothesis: That the mode ls of reform dissemination and reform implementation previously proposed in the literature (Figures 3 and 4) adequately describes the current reform in undergra duate chemistry as observed among the MIDP workshop participants. 1. In what ways are chemistry faculty at tending a reform workshop (such as the MIDP workshops) different or similar to the general population of academic chemists? **Null hypothesis: Faculty demography of the MIDP workshop participants are similar to the gene ral population of academic chemists represented by the ACS academic chemists census.** 2. What are the in-use and espoused teaching conceptions (e.g. beliefs and intentions) that academic chemists a ttending the MIDP workshop have about reform approaches? 3. What teaching conceptions appear to ha ve the greatest influence (impinge the most) on their observed practi ces and on uptake of reform? 4. How do their specific contexts (faculty de mographic characteristics and teaching environment) influence both their teac hing conceptions and practices and their uptake of reform? JUSTIFICATION FOR THE RESEARCH QUESTIONS Justification 1 Beyond this current thrust to change teaching strategies to promote better retention of students and im proved learning, some studies show that the relationship


60 between teaching beliefs/intentions and the strategies that teac hers choose to use requires a closer examination. Prosser et al have found that instructors choice of teaching practices are highly dependent on their notions about learning. (61, 137) For example, these authors found five qualitatively different conceptions of learning associated with different teaching strategies. These l earning conceptions represent a range of perspectives. At one extreme, learning is understood as an accumulation of new knowledge without a focus on how the new informa tion relates to or is incorporated into the students existing knowledge framewor k. At the opposite extreme, learning is understood as a process that transforms the laypersons understanding into a more scientific view. When discus sing these learning conceptions with instructors, those who saw learning as an accumulation of facts a nd skills used lecture techniques that transmitted this information (information transmission view or teacher-centered). In contrast, those who ascribed to changing students prior knowledge relied upon teaching strategies focusing on conceptual developmen t and change (conceptual change view or student-centered). Later studies by these researchers also found a relationship between teachers approaches to teaching and the students approaches to learning. (138) Instructors who described their practice as one that i nvolved transmitting knowledge had students who reported using a surface approach to learning. This learning entail ed a heavy emphasis on memorization of teacher-generated algorithms or pattern recogniti on as described in Appendix E. Alternatively, cla ssrooms where instructors used approaches of conceptual change had students reporting deeper appro aches to learning, in which students are


61 engaged in reconstructing their knowledge (a learning process involving the learning cycle). This latter finding suggests that to encourage the implementation of the learning cycle process in classrooms, f aculty may need more than a ne w set of pedagogical tools. Instead, they may require a change in their conception of what learning is. In summary, prior research suggests that if a change in the le arning strategies of students is the ultimate goal of the MID Project, where students are more engaged with the material they are learning, then expl oring and possibly changing the facultys conceptions about learning is warranted. He nce, this study will explore what teaching strategies MID Project participant faculty use after exposure to the MIDP workshop and how these strategies relate to the learning conceptions f aculty convey in their teaching philosophies. This can be accomplished in part by an analysis of pre-workshop and postworkshop surveys that have been conducted with the MID Project participant faculty. Demographic surveys are often used to characterize professional chemists in various occupations including those in acad emia, however the demographic categories reported are often broad and do not specify de tailed characteristics of the chemistry population at the post secondary level. (139) In contrast, there has been a considerable amount of literature reporti ng and exploring differences in student achievement in the physical sciences between the sexes, racial groups and economic classes. Only a few studies have drawn distinctions of this kind among faculty regarding their teaching practices. (110-113) These studies suggest that the capacity to adopt reform teaching strategies may differ across institutional levels, between females and males and between ethnicities in the post-secondary academic popul ation. Therefore, the surveys that have


62 been conducted with the MIDP participants probe what environmental or demographic characteristics (e.g. institution, classroom envi ronment, departmental atmosphere, student evaluations, sex, and ethnicity) are associated with repor ted teaching philosophies and practices. It is anticipated that this data wi ll help describe who th e participant faculty are and what demographic characte ristics distinguish them from non-participant faculty. In addition, this data will be used to investig ate what possible relationships exist between faculty demography and environment and th eir reported adoption of reform teaching philosophy (e.g. the conceptual change view) a nd practices promoted in the MID Project workshops. Justification 2 In 2002, an evaluation of the MID Project impact on faculty practices analyzed data derived from faculty surveys, faculty focus groups, faculty ca se study interviews, and faculty email correspondence. (81, 101, 140) Thus all data acquired on the MID Project relied solely upon faculty reports. Evaluations of systemic reform programs in K12 schools and reviews of evaluations have s hown that teacher (or faculty) reports might reveal what faculty intend in their pr actice, but not necessarily what they do. (14) Similarly, the 2002 evaluation of the MIDP data was unable to provide evidence that the faculty have a strong understa nding of process inquiry or other pedagogical strategies suggested in the MID Project. The evaluato rs of this data were hopeful that the differences in the responses in the pre and post intervention surveys suggest a change in


63 faculty thinking. However, the surveys were neither repeated measur es in a longitudinal study nor were they constructed to dis cern conceptual change in the faculty. Prosser et al discovered that changing an instructors conception of learning and teaching from the teacher-centered informati on transmission view to the student-centered learning process-conceptual change view will likely be very difficult. (141) Instructors with information-transmission conceptions se emed to conceive of relations between teaching and learning in a uni-instructural way .(141) In other words, they were able to describe what they meant by teaching but ha d difficulty or saw no point in explaining what they meant by learning. These authors further suggest that teaching staff are unlikely to adopt approaches that reach be yond the sophistication of their conceptions. Last, they discovered that environmental cond itions or demographic characteristics may lead those teachers who do have notions of conceptual change to nevertheless adopt information transmission approaches .(141) Generally, surveys are customarily used to evaluate faculty pedagogical beliefs and understandings in reform evaluations. Ho wever, survey responses notoriously do not reveal the individual survey-takers inte rpretation as described earlier in this discussion. (98) Accordingly, what is enacted in class can not only vary from the intervention vision of reform but it may vary from the instructors own reported reform intentions .(34, 38, 100, 102) Therefore, rather than re lying solely on faculty survey responses, this research will examine faculty understandings and practices in a case study of ten faculty entailing interv iews and observations of their classroom contexts. Findings from these in-class observations will be compared with faculty survey and interview


64 responses to look for alignment and variances with reform teaching practices as promoted in the MID Project workshops. It is anticipated that these ob servations and interviews in conjunction with the surveys will provide data to answer the research questions described above. The methodology that will be used in this combined quantitative and qualitative analysis is described below.


65 IV. METHODOLOGY The need to capture practices as well as beliefs requires a variety of research tools. (36) In addition to surveys, protocols that include interviews of participants and field studies, which involve a researcher entering classrooms to observe in-class pedagogy, have been used in this work. Th e current understanding in science education research is that the use of surveys or standa rd tests have limited value as stand alone instruments to probe reform outcomes. Ra ther, multiple methods must be used in conjunction and the resulting data must be inte grated (referred to as triangulation) to create a picture of sufficient depth to cap ture the sociological practice of teaching science. To satisfy the current quality criteria for qualitative data collection and analysis, this project follows Lincoln and Guba s naturalistic method of inquiry. (51) The approach is called naturalistic because it is conducted within a natural setting, for example, the classrooms of participants in the MID Project. Relationships to relevant theory (or the materialization of new theo ry) and variables are expected to emerge inductively from the field data. A process refe rred to as coding the data will be used to permit description of field observations in c oncise content-specific units. These units are best understood as single pieces of informa tion that stand by themselves, that is, that


66 are interpretable in the absen ce of any additional information. (51) (pg. 203) Coded data then will be organized into cat egories that will place the data within relevant theoretical contexts and/or in reference to the settings from which they were derived. Initially, the categories will be provisional until sufficient accumulation of coded data attributed to specific categories suggests some commonality or rule that serves as the basis for inclusion/exclusion decisions This strategy of sor ting units with look-alike characteristics into provisional categories is referred to as constant comparative method. In conjunction with field notes of observa tions of classroom practice, recorded and transcribed interviews will be collected, coded, and qualitatively analyzed using the constant comparison method. Last, surveys pr obing faculty teaching practices, beliefs, and demography will be analyzed using conventi onal quantitative analysis. Relevant data will be triangulated together to create a snap shot of the current status in the reform of undergraduate chemistry as described in the in troduction. The data will be referred back to theory, described in the introduction of this work, to generate an elaboration or refutation of the model of reform proposed in prior research. TRUSTWORTHINESS The trustworthiness of this research was established using the guidelines primarily from two sources .(51, 142) The criteria for trustwor thiness described by Ebye and Schmidt are given below in Table 4.


67 Table 4. Categories and crit eria for trustworthiness (142) Category Criteria 1. Theory-relatedness 2. The quality of the research questions 3. Methods The theory base Reference to previous studies Connection to existing literature Relevance for practice Ethical Issues Falsification of Hypothesis Appropriateness of method a) Quantitative methods Reliability Validity Level of significance b) Qualitative methods Documentation of procedures Interpretation by logical inference Systemacity Closeness to subjects Communicative validity Triangulation 4. Presentation and interpretation of results 5. Implications for practice 6. Competence in chemistry (no subcategories) (no subcategories) (no subcategories) The theory base of this investigation was presented in the introduction of this dissertation. The relevance of this work was al so described in detail in two chapters (II & III) which included justification for the rese arch questions. There are two hypotheses, one which can be answered appropriately us ing quantitative methods (Research Question 1) and the other is more qualitative regardi ng the appropriateness of an earlier model of reform (Figure 3) to adequately capture th e impact of reform di ssemination exemplified in the MID Project workshops outcomes. These hypotheses will be addressed in the Findings and Conclusions respectively. Multiple methods were used to ensure reliability.


68 For example, multiple instruments (surveys) we re used to explore the impact of the MID Project. These surveys contained some ques tions in common to allow comparisons of faculty responses before a nd after the workshop. The questions on the surveys were constructed by a committee of chemistry facult y familiar with the issues of reform and the role and history of the MI D Project or taken from other surveys previously published. Those surveys that were constructed were p ilot-tested, helping toward establishing the relevance and validity of the questions. The le vel of significance for all quantitative tests has been reported in the findings when appr opriate. In the qual itative investigation, sampling, interview and observational procedures are documented in this chapter or in the appendices. Interpretations include disc ussions on possible altern ative interpretations if the data can support more than one inference, or no final conclusions if the data appear insufficient. Because the researcher attende d the participants classes to observe them, and interviewed them in their offices, this approach allowed appropriate closeness to the participants. After collection, qualitative data was triangulated with the survey data when appropriate, and the findings of this analysis and implications of th is investigation are presented in the final chapters of this dissertation. Last, th e investigator had a graduate degree in chemistry to allow understanding of the subject matter of the participants classes and to allow appropriate peda gogical discussions with the faculty. In keeping with Lincoln and Gubas cr iteria, an audit trail was maintained. Documentation of the contacts with the faculty were kept on spreadsheets along with information that allowed triangulation with the surveys. Appropriate ethical treatment of the data was maintained through keeping the id entity of the faculty separate from their


69 data. Consent forms were taken and m ember-checking was performed during the interviews to ensure participation was voluntary and corroborates the researchers observations of the in-class pr actice. Audio-files of the recorded interviews were transcribed and tabulated and their records ke pt together with the other qualitative and quantitative data. Documentation of the analys is performed such as coding and graphical analyses, was taken and has been pr esented within this dissertation. QUANTITATIVE METHODS INSTRUMENTS OF ASSESSMENT AND ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY Pre-Workshop Survey The pre-workshop survey was designed to be taken by all workshop participants, hence faculty demography and workshop attendan ce described in this report is based on the data from this survey. (Copies of all surveys are in Appendix B ) The first evaluation team (Kathy Burke, John Gelder, Tom Greenbowe, and Jennifer Lewis) worked in consultation with the initial team of MID Principal Investigators to develop the preworkshop survey. Over the course of the f our years that workshops were conducted, this survey has been administered in two formats. The original format was a paper survey administered at the site of each workshop. After the first year of workshops, an online version was created to collect responses elec tronically prior to each workshop. Slightly different wording was used in the online format in questions addressing assessment techniques. Therefore, precautions have been taken to ensure appropriate construction of variables pertaining to this segment of the survey.


70 Two evaluation teams collected these survey s. The first team collected surveys from the years 2000-2001. The surveys from the earlier collection were handed over to the second team (Diane Bunce, Dorothy Gabe l, and Jennifer Lewis). Working under the direction of Dr. Lewis, the au thor of this study processed a nd analyzed the data collected from 2000 to the spring of 2004. Therefore, th is report describes th e data analysis and results generated under the dire ction of the second evaluation team. No sampling has been performed on the pre-workshop data. All surveys submitt ed by respondents who participated in the workshops up to February 2004 and who gave their consent have been analyzed (N =745). Responses to clos ed questions on teaching techniques and demography have been coded using HyperR esearch software. After coding, the data was exported to Microsoft Excel software fo r final preparation and then imported into SPSS software, which was used for all statistical analysis. The pre-workshop survey consisted of four main parts: (1) questions addressing the participant demography such as the race/eth nicity, sex, type of institution where they taught, type of class they ta ught, years of experience and tenure status; (2) open ended questions ascertaining the goals and challenge s of teaching; (3) th ree sets of closed questions addressing the instruct ional techniques the faculty we re currently using in their (a) lecture (b) lab and (c) assessment (the se questions consisted of four response categories: use, use and rank, rank but not use, and dont know, which include both reform and traditional teaching approaches ); (4) questions determining how familiar the participants were with the MID Projec t, how they learned of the workshops and comments about the survey.


71 Post-Workshop Survey The post-workshop survey (o r post survey) was an online questionnaire that was developed by the second evaluation team (D iane Bunce, Dorothy Gabel, and Jennifer Lewis) and the Project Direct or (Eileen Lewis) in the Fa ll of 2002. The faculty who participated in the workshops prior to Fall 2002 (called the first cohort, N=289) were solicited by email in December 2002. Submi ssion of the post workshop survey was voluntary. During January and February 2003, re peated solicitations were made and subsequently the post-survey data were el ectronically collected, compiled and entered into a common data spreadsheet in February 2003. In the solicitation of the first cohort (years 2000-2001) of MID Project participants, 89 surveys were submitted, repr esenting a 31 % (89/289) response rate. No sampling was performed and all surveys submitted have been analyzed; hence, the data from this survey likely represents those partic ipants who have maintained interest in the project goals. All data has been analyzed using SPSS software. The post workshop questionnaire probed re form-oriented pedagogical interests of the project using both open and closed ques tions. Overall, the questions in the post survey differ in format and in content fr om the pre-workshop survey, with only a few questions carried over. Because of this, the post workshop data cannot be treated as repeated measures data; howev er, within subject responses from both surveys may be quantitatively compared using non-parametric statistics such as M cNemar analysis and frequencies. In order to make these compar isons, certain precautions must be taken to ensure the analyses are reasonable. For ex ample, comparisons of teaching approaches


72 within subjects and between groups (post survey takers and non-takers) require comparable environmental settings. Therefore, the first approach to this analysis was to evaluate the demography with in subjects and between groups. Inventory Survey A second post-workshop survey, the Inventory Survey, was solicited in March/April of the year 2004 to participants who attended workshops between the years 2000 and January 1, 2004. The Inventory Survey was developed by the Project Director, Eileen Lewis, and one of the me mbers of the second evaluation team, Jennifer Lewis. It was comprised of two parts. The first part entailed an Approaches to Teaching Inventory that assessed faculty teaching conceptions as student-oriented and/or teacher-oriented. The second part of the Inventory Survey entailed a MID Project Workshop Inventory that probed faculty s perceptions about their experiences in the MIDP workshops that facilitated their use of reform pedagogy. Stratified sampling was used to ensure that the demographic distribution of the respondents reflected the same demographic pr oportions found in the pre-workshop data with respect to racial identification (two categories: white/minority) and institutional level (four categories: two-year-undergr aduate/four-year-undergraduate/mastersgranting/doctoral-granting). The final pr oportions of the sample match the MID population in the targeted categories: 41% ( 42% pre-workshop) for participants from two-year undergraduate in stitutions, 61% (63% preworkshop) for four-year undergraduate, 43% (45% pre-workshop) for masters-granting, 45% (49% pre-workshop)


73 for doctoral-granting, and 81% (88% pre-worksh op) for minorities. The overall response rate was 56% (Nsample =203). Solicitation procedures entailed two e-mail requests before accepting non-response; however, all in the minority category received three e-mail requests. An exception to this protocol involv es one workshop (conducted in February 2004 and not included in the sample descri bed above) group of a ttendants who received the first segment of the Inventory Survey ( Approaches to Teaching Inventory) prior to their workshop and then were requested to ta ke the same survey approximately one year after the workshop. This was the only repeated measurement used in the survey data. As indicated above, the Approaches to Teaching Inventory specifically probes faculty conceptions about teaching using 16 surv ey questions developed by Prosser and Twigwell. (61, 99) The theoretical basis of these que stions derives from current learning philosophy including conceptual change theory. Eight questions probe thinking that is aligned with traditional/didactic teaching appr oaches and eight are aligned with reform approaches and conceptual change theory. The faculty of this workshop who retained the same email address (N=20) were solicited on three occasions to take the post workshop Approaches to Teaching Inventory. Eleven faculty responded (55% response rate). The repeated measures data will be used to probe whether these faculty indicate any changes in their teaching conceptions that might be attributable to the MID workshop intervention. Accordingly, the data from the enti re Inventory Survey and the Teaching Approaches Inventory survey received the same preparator y treatment for statistical


74 analysis that was performed on the pre and pos t surveys. For analysis, the responses to both the Inventory Survey and Teaching Approa ches Inventory questions were examined with respect to demography and reported teaching practices from the pre-workshop survey. QUALITATIVE METHODS SAMPLE SELECTION Purposeful stratified selecti on of 10 chemistry instructors who attended either one of two workshops were observed and in terviewed using qualitative methodology. Therefore the sample represents an in-depth case study of two workshops chosen because of the proximity of their pa rticipants to the investigator. While the sampling was purposeful, it entailed an emergent design gui ded by the purposes of this study presented in the chapter on the rationale, the description of research questions and the introduction to this methodology section and should not be interpreted beyond these informational contexts. For the purposes of this study, desc ribed and supported by prior research in the rationale chapter and the text and prior research supporting the research questions, there can be no apriori specification of a sample as one might do with generalization-oriented random sampling. In such latter cases one would do a power analys is and confirm that with a desirable effect size, an appropriatesized N was acquired. Therefore the N of the sample can be specified in advance of the study. The size of N can be determined purely by formula, once the tolerable le vels of type 1 and type 2 error are specified. However this is not an appropriate approach fo r a naturalistic case study using purposeful


75 sampling, where the size of the sample is determined by informational purposes. (51,142) The appropriate number or characteristics of the sample are continuously analyzed and adjusted to the point of informational redundancy. (51) This protocol was followed in this study. The factor determining redundanc y used in this study was in-class teaching practices used in general chem istry courses across different c ontexts such as institutional levels and faculty demographic characteristic s described below. All possible contexts were not exhausted, and the case study purposes and interpretations make no such claims for generalization. The intention of the following discussi on about the sampling procedure is to describe what parameters were used for c hoosing these participants and describing their characteristics, leaving open the possibility th at they might be typica l or can be confirmed as typical of the general population, should mo re studies be conducted to justify such claims. However, leaving open such possibili ties doesnt mean that the study cannot be used to raise questions about the population. On the contrary, observed characteristics in a case study might be the motivation for furthe r studies to determine whether important characteristics of a case study are typical of the population. The faculty were drawn from the University of South Florida and Florida Atlantic University workshops and their id entities are kept confidential. They were chosen to best reflect the demographic distri bution of the workshop partic ipant population regarding two demographic factors, institution level and sex, following a pre-established rubric for small samples. (143) In addition to the in-class observ ations and interviews they were


76 asked to submit their responses to the Appr oaches to Teaching Inventory segment of the Inventory Survey described above, after qualitative data collection began. Sampling Population Criteria and Population Matrix The selection procedure entailed the follo wing process in the sequential order of steps as shown with emphasis on the first two st eps. The rationale for steps #1 and #2 is the preference for facu lty members who have been, or are in the process of being, inculcated into the chemistry academic cultu re and have similar responsibility and positions within the hierarchy of their institution. Rationale for #3 and #5 was to compare class environments that have students at similar academic levels and that will likely have similar subject content over the seme ster. The process of selection resulted in the population pool shown in Table 5. Selection Process step criteria 1. Selection of instructor/participants who are on chemistry faculty staff and maintaining an equal proportion as is possible of participants from both workshops, A and B. This step eliminates post docs, grad students, lab coordinators, visiting, adjunct and retired faculty and administrative staff such as deans. 2. Dimensional sampling among the potential in structor/participants (described in #1) along three levels of institutions (c ommunity colleges, 4yr undergraduate and 4 yr graduate) that teach in programs that award degrees in undergraduate chemistry. This eliminated instructors from institutions such as high schools, museums, and faculty who teach with in non-chemistry programs (eg biology, physics or a program such as a nursing pr ogram that doesn't have a chemistry program). 3. When choices were available, faculty were chosen at each institutional level who teach courses out of the chemistry departme nt at the lowest level of students, eg.


77 undergraduate vs. graduate; general chemistry or first year rather than 2nd year or higher. 4. When choices within any category in the above were available (eg more than one person available at an institutional le vel that teaches general chemistry), preference was given to those whose cla ss schedules permit observations without conflicting the researchers teaching respons ibilities. When conflicts necessitate greater flexibility, substitutions were arra nged for the research ers classes, or procedure #3 was adjusted to include ne xt higher undergrad level, if needed. 5. When class choices were available, pr eference was given to classes in which fundamental chemistry topics are taught (eg. molecular relationships, atomic theory etc. rather than chemistry related topics (eg. environmental science)). 6. After the above decisions ha ve been made and if there are both females and males available for choice (eg among several who teach general chemistry at an institutional level), then preferences w ill be given to include both females and males in each institution category, as well as minorities and non-minorities in each institutional category. Table 5. Population Matrix ba sed on the 6 step criteria Institution Participant Pool Code Names Workshops A & B Ph.D. granting A-102 A-103 A-106 A-111 B-6557 B-1974 B-1215a B-3377 Undergrad College A-133 A-140 A-136 A-138 A-141 B-1234 Community College A-139 B-999 B-2578 B-1357 B-211 B-10 The case study participants were drawn from the population pool shown in Table 5. After the population matrix table was constr ucted it was observed that there were at


78 least two faculty working in the same institu tion at each institutiona l level. Because it was desirable to compare similarities and differences between faculty in the same institutional environment acro ss institutional levels, a seve nth criteria was implemented to attempt to have preferably three and at le ast two participants in the same institution at each level. The participants were solicited up to five times by email and three times by telephone (leaving messages) a ll solicitations were documented and dated. On four occasions this form of contact did not suffice to obtain the participants desired from each of the institutional levels. Ther efore the next tactic used to contact faculty was to request the assistance of participating faculty to en courage a colleague to participate. On two occasions the researcher appeared at the offi ce of a potential participant to request their participation and both agreed upon subsequent meetings for interviews and in-class observations. Because all of the participant faculty at the Ph.D. institution had the same tenure rank, an additional partic ipant was solicited who did not have the same rank as the other three. During this study, there were no available not yet tenured MIDP participant faculty in the Ph.D institutions. Therefore, one fulltime chemistry instructor, who had less than 5 years experience a nd was not on a tenure track, was solicited and participated. Consequently, there were f our participants from the Ph.D.-granting institution and three in each of the undergraduate institutions making a total of 10 faculty in the case study. The participants were also chosen to obtain near ly even distribution between sexes, given the above criteria. Regarding race/ethnicity, only one minority faculty agreed to participat e in this study, all others we re Caucasian. The resulting demography of the case study par ticipants is shown in Table 6.


79 The demography of the case study participants allowed observations at four institutions. As indicated a bove, four faculty were chosen at the Ph.D. university setting who attended the same MIDP workshop. These faculty were chosen based on the diversity of the first year ch emistry courses that they taught (three different sections of the same general chemistry course and two ch emistry courses for non-majors). Both the general chemistry and chemistry for non-majors classes were observed for comparison. Partial control of the environment was obtained by observing three faculty teaching different sections of the same course, wh ich was coordinated to present the same curriculum to students. This allowed a grea ter opportunity to obser ve the influence of individual differences pertaining to persona l conceptions and pract ices. The institution was located in an urban setting and served an ethnically and social-economically diverse community of students. Three faculty at a four-year undergraduate college were chosen. All three faculty attended the same MIDP workshop and taught different sections of the same general chemistry course and general chemistry labs as well. Again, partial control of the environment allowed for observations of th e contrasts and convergences of teaching practices and conceptions betw een individuals. The faculty had varying levels and kinds of teaching experience, tenure rank and chemis try backgrounds. All of the faculty were males. The college is a private institution lo cated in a suburban setting, serving primarily white, middle class students and recognized fo r marine science education and research. Faculty at two community colleges were observed. In one community college two faculty were observed, and each had atte nded a different workshop. The two faculty


80 were females with different backgrounds in chemistry and teaching experience. One of these instructors self-reported her ethnicity as Hispanic. These faculty taught different first year chemistry courses (general a nd preparatory) during this study although both taught the same general chemistry course in th e semester previous to these observations. Their perspectives about the general chem istry course were probed along with their conceptions about their current courses to observe possible differences in conceptions about the same curriculum. On e of the faculty formerly taug ht at the university of this study and provided insight into her different te aching experiences at these institutions. This community college was situated in a hi ghly urbanized area serv ing a diverse ethnic and social-economic community. One other faculty member was chosen at a rural community college. This was a male instructor chosen to provide as much diversity in sex across all institutional levels that could be attained while at the same time controlling for teaching environments. This instructor had previous teaching experience at the four year private college in this study and provided insight into his teaching experiences in these different environments. His general chemistry class took place at night, serving fulltime working students of whom several were non-tradit ional age but were not racially /ethnically diverse (primarily Caucasian in appearance).


81 Table 6. Demography of the Case Study Participants Name Tenure status Years experience Institution level Class size/ type Specialization area Kim tenured > 10 Graduate ~ 150 1st year Gen chem Chem/academic/ industrial Greg tenured > 10 Graduate < 35 1st year Chem/gen science Interdisciplinary/ chem Howard tenured > 10 Graduate ~ 150 1st year Gen chem Chem/academic/ industrial Cindy not on tenure track < 5 Graduate 150 1st year Gen chem Chem/academic Markus tenured < 10 4 year Undergraduate < 35; 1st year Gen chem Interdisciplinary/ chem Evan tenured > 10 4-year Undergraduate ~ 35 1st year Gen chem Chem/academic/ industrial Russ Not-yet tenured < 10 4-year Undergraduate ~ 35 1st year Gen chem Chem/academic /industrial Rita Not-yet tenured < 10 Community college Undergraduate < 35 1st year Gen Chem Interdisciplinary/ chem/academic Laura Not-yet tenured > 10 Community college Undergraduate < 35 1st year Gen chem/ preparatory Interdisciplinary/ chem/academic Vern tenured > 10 Community College Undergraduate < 35 1st year Gen chem Chem/academic/ industrial INTERVIEWS Interviews were initiated after observation of one class in all participants except for Vern in the rural community college. Hi s first interview took pl ace prior to the first


82 class observation based on his scheduling needs. The first interview was conducted after the first observation because prior research indicates that obser vations taken after interviewing might be influen ced by the participants views. (144) Depending on availability, these interviews were conducte d in the fall semester 2004 and spring 2005. In most cases these sessions varied from two to four half-hour sessions. However, on some occasions fewer (minimum of two), longer interviews, up to one hour in length were conducted based on the instructors sc heduling needs. With the exception of Marcus (whose total intervie wing time was approximately 1.5 hours), the total amount of interview time taken with each faculty member was approximately the same (2 hours). These sessions were semi-structured ethnograp hic interviews probing faculty reflections on their MID workshop experience, teachi ng and learning experiences or other informal/formal academic experiences. Questions focused on what experiences and philosophy the faculty found most meaningful or provocative regard ing their previous and current teaching practices. Participants who claimed that their practice had changed were asked what factors influenced these ch anges the most. The rubric of questioning that was used, which combined two previously published protocols, is provided in the Appendix C. (38, 61) One goal of these interviews was to uncover faculty understanding of reform pedagogy including equity, the learning cycle and conceptual change as components within the process learning pedagogy as descri bed in the introduction of this work. For example, the interview probed f aculty perceptions of their stud ents capacity to learn in order to access their conceptions about learni ng. Literature indicates that faculty who


83 emphasize the lack of student capacity and knowledge retain philosophy focused more on transmission (inquiry as a product to be c onferred) rather than process (conceptual change). (3, 28, 34, 38, 53, 58, 61, 67) This thinking has been shown to offer very little empowerment to student ownership of know ledge. Faculty were asked about what factors in their environment or previous expe rience helped to initia te, sustain or hinder their preferred pedagogy. They were also as ked to describe what teaching techniques they consider (and/or use) are most beneficial to students and why they consider them to be the most beneficial. These responses were compared to the survey responses to look for similarities and differences. A common perception about reform philo sophy and implementation is that it fosters equity. (3, 14, 24, 28, 40, 41, 53, 67, 68, 92, 106) Therefore, evidence of equitable practices or outcomes will be explored in the interviews and observations. For example, if faculty teach more than one level of students (i.e. first y ear, second year, etc) they will be asked to describe the activities they use at different levels, and how they differ. Literature indicates that higher level classe s cater to science majors more than lower levels and receive deferential pedagogi cal treatment that undermines a supportive environment and the development of a di verse student clientele at all levels. (3, 30) Another goal of these interviews is to acquire greater depth of understanding of faculty conceptions about learni ng and their intentions regard ing their teaching practices. These interviews were particularly importa nt in situations wh ere the faculty espouse reform concepts but do not enact them in their class. Interviews with this faculty were carefully constructed base d upon information provided by the survey, their initial


84 interview and observed activities in the clas sroom. Hence while some questions were asked of all faculty, part of the questioning during the interviews was unique to each faculty. Because it was possible that in th e course of these interviews faculty may become more aware of their discrepant acts and alter their behavior subsequent in-class observations and notes were examined to see possible changes in their practices. The third and final interviews were used to conf irm observations with faculty and to acquire their recommendations for other faculty considering reform pedagogy. Therefore, these last interviews engaged in participant member checking to verify the case study data and to maintain data credibility. (51, 142) The faculty recommendations will serve not only faculty considering implementing refo rm practices, but may provide another window into why these faculty have chos en their particular set of practices. These interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim. An oral synopsis of the transcript was presented to the f aculty to obtain their confirmation and/or corrections regarding their interpretation of their pedagogy. The transcripts were coded and categorized using the constant comp arison methods descri bed earlier in this methodology section. The coding rubric that was obtained through this analysis is in Appendix D. The data was then analyzed for information relevant to the research questions. FIELD OBSERVATIONS Two to four in-class observations of each of the 10 faculty were conducted and the data from these observations were us ed to corroborate th e case study facultys


85 teaching practices reported in their surveys and in their interviews. These observations were conducted in the fall 2004 and spring 2005. In four cases the set of observed class sessions were taken from the same course give n over two semesters, otherwise all of the sessions were taken of the same course in the same semester. If the faculty member taught more than one class at different levels (first year, second y ear students, etc) the class chosen was the lowest level. The classes were purposefully chosen to make possible comparisons of the trea tment of content and instructional practices. In one case (Kim at the Ph.D. institution) observations were taken of two different courses she taught: two classes were observe d in the general chemistry c ourse and two classes were observed in a first year chemistry course fo r non-majors. Field notes were taken and subsequently coded and categorized. The physic al setting, the number of students, their observed sex distribution and vi sible race/ethnicities were recorded. The number and kind (e.g. question and answer, discussion, or problem solving) of teacher-student and student-student interactions were noted. (94) A rubric incorporating Blooms taxonomy, Novacks cognitive domains, Strike and Posners conceptual change criteria, and Zollers HOC/LOC designations was used to check for reform-oriented practices. (36, 66, 71, 145) (in Appendix E). These practices might include but are not limited to: process learning strategies (described earlier), disc repant event activities (conceptual change), and collaborative learning strategies. Ge nerally, any activity in the classroom that appeared to involve the learning cycle, in -class collaborations, discussions involving conceptual questions/problems rather th an algorithmic questions/problems, and discrepant events that led to conceptual ch ange, were considered student-oriented (and


86 hence reform oriented). A lternatively, transmission/didactic practices in which the faculty mainly lectured were also noted. Disp lays of student attit udes were noted as well as off task behaviors. Observation pract ices were developed and refined during the observational period as needed. The main goa l of these observations was to corroborate and obtain detail about the enacted pedagogy. After each observation a synopsis report was written and the class notes were transcribe d for the purposes of coding as described above. The coding scheme that was obt ained through analysis of the in-class observations is provided in Appendix D. This data was also analyzed regarding their relevance to the research questions and tria ngulated with the interv iew data and survey data to obtain an in-depth view of these inst ructors practices. The data was subsequently referred back to theory described in the introduction of this work to generate an elaboration or refutation of the proposed models of reform.


87 V. RESULTS AND FINDINGS This section describes the data collected with an analysis of the data. Because the findings used to answer the research questio ns refer to data from both quantitative and qualitative sources, the presenta tion of the data is embedde d within an explanation and discussion of the findings. However, tabl es and diagrams are presented throughout to assist in summarizing and substantiating the salient observations. RESEARCH QUESTION 1 In what ways are chemistry faculty at tending a reform workshop (such as the MIDP workshops) different or similar to the general population of academic chemists? **Null hypothesis: Faculty demography of the MIDP workshop participants are similar to the gene ral population of academic chemists represented by the ACS academic chemists census.** As mentioned in the introduction of th is dissertation, this study probes the response to the call of systemic reform by comparing the composition of academics attending the MIDP workshops to the larger population of academic chemists. Because MIDP PIs used ACS media for advertisi ng, the ACS database for solicitations, and hosted MIDP workshops at ACS regional and national meetings, the assumption in this study is that MIDP facilitators accessed the ACS academic population. While the UFE workshops are somewhat comparable to MI DP as a dissemination program intended for physical sciences, only 10% of their workshops were held explicitly for chemists and


88 their reported data referred to the entire prog ram rather than to specific disciplines. Last, because NSF census data does not provide the same rich detail in demographic data on academic chemists as ACS, this report sha ll refer to the ACS academic census data as a proxy for the larger population of academic chemists. Hence, the MIDP demographic data is compared primarily with ACS demographic data in this report. All faculty attending the 1.5 day MID Project workshops submitted a preworkshop survey that gathered information about the attending faculty demography and teaching practices. The first 745 submissions obtained by February 2004 were used to determine whether the attending faculty are representative of the ACS academic population or are distinguishable from the ge neral academic chemist community profiled in the ACS census. The ACS survey was planned and analyzed by the ACS Committee on Economic and Professional Affairs (CEPA) and by its Subcommittee on Surveys. Responses to the ACS survey used in this analysis were obtained from 10,601 respondents in the year 2000. The ACS res pondents were academic chemists who were employed full-time (87%), part-time (4.3%), post-docs or other fellowship (6.2%), seeking employment (1.3%) and not seeking employment (0.5%). We explored the distribution of ethnicity, the type of employing institution, years of experience, sex and tenure status by comparing the MID Project data to statistics pr ovided by ACS and NSF census surveys. (139, 146, 147) In order to use the ACS census data on institution levels distribution, the ACS data were slightly modified to exclude the percentage of academic chemists working in medical schools. This was done in order to compare the ACS cate gories with the MIDP

PAGE 100

89 survey data which did not have a category fo r medical schools. The last two columns in Table 7. show that, in contrast to MIDP pe rcentages, the majority (53%) of general population of chemists in academia polled by ACS is employed in institutions with graduate schools. A comparison test, such as the (Chi-Square) Goodness of fit test, indicates that the distribution of MID Project faculty employe d across institutional levels differs significantly fro m the ACS-polled academic distribution. ( = 188.070 p < 0.001 = 0.05) The residuals of th is test indicate that MIDP attracts proportionately fewer instructors from high school and Ph.D. gran ting institutions and more instructors from community colleges and four-year undergradu ate institutions. Because the significance of any statistical test is heav ily dependent on the sample size, a test of the effect size provides information to determin e whether the significance of the is substantive. In a scale ranging from 0.10 for a small effect si ze to 0.50 representing a large effect, the obtained effect size was 0.50, indicating that the difference in institutional levels among MID Project participants relativ e to the population polled by ACS is substantive. (148)

PAGE 101

90 Table 7. Institution Level Participation (%) High School 2-year Undergrad 4-year Undergrad Mastersgranting PhDgranting ACS (2000 census) 7.7 8.25 26.18 11.3 46.5 UFE (1991-1997) (NA) 23 28 33 (MS &/or PhD granting) MID Project 3.2 18.4 36.5 12.1 29.5 MID female (N=323) 4.3 19.8 35.3 10.5 30.0 MID male (N=422) 2.4 17.3 37.4 13.7 29.1 MID white 3.2 17.4 37.3 13.0 29.1 MID non-white 3.7 21.6 33.2 9.5 32.1 ACS N=8449MIDP N= 745 As observed in Tables 8 and 9, MIDP workshops attracted higher female and minority faculty participation relative to the ACS academic census, the Nelson census of the top 50 research institutions, and UFE workshops. Table 8. Sex Distribution (%) Females Males ACS (2000 census) 25.9 74.1 top 50 universities 10.7 89.3 UFE 30 70 MID Project 43.4 56.6

PAGE 102

91 Table 9. Race/ethnicity Distribution (%) White Hispanic African American Native American Asian Other ACS (2000 census) 84.8 3.0 1.7 0.1 9.6 0.8 top 50 universities 91.2 1.3 1.1 0.2 6.2 no data UFE 84 16 (Minority) MID Project 81.7 2.7 5.9 0.5 7.4 1.8 In the ACS 2000 census survey, which polled academic chemists across all institutional levels throughout the nation, th e proportion of female respondents was 26%, or nearly 3:1 in favor of males. The MID Project workshop population was 43% female, only 1.3 to 1 in favor of males. This differen ce was statistically signi ficant, and the effect size reasonable (comparison to ACS: 2 = 118.280 p < 0.001 = 0.05; Effect size: 0.40). Of course, the greatest contra st lies with the faculty of the top 50 universities which exhibit a ratio of approximately 10 to 1 (males to females). In light of these comparisons with national data, the MID project s hould be commended for attracting a large proportion of female faculty to the workshops. As indicated in Table 9, the proportion of non-white racial/e thnic groups that attend the MID Project workshops differs signi ficantly from the proportion of minority academic chemists responding to the ACS poll or who are employed in the top 50 universities. The MID Project participan ts report fewer white and more African American, Native American Indian and oth er relative to those reporting in the ACS poll. (Goodness of Fit 2 = 89.813 p<0.001 = 0.05 Effect Size = 0.35) The ACS data do not indicate a percentage of non-respons es, while among the MID Project workshop

PAGE 103

92 participants 11% (85/745) did not identify th eir race/ethnicity. The majority (76%) of non-responders were males. In categories other than sex, the non-responders did not significantly differ demographically from e ither the white or non-white racial/ethnic groups. Fewer faculty attending the MID Project wo rkshops have tenure relative to the general population of chemists in academia polled by ACS as observed in Table 10. This difference was significant ( 2 = 100.654, = 0.05) with a medium effect size of 0.37. Comparing the same sex counterparts be tween the ACS and MID Project data demonstrates that smaller proportions of bot h male and female chemists in the MID Project workshops have tenure relative to the same sex among academic chemists polled by ACS. The difference in the distribution of tenure status among the ACS males and MID males was statistically significant ( 2 = 84.580; N= 419 MID males responded to this question; p < 0.001) with a substantive medium to large effect size of 0.45. The difference in the distribution of tenure st atus between females of each population was also significant ( = 17.620; p =0.001) w ith a low-medium effect size of 0.24. Tenure status was not significantly ( 2 = 3.846 p = 0.279, N = 186) different between the non-white minority groups (N= 186) and the white majority. A power analysis confirms that there was sufficient power to find a low to medium effect. (This data was not available from ACS fo r comparison with the MID data.)

PAGE 104

93 Table 10. Tenure Status-Multiple Categories (%) Tenure Status Tenured Tenure-track Not Tenuretrack Other ACS total 52.1 14.9 13.7 19.2 ACS females 35.8 19.6 19.2 25.4 ACS males 57.8 13.3 11.8 17.1 MID Project total 42.6 24.8 20.1 12.5 MID females 30.5 23.0 26.7 19.8 MID males 51.8 26.3 15.0 6.9 MID Whites 44.3 24.3 19.8 11.6 MID Minorities 38.2 26.3 20.4 15.1 Table 11 indicates that the majority (54 %) of the MID Project participants have less than ten years experience at the time of the workshop. While no direct comparisons can be made to ACS data due to differences in measurement, the ACS census indicates that the mean age of academic chemists is 47.9 years, and that 63.5% report a minimum of 20 years since their bachelors degree. Even taking into consid eration the amount of time required to obtain a graduate degree, th e majority of the MI D population appears to have less experience than the ACS average time since bachelors degree would suggest. Within the MID population, a 2 evaluation of experience demonstrates that the distribution of experience le vels among females differs significantly from males. ( 2 = 36.732 p < 0.001 = 0.05, Effect size = 0.34) The majority of females (62%) has less than 10 years of experience; however, males are nearly evenly divided between those who have greater and those who have less than 10 years experience (53% and 57%

PAGE 105

94 respectively). A measure of central tendenc y (Mann-Whitney U test) confirms that the predominant level of experience among females is lower than males (MWU z statistic = 4.153 p < 0.001 = 0.05). For the racial/ethnic gr oups, a greater proportion of the minorities (51.8% and 58.2% for whites and minorities respectively) has less than 10 years experience, which differs qualitative ly from the ACS data described above. Table 11. Teaching Experience (Years) <1 1-5 6-10 >10 MID (N = 729) 8.5 25.2 19.8 46.5 Females 11.7 28.3 21.9 38.1 Males 6.0 22.8 18.3 52.9 White 8.1 26.0 17.7 48.2 Minorities 9.9 23.6 24.7 41.8 Table 12. Class Size (Number of Students) 1-25 26-50 51-75 76-100 101-200 >200 MID (N=729) 27.4 28.8 12.5 8.4 11.5 11.4 Females 26.3 27.0 12.4 8.6 12.7 13.0 Males 28.3 30.2 12.6 8.2 10.6 10.1 White 29.1 26.6 11.7 9.8 10.2 12.6 Minorities 22.8 35.9 14.1 4.3 15.2 7.6 The number of students enrolled in the cl asses that MIDP participants teach is most often less than 50, as observed in Table 12. This observation is in concert with the predominance of faculty from undergraduate institutions: community and liberal arts colleges have a tendency to have smaller classes relative to institutions with graduate

PAGE 106

95 schools. (3) There are no significant differences in the distributions of the class sizes women and men teach ( 2 =5.528, p = 0.355, = 0.05); however, there are significant differences in the distribution of cl ass size between raci al/ethnic groups ( 2 = 23.1226, p < 0.001, = 0.05). Non-white minority groups teach fewer smaller classes (1-25 students) and more classes in the small to medium range (26-50 students) than the white majority.

PAGE 107

96 Table 13. Demographic profile summ ary-predominant characteristics Observed differences between MIDP and ACS census Chi Square & Significance Effect Size: Med-large More undergraduate faculty in MIDP 2 = 189.543 p < 0.001 = 0.05 0.50 More female participants in MIDP 2 = 118.280 p < 0.001 = 0.05 0.40 More ethnic minority participants in MIDP 2 = 89.813 p<0.001 = 0.05 0.35 More faculty in MIDP with < 10 years of experience MIDP 56% < 10yrs ACS 63.5% >20 yrs since B.S. degree NA More untenured faculty in MIDP 2 = 100.654 p < 0.001 = 0.05 0.37 DATA SUMMARY AND IMPLICATIONS Survey data from 745 participants in 23 wo rkshops form the basis of this analysis. The direction taken in this analysis was guide d by the research ques tion described earlier,

PAGE 108

97 with the first question targeting a major obj ective for a national dissemination effort: does the demography of the faculty attending these workshops indicate systemic involvement in the reform effort? Based on a chi square comparison of the MIDP and ACS survey data, MIDP is reaching a diverse faculty. The population of faculty attending MIDP workshops has proportionately more women and minorities than the general academic population of chemists, represented by the ACS census. This finding holds across all institution levels. However the MIDP workshops attracted 1) pr oportionately fewer gr aduate faculty than exist in the general academic population and 2) relatively small numbers of faculty from the actual graduate host institutions. The pr esence of both trends suggests that this attendance pattern may be related to the geogr aphic dispersion of gr aduate institutions and the relative importance of research vs. teaching at those institutions than due to recruitment practices. However, the under-rep resentation of senior research-institutionbased tenured male Anglo f aculty also suggests a socia l/political gulf between the powerful and reform dissemination. The portrait of those involved in reform as indicated by the demography of those participating in th ese workshops appear to be the relatively powerless and those who appear to be missing in this portrait appear to be the powerful within the hierarchy of academic institutions Therefore these findings indicate the importance of making demographic comparisons: (1 ) to identify the social contexts of the people who are participating a nd (2) to ensure that the social contexts of these participants are recognized because the doc uments and movement for reform have previously identified these groups specifically as having been traditionally excluded from

PAGE 109

98 science and (3) to recognize that such social and political separations continue well after the institutionalization of correctives to change them. In summary, the data indicate that th e population attending the MIDP workshop represents a population that is demographically different from the membership profile published in the ACS census as observed in the summary Table 13. This means that findings relating to this group may not ge neralize to the whole academic chemist population. However because one of the objectives of reform is to foster a more diverse population in the chemical field, the involveme nt of diverse faculty in these workshops may indicate a positive trend so long as these groups are empowered by their participation. Since the MIDP recruitment model worked very well for reaching women, minorities, and undergraduate f aculty, it is recommended for future projects desiring the participation of diverse faculty. A COUNTER PERSPECTIVE: WAS MIDP NOT EFFECTIVE IN REACHING THEIR AUDIENCE? The implications summarized above s uggest that while the workshops were constructed to reach the general academic chemists community, those who show an interest in the workshops and/or reform (a s indicated by their atte ndance) are a special interest group who do not resemble the ge neral population of academic chemists. Because the success of an entire dissemi nation program cannot be gauged without assurance that it has accessed its intended audi ence, the results of th is study including all the research questions cannot be fully accepted if there are indications that this

PAGE 110

99 requirement has not been met. However, a counter perspective on the data described above might be that the MIDP simply was not effective in reachi ng the intended target audience. Therefore it is appropriate to c onsider as a separate issue whether there are indications that MIDP made su fficient effort to access the in tended audience (i.e. all or a general audience of academic chemists ra ther than a select group). The following description of the actions that the MIDP facilitators took to propagate the reform materials/philosophy to a general audience in the academic chemists community, are used to investigate this question.

PAGE 111

100 Table 14. Host Educational Institution and Carnegie Designation Department/Institution Level Host Institution 2000-2001 Workshops Ph.D. Florida Atlanta University, Boca Raton, FL MS/MA University of Massachusetts, Dartmouth MS/MA University of Southern Colorado Project Kaleidoscope Summer Institute, Snowbird 2001-2002 Workshops Ph.D. Ohio State University, Columbus 2-year Undergraduate Raritan Valley Community College, Somerville, NJ Ph.D. Texas A&M University, College Station Ph.D. University of Arizona, Tucson Ph.D. University of South Florida, Tampa Project Kaleidoscope Summer Institute, Williamsburg, VA 2002-2003 Workshops Ph.D. Central Michigan Univ ersity, Mount Pleasant, MI Ph.D. Emory University, Atlanta, GA MS/MA Northeastern Illinois University, Chicago MS/MA Tarleton State University, Stephenville, TX Ph.D. University of Alabama, Birmingham Ph.D. University of New Hampshire Ph.D. University of Missouri, Columbia MS/MA University of Richmond, Richmond, VA Ph.D. University of Nebraska, Lincoln, NE Ph.D. University of Denver, Denver, CO 2004 Workshops Ph.D. LSU Baton Rouge, Baton Rouge LA Ph.D. University of Arkansas, Little Rock, AR 2-year Undergraduate Housatonic Community College, Bridgeport, CT 4-Year Undergraduate Macales ter College, St. Paul, MN 2-year Undergraduate Portland Co mmunity College, Portland, Oregon 4 year Ph.D. North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 4 year Ph.D. University of Tennessee, Knoxville 4 year Ph.D. University of Indianapolis, IN

PAGE 112

101 Table 15. Workshops held at National Meetings and Intensive Workshops Meeting and Intensive Workshops 2000-2001 University of Wisconsin, Madison: ChemConnections Intensive California State University, Fullerton: Molecular Science Intensive ACS National Meeting, Chicago 2001-2002 Western Regional ACS Meeting 2YC3 Meeting, Las Vegas California State University, Fullerton: PLTL Intensive Temple University, Philadelphia, PA: PLTL Intensive Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute: ChemConnections Intensive University of California, LA: Molecular Science/CPR Biennial Conference on Chemical Education, Bellingham, WA ACS National Meeting, Boston 2002-2003 ACS National Meeting, New Orleans Jet Propulsion Lab, Pasadena, CA: PLTL Intensive University of California, LA: Molecular Science/CPR Intensive University of California, Berkeley: ChemConnections Intensive Beyond the 1.5 day workshops taking place in the academic years, in total, 39 workshops (both the 1.5 day and intensive works hops) were held within all levels of postsecondary institutions and in regional and national ACS meetings as can be seen in Tables 14 and 15. For each of the 1.5-day wo rkshops that were held in educational settings, approximately 400-500 faculty were co ntacted by email and se nt a description of the workshop goals. Consequently, a total of approximately 15,000 faculty were directly

PAGE 113

102 contacted. Each year, workshop locations we re selected based upon areas that had not been served. Therefore host-institutions are widespread and all of the major geographical regions were served as shown in Figure 5. In addition, several ar ticles describing MIDP initiatives have been published in peer-reviewed journals such as Chemical and Engineering News, and the Journal of Chem ical Education. Last, many symposia on MIDP workshops or on the implementation of the four initiatives through MIDP, have been presented by MIDP facilita tors, PIs and faculty particip ants at national and regional ACS meetings and at the Biennial Conferences of Chemical Education. Figure 5. Map of MIDP Workshop Locations (Figure provided by Eileen Lewis) As observed in Table 16 and Figure 6, the ma jority of the MIDP participants prior to their workshop participation were not fa miliar with MIDP or the four initiatives

PAGE 114

103 associated with MIDP. This data sugge sts that the workshop solicitations have successfully culled in terested faculty who have not had prior exposure to the MIDP program. Figure 2 demonstrates that over the course of the four years from the year 2000, that the workshops have attracted more people per workshop period who have not had previous exposure to the program materials. Table 16. Participants Familiar with MID Pedagogy Prior to Workshop (%) Chem Connections Molecular Science New Traditions Peer-Led Team Learning Average not familiar 60.9 77.9 75.9 75.6 72.6 little familiar 23.6 13.8 13.7 9.9 15.3 somewhat familiar 11.0 6.0 7.9 8.6 8.4 very familiar 3.3 1.9 2 3.7 2.7 currently using 1.2 0.5 0.5 2.1 1.1

PAGE 115

104 Figure 6. Workshop Participant Familiar ity with Initiatives and Materials Average Level of Familiarity by Period0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 2000-20012001-20022002-20032003-2004 Workshop PeriodsAverage Percent per Period not familiar little familiar somewhat familiar very familiar currently using To propagate reform, dissemination must grow beyond the workshop participant population. Hence, evidence that MIDP partic ipant faculty are involved in such activity indicates that MIDP has achieved anothe r of its dissemination goals. There are indications in the responses to the po st-workshop surveys that MIDP workshop participants are invo lved in disseminating MIDP philo sophy and innovations. As can be seen in Table 17, 72% of the responding MIDP workshop participants (N=89) reported in a post-workshop survey that they discussed their curricular innovati ons with colleagues after the workshop, while only 9% were not involved in this type of informal dissemination. The majority (47%) of this informal dissemination (discussion with colleagues) was located in community college s. Sixteen percent of the respondents,

PAGE 116

105 evenly distributed across all institutional le vels, also reported that they presented their innovations to their departments. Graduate and four-year underg raduate faculty, on the other hand, appear to be more involved in a formal dissemination approach. Twenty-one percent report they pr esent their innovations at regiona l or national meetings (although summing the two categories in Table 17 would yield 28%; this larger figure includes double-counting of responders who presented at both kinds of meetings). The majority (18%) of these presenters are employed in gr aduate institutions, suggesting that this group is critical for dissemination in forums that cross institutional boundaries. Ten percent of the respondents also reported that they had written a research paper and/or published a description of thei r innovations. This form of dissemination was reported equally by graduate and undergraduate facu lty, but not by community college faculty who apparently are more involved in an info rmal approach as mentioned above. Because of the wide distribution of these publications and their potential for a long half-life of influence, it is difficult to estimate the scope of this form of dissemination. However, since this post-workshop sample appears re presentative of the entire MIDP population, we may anticipate that approximately 100 of such publications may be produced in the next 2-3 years.

PAGE 117

106 Table 17. Post Survey (N= 89): Partic ipant Dissemination of Innovations How have you communicated the succe ss you have experienced with your innovations? % I have not told others of innovations I have tried in the past two years 9 I have discussed my innovations informally with a colleague 72 I have presented my innovations in a seminar to the dept. 16 I have presented my innovations at a regional professional meeting 11 I have presented my innovations at a state or national professional meeting 17 I have written a paper for public ation describing my innovations 6 I have conducted a resear ch experiment investiga ting the effects of my innovations 14 I have written a research paper based upon my investigation of the effects of my innovations 4 I have implemented innovations but have not publicized what I have done 19 SUMMARY AND IMPLICATIONS ABOUT MIDP REACHING ITS TARGET AUDIENCE Through direct email contact, workshop fac ilitation, journal articles, symposia at national and regional meetings, and propa gation through participant dissemination practices, MIDP has maintained an extensive na tional profile. The data analyzed in this report were collected from faculty particip ating in twenty-three 1.5 day workshops, and a total of twenty-eight of th ese workshops were conducted in a four year period (20002004) with an impressive geographic range. Approximately 400-500 faculty were invited to attend any given workshop, so fourteen thousand faculty have been contacted for these MIDP workshops alone. Additional workshops bring the total of directly-contacted faculty to over fifteen thousand. The majority of the faculty attend ing the workshops has had little or no familiarity with the MIDP materials and initiatives and thus represents

PAGE 118

107 interested faculty who have had no previous i nvolvement in the project. Data from the first cohort suggests that, following th e workshop, participants engage in voluntary dissemination (i.e. for which they are not paid ), which is an integral component of the dissemination process for a succ essful project. These reported dissemination activities are both informal, such as discussion with colleagues (community colleges) and formal, such as presentations at meetings (graduate institutions) and publica tions. Therefore the effort that MIDP facilitators and subsequently their participants put into publicizing their innovations supports the claim that the workshops were sufficiently advertised and accessed the intended audience. Consequently, the outcome of the demographic constitution of the MIDP population, which reve als that it does not represent the general academic community, likely characterizes th e behavior of a group of faculty who are taking an initiative to explore reform within the greater academic population. This means that the null hypothesis, that the MIDP faculty resembles the greater academic chemists community as represented by ACS membershi p, is not supported in these findings. Furthermore, it also suggests that this investigation which proposes to describe reform interested faculty via the MID Project pa rticipants data as a case study, appears acceptable.

PAGE 119

108 RESEARCH QUESTION 2 What are the espoused and in-use teaching conceptions (e.g. beliefs and intentions) that academic chemists a ttending the MIDP workshop have about reform approaches? According to prior research discussed earli er in this dissertation, survey responses generally reveal respondents espoused conceptions a bout teaching and learning. However, there are occasions reported in th e literature showing that surveys are too limiting because the intended or implicit meanings of responses are not always clear. (100, 102) The respondents understand ing may not correspond to the interpretations of the researcher, and mutual meanings within the framework of surveys cannot be negotiated between researcher and participant because of their separation in time and place. Therefore, to probe both espoused and in-use conceptions requires multiple methods to explore this research question. Using both quantitative and qualitative sources of data can serve to either corroborate or illustrate the findings from either sources. Also, the combined data de scribe more fully, and with greater depth, the teaching conceptions both used and espoused that faculty have about reform innovations. The findings on the pre a nd post-workshop surveys probing their espoused conceptions about the MIDP works hop intervention and their teaching practices before and after the workshops is discussed along with the case study data constituting both espoused and in-use conceptions of 10 faculty participan ts in Florida. Faculty espoused conceptions as portraye d in the pre-workshop survey data (N= 745) are shown in Table 18, reveal the befor e workshop conceptualizations that faculty have of their teaching practices. Faculty we re asked to rank the three techniques they

PAGE 120

109 thought were most effective. Of the teaching techniques used in lecture section, faculty report students doing problem-solving (41.3%), in structor lecturing (39.7%) and students doing collaborative learning (28.9% ) as the three most effec tive techniques they use. This result provides an exemplar of the difficu lties interpreting survey responses. Before the workshop intervention, problem solvi ng appears to be the preferred method of teaching in lecture and in assessments. While this teaching practice can be used in active learning pedagogy, in this context, the appearan ce of the use of lect ure as a close second suggests that the use of problem solving may be more traditional. It might mean that students are solving problems individually, perhaps as a homework assignment or the instructor may be presenting examples of solving problems as a component of their lecture. Another evaluation of this data was made to determine how many among those who use and rank lecturing as one of the three most effec tive techniques also indicated that they use problem solving and collabora tive learning. After sele cting only those who use and rank lecturing as one of three e ffective techniques (N= 296), 76% report using problem solving and 25% report using collabora tive learning. These results suggest that the meaning of problem solving and collabo rative learning intended by the respondents may not match well with the meanings intended by reformers. The meaning is even more uncertain when 23% of those who report usi ng lecture as one of three most effective techniques also claim that collaborative learning is one of three most effective techniques. According to the concepts of learning encouraged in reform, these conceptions are considered anti thetical and therefore their meanings are very likely not the same as those intended by the reformers. Therefore, acquiring an understanding that

PAGE 121

110 might better reflect participants intenti ons and ideas might be served by acquiring additional illustrations of this pheno mena in the qualitative case study. The participants in the case study ar e a subunit of the greater population of workshop participants, consequently, their re sponses about teaching practices that they considered effective in thei r pre-workshop surveys are ve ry similar to the greater participant population, as observed in Table 19. Table 18. Pre-survey results about technique s used in Lecture Section (N=745) Teaching Technique lecture section % Use and Rank as Most Effective Students doing in-class problem-solving 41.3 Instructor lecturing 39.7 Students doing collabo rative learning 28.9 Instructor using conceptual questions 23.9 Students participating in discussion 22.7 Students doing an experiment/demo 14.5 Instructor doing an experiment/demo 12.9 Students working on worksheets/ 12.3 Students following guided inquiry 9.5 Instructor using computer animations 6.2 Students working at the board or overhead 5.9 Students doing writing 5.2 Beyond displaying differences in pedagogical language usage, it is revealing to observe how espoused theories revealed in su rveys can be self-conf licting without faculty awareness of these conflicts. And on the other hand it is illumi nating to explore how faculty resolve conflicting theories in use w ithin their practice. Similar to the greater participant population (N=745) the case study faculty pr ovided responses on the preworkshop survey that would be considered self-conflicti ng, according to reformers views. But these seeming self-conflicting responses among the case study faculty survey

PAGE 122

111 data are not trivial because they are consiste nt with the rest of the participant population observed in the survey data, evidence of a wide spread phenomena. For example as shown in Table 19, Howard, Evan and Russ ra nk lecturing as one of the three most effective techniques they use in their lect ure class and all three rank collaborative learning (Howard, Evan) and/or guided i nquiry (Russ) as one of the three most effective techniques. If these responses re garding implementation of reform approaches are taken to mean as the reformers intend, then we might assume that these faculty are already engaged in reform practices before participating in the workshop. As described above, lecturing and collaborative learning (or guided inquiry) have antithetical meanings in the reform literature presented in this di ssertation. Therefore because of these potential Table 19. Case study facultys pre-works hop survey lecture section techniques responses (Kim, Cindy & Vern gave no rankings) Case study faculty reporting this preference Technique reported as one of three most effective they used in their lecture class Evan, Howard, Russ a. Instructor lecturing 0 b. Students doing writing Evan, Greg, Howard c. Student s doing collaborative learning Greg, Howard, Laura, Rita d. Instru ctor using conceptual questions 0 e. Instructor using computer animations Laura f. Instructor doing an experiment/demo 0 g. Students doing an experiment/demo Greg, Russ h. Students following guided inquiry 0 i. Students working on worksheets/ Evan, Laura, Marcus, Russ j. Stude nts doing in-class problem-solving Rita k. Students participating in discussion 0 l. Students working at the board or overhead

PAGE 123

112 discrepancies in the intended meanings in the survey responses, it mi ght be fruitful to explore further. The observat ional data might reveal inform ation that might provide an explanation. For example, faculty might be using reform approaches hybridized with traditional practices, which might indicate that they are in an intermediate stage and progressing toward reform. If such hybridi zations are observed in the case study data then we may consider the possibility that faculty do mean what they say in their responses, but dont yet grasp entirely reform meanings. If however their practice is not some hybridized form we might explore whet her they abandoned unw orkable practices or alternatively, have completely differe nt understandings of the pedagogical terms themselves. To explore these possibilities, it is informative to present detail of what was observed in the faculty teaching approaches that can be described as non-traditional, while not definitively reform oriented, as described in reform literature. This detail can also help to explain how faculty might unders tand and report in thei r surveys that their practices contain both reform and traditiona l components. Table 20 below, shows an overview of the observations taken of the cas e study practices in first year chemistry courses. Only in one class for non-chemistr y majors (Gregs class) is group learning observed as a replacement for lecture and in one general chemistry class (Marcuss class) collaborative learning is inters persed in regular intervals wi th lecture. The remaining faculty use a traditional lecture format as a regular or consistent practice. As indicated previously in Table 19, facu lty reports in the surveys do not match well with these observations. Because it is pos sible that faculty may have adopted reform

PAGE 124

113 strategies before the workshop and then stopped or alternatively they might have entertained different meanings to the questions asked in the pre-workshop data, it is prudent to carefully consider the meanings that these faculty intend together with what is taking place in their classrooms. If faculty do understand meanings that are different from what reformers intended, then reformers need to consider two implications. One, that there may be a general l ack of consensus for the use of pedagogical terminology that best describes the observed practices. And second, interpretations made on the basis of survey responses alone may not be sufficient to describe the intended meanings faculty might have in these circumstances. Table 20: Observed Practices in the Case Study Practice categorizations are code d and ascribed numerical values of a Likert Scale from 1= Collaborative learning to 7= Lectures. Seven values were chosen because statistical research indicates that seven categorizations have greater propensity for reproducibility.[98] Practice Categorization [and practitioners] Observations-Synopses Lecture= 7 [Kim (General Chemistry Course), Cindy, Howard, Evan, Russ] 1. Teacher stands in front of the class, writing on the board or writing on an overhead or pointing to PowerPoint projected slides 2. Talk is often oral repetition of written words or vocalizations of equations w ith occasional elaboration or an oral description of a diag ram drawn or depicted model of molecular phenomena 3. Subject content is either probl em solving or a description of a chemical model 4. Occasional anecdotes may be described or real world examples used from the text Lecture Intervals=6 [Vern] Same as lecture above but in approximately 15 minute intervals interspersed with 1-2 minutes wait-time for students to spontaneously/voluntarily inte ract to obtain a solution to a problem presented by the instructor.

PAGE 125

114 Practice categorizations are code d and ascribed numerical values of a Likert Scale from 1= Collaborative learning to 7= Lectures. Seven values were chosen because statistical research indicates that seven categorizations have greater propensity for reproducibility.[98] Practice Categorization [and practitioners] Observations-Synopses Lecture-Interactive=5 [Rita (General Chemistry), Laura (chemistry preparatory)] A lecture with frequent (eve ry 5-7 minutes) short answer questions directed to specific st udents or to have students fill in the blank orally in a narra tive about a chemistry concept. Or as the teacher solves a problem, she may stop to ask students help her complete the particular component of the solution. Lecture Intervalscollaborative learning=4 [Marcus (General Chemistry), Kim (nonmajors)] A shorter 10 minute interval le cture component interspersed with group interactions of approximately 5-7 minutes. Students are directed to work t ogether to solve problems that may or may not have been solved previously by the instructor and to write their answers on the board. Collaborative learning groups=1 [Greg (non-majors course)] Students continuously work in groups that have been previously defined. They have defined roles and are involved in problem solving requiring exploration of their own concepts, creating their own definitions or criteria for categorizations, creating their own models of chemical phenomena, and their own rubric for problem solutions. In-class observations revealed that there ar e examples of practice that the faculty used that casually might be considered problem solving practices yet would not fit easily with reform literature conceptu alizations of problem solving. For example, as shown in Table 21, many of the case study faculty were observed using questioning during the lecture period that might be described as doing problem solving work because students answer such questions after doing calculations. As discussed in the introduction, when using Blooms taxonomy of cognition/learni ng skills to categorize the observed pedagogy, the questions that the faculty typica lly asked did not involve the students in connecting concepts together to synthesize a conceptual framework for solutions. Rather, Table 20 continue d

PAGE 126

115 the tasks predominately entailed application of procedures demonstr ated in the lecture and/or the text. This type of problem solving is described as algorithmic. (71) Students apply a rule rather than ge nerating the rule for solving the questions asked. Also, sometimes students in the general chemistry (c hemistry majors) classes were encouraged and given time to converse with their neighbor to obtain solutions to questions posed. These occasions do involve interactions between students that in casual speech would be called collaborations, but thes e interactions did not entail the process of learning (i.e. entailing the use of the learning cycle) meant in reform literature as described in the introduction of this dissertation. Table 21 Questioning Practices Refer to table 20 to obtain a reference fo r the meanings of the Likert scale 1-7 designations Case Study Participant Practice Classification: Kind of practice & relative amount of time using traditional lecture-based on observations 1-7 Low to High Questioning Practice: Observed kinds of questions asked: Higher OrderConceptual or Lower OrderAlgorithmic (See Appendix E for descriptions of types o f questions) Approximate percentage of time students involved in answering questions (minutes Q & Answer minutes of the class period) 4yr Grad Greg 1 collaborative groups High/Conceptual (80%) (non-majors) 90% Kim 6 lecture Low/Algorithmic General Chemistry 8 % Howard 7 lecture Low/Algorithmic General Chemistry 5 % Cindy 6 lecture Low/Algorithmic General Chemistry 8 %

PAGE 127

116 Refer to table 20 to obtain a reference fo r the meanings of the Likert scale 1-7 designations 4 yr College Evan 7 lecture Low/Algorithmic General Chemistry 14 % (daily 5 minute quiz included in this calculation) Russ 7 lecture Low/Algorithmic General Chemistry 8 % Marcus 4 lecture intervals & collaborative Med-High/Conceptual (15%)Algorithmic (95%) General Chemistry 40 % 2 yr College Rita 5 lecture interactive High/Conceptual (2%) Algorithmic (95%) General Chemistry 30 % Laura 5 lecture interactive High/Conceptual (2%) Algorithmic (95%) (Chemistry preparatory class) 30 % Vern 6 lecture intervals Low-Medium/Algorithmic General Chemistry 20 % In contrast to casual understandings, th e meaning of process learning (or guided inquiry) or collaborative learning as described in reform literature, involves interactions between students in which they brain storm together to find solutions to problems that may not have a single solution. They may devise their own rubric or algorithm to solve a problem as required and the in -class activity brings student s through a process described as a learning cycle or through conceptual change. These kinds of activities were observed consistently in Gregs, and Kims class for non-majors but were infrequently observed in general chemistry classes with the exception of Marcus class. Typical Table 21 continue d

PAGE 128

117 general chemistry classes involved posing a few algorithmic questions per class session, for example Evan and Howard used between 1-2 algorithmic questions, and Russ posed 2-3 algorithmic questions. And while students conversed with each other when questions were posed to the class, these interactions were not structured in ways that would conform to the reform meaning of collaborative learning or gu ided inquiry as intended in the survey questions. As indicated in Table 21 both Rita and Laura used an exceptionally high number of oral assessment questions during class which made their classes highly interactive between students and instructor despite the tr aditional lecture format. This practice is evidence of a creative departur e from the strictly tradi tional lecture pedagogy while maintaining the general struct ure of the lecture format. Rita and Laura also reported using guided inquiry activities approximatel y five occasions each semester in their general chemistry course. While these activ ities were not direc tly observed by the researcher, they presented materials a nd described their learning goals which corresponded to reform approaches and c oncepts. Based on their practices in the observational data, their reform perspective th at they expressed in their pre-workshop survey data did not appear to be translated consistently into their practice. Importantly, when they were asked about their practice, both faculty reported that consistently implementing reform activities is impractical in their general chemistry courses. They specifically named several constraints, admi nistrative and student expectations, and the scope of course content required. (These i ssues will be explored further in the next sections.) Therefore, their practice appears to be less reform based than what their pre-

PAGE 129

118 workshop survey data might indicate, when in terpreted alone. Their inquiry activities can be described appropriately as reform based practices, but their in frequent use suggests that there are persistent influences on thei r practice toward the traditional lecture format. Verns practice represents an interesting departure from the other faculty and may represent a negative instance in the general trend in which reform-oriented conceptions are espoused but not necessarily in use. Ve rns espoused teaching c onceptions in the preworkshop data were oriented toward traditional, teacher-focused pedagogy. However, when his instruction practices were observ ed, he allowed students time to work on solving problems together in class. His students spontaneously shared their notes or solution procedures with each other after Vern posed a question to the class. While he did not explicitly invite students to work t ogether, he did not inhi bit their spontaneous acts to solve the question together by shortening the wait time after posing the question. This might have been construed as indicati on that the workshop might have influenced his practice toward reform. Interestingly, when he was asked if this questioning approach was a regular feature in his class format, he said that it wasnt, but that the subject content covered in the days lecture either allowed or did not allow time fo r student applications of material during class. Th erefore, Verns actual teaching approach (in-use teaching conception), as observed in his classes, can a ppear to be more reform oriented than his espoused teaching conceptions, whether on the pr e-workshop data or in his interviews. But, while Vern was capable of scheduling class time around the development of student understanding of chemical concepts, he didn t seem to plan pro cess learning (at least according to his espoused conceptions of this class format). Rather, he appeared to

PAGE 130

119 passively allow students to initiate group learning by themselves, when there was sufficient time to allow these s pontaneous student interactions. There were other forms of questioning pract ices that were observed and that can be categorized with reform orientations. Fo r example Evan daily used ~5 minute quizzes in his general chemistry classes that usually involved two algorithmic questions that can be answered quickly in the given time frame. The daily use of quizzes is also featured in reform approaches as they are intended to e ngage students in the cl ass material and help them keep up with the course pace. Gr eg, Marcus, Rita, Laura, Cindy, and Kim also used in-class oral questioning to assess stude nts understanding of concepts as shown in Table 21 entitled, Questioning Practices. While these questions tended to be algorithmic (exceptions are Greg and Marcus ) all of these instructors used student responses to determine the number of st udents who understood an idea or problem solution procedure before moving on to the next topic.(See Appendix E for a full description of types of questi ons) This practice is also featured in reform pedagogy. In conclusion, some of the case study faculty were observed to have in-use conceptions about reform activities that differe d substantially from reform definitions as intended in the survey questions, while ot hers in the case study had pedagogical conceptions that resembled reform meanings but chose not to fully implement them. Research indicates that uptake of reform take s time for development but it is unclear how much time or how much intervention is requ ired to support and observe the kinds of reform practices intended in reform literature. (14) The case study data collection took place approximately 3-5 years after the facu lty attended the MIDP workshops. Based

PAGE 131

120 upon the interviews and in-class observations one important trend wa s observed: all of the case study faculty indicated either that reform pedagogy was not considered either appropriate or practical as a lecture replacement in their general chemistry courses for majors. This finding holds across all instit utional levels and class sizes and will be discussed more fully in the following analysis. Given these perspectives, it might be fruitf ul to consider whether it is best to change faculty so that their ideas conform to the pedagogy or would it be better to modify the pedagogy so that it is re sponsive to faculty interest and needs and possibilities. According to the research on reform peda gogy described in the introduction, reform pedagogy is sufficiently fluid that it can be adopted in differe nt environments and levels without compromising the kernel function: bringing students through the learning cycle during class time in such a way to enable th em to explore ideas and generate concepts together. Greg, Kim, and Marcus provided th e means and time in their classes in various ways specific to their classes to make reform practices happen and they implemented these practices in a wide variety of classes and class sizes. Bu t all of the faculty appear to have a consensus view point regarding a regular or daily class practice of reform in the general chemistry class. This is precisely where re form has been sought and where, in the case study, it appeared not to be happening (with the important ex ception of Marcus). As will be described in more detail in the ne xt section, all case st udy faculty reported that there is a problem with implementing the refo rm pedagogy in the general chemistry class. And this conception is corroborat ed behaviorally in their prac tice. They supply their own and different perceptions about what they thi nk this problem is. These perceptions which

PAGE 132

121 will be described in more detail in the next section, are very relevant. However one aspect of their understanding about what reform is (eg what inquiry is) which might be a part of the problem of why implementing reform appears prohibitive, is that there is no consensus of what it isits meaning. This is a problem that can be interpreted to lie with the reform dissemination program itself, wh ich is manifesting itself in the various understandings that faculty have Thus, these findings reveal that so long as casual or substantially different meani ngs pertaining to reform expressions such as guided inquiry or process learning or collaborative learning persist, implementation of reform practices as envisioned in the reform literature will likely be difficult to achieve. Nevertheless, the case study observations also revealed that while traditional practices still dominate the general chemistry classrooms, there are indications that instructors are moving away from the traditi onal approach. Several facult y, Greg, Marcus, Rita, Laura and Kim espouse perspectives that are unequivoc ally reform oriented. However, all of the faculty who espouse reform conceptions re veal in-use conceptio ns in their practice suggesting a more complex process of reform uptake than described in literature as movement along a continuum from teacher orient ed to student orient ed. Therefore it is pertinent to explore what teaching con ceptions might influence their practice. RESEARCH QUESTION 3 What teaching conceptions appear to have the greatest influence (impinge the most) on their observed practices?

PAGE 133

122 Prior research into teaching practices ha ve emphasized that how faculty learn (or what they report as how they learn) is different from how students learn based on Piagets developmental stage categorization of learni ng skills, constructivist learning theory, and cognitive science studies on model building and use. (41) And, as mentioned earlier, prior research emphasized that stude nts approach to learning c onform to the assessment and teaching practices of their instructors. The cognitive skills required in learning general chemistry as envisioned by the transmissionoriented instructor in general chemistry involve primarily pattern recognition and pr oblem solving rubric recall and application rather than analysis and synthe sis. Thus, prior research i ndicated that faculty who use a teaching approach involving mainly recall, discourage the development and use of skills other than recall skil ls in their students .(138) However, the importance of the relationship between facultys expectations of their students l earning approach, the facultys preferred teaching approach and the facultys perceptions about their own learning has not been emphasized in previous reports. Theref ore it might be fruitful to explore these questions with the data from a survey that probed teaching and learning conceptions among the MID Project faculty. The Teaching Approaches Inventory survey was conducted among a sample of 203 participants in the MID Project work shops, among 10 workshop facilitators familiar with reform pedagogy, among an additional 24 MID Project workshop participants both before and after their workshop, and among the 10 case study faculty. As mentioned in the methods section, this survey probed thei r espoused conceptions about their teaching strategies and intentions. Th e authors of the survey report that the survey probes four

PAGE 134

123 dimensions of teaching conceptions: transmissi on-oriented strategies (1) and intentions (2), and conceptual-change strategies (3) a nd intentions (4). However, the observed dimensions obtained in this data were two: a conceptual change orientation (intentions and strategies together, labeled CCSF-con ceptual change-student focused) and an information transmission orientation (intentio ns and strategies together, labeled ITTFinformation transmission-teacher focused) These designations were based on prior research and the results of a Cronbachs al pha statistical test used in this study. (41) The Cronbachs alpha [ N r)/1+ (N-1)r] statistic indicates the extent to which items in a questionnaire are related to each other, provi ding an overall index of the repeatability or internal consistency of the scale as a whole. This statistic indicated that there is internal consistency among the Information transmission items (Cronbachs = 0.68; confidence interval 95%) and the Conceptual change items ( 0.71) but not among all the intentions pooled together ( =0.21) or the strategi es pooled together ( =0.28). Assigning negative relationship between the Conceptual change and Information transmission intentions items, for example, did not produce a high enough consistency alpha. The Cronbach alphas of 0.68 and 0.71 are considered acceptable. (149, 150) Therefore, the items on this questionnaire were treated as probes for tw o dimensions: (1) a transmission-teacherfocused orientation and (2) conceptual change-student-foc used orientation. Two samples (N=203 the second cohort of participants from the years 2001-2003; and N=24 (one workshop in the spring of 2004 )) of MIDP workshop participants were compared statistically with th e case study faculty and with th e workshop facilitators. An analysis of variance (ANOVA) test was performe d to test for differences between groups.

PAGE 135

124 Second, a Bonferroni test was performed to c ontrol the overall error rate by setting the error rate for each test to th e experiment-wise error rate divided by the total number of tests. Hence, the observed significance level fo r the overall test is adjusted for the fact that multiple comparisons are being made. And last, a post-hoc power analysis was performed to ensure that there were suffi cient N sizes for each subgroup result that showed no significance for a statistical di fference. The results of the ANOVA are shown in Table 22. Table 22. Analysis of Variance test be tween case study facult y and other MIDP participants and facilitators 369.962 3 123.321 5.251 .002 5683.047 242 23.484 6053.008 245 377.320 3 125.773 4.067 .008 7484.506 242 30.928 7861.825 245 Between Groups Within Groups Total Between Groups Within Groups Total ITTF CCSF Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig. The obtained significant F st atistics of 5.251 and 4.067 for each scale suggest that there are significant differences between groups in both scales. The multiple comparisons Table 23 below indicate that the case study faculty scored significantly higher in the Transmission-teacher focused scale relative to the reformers (MIDP workshop facilitators are given this label here because of their role in reform dissemination). However the case study faculty were not significantly different from either the larger (N=203) or smaller samples (N = 24) of the MIDP workshop participants in this scale. Interestingly, the difference between the case study facu lty and facilitators

PAGE 136

125 scores in the conceptual ch ange scale was not significan t, but the second cohort and spring 2004 workshop participants scores were significantly lower than the facilitators scores. Potentially, the lack of a statistic al difference between the case study and the facilitators scores might be due to loss of st atistical power because of the difference in the case study sample size relative to the larger cohort sample. However, a power analysis test indicated that the ch ance of finding a significant difference was 77%. Therefore while there is a 23% chance that a small effect might not be observable, it isnt likely. In sum, the data indicate that the larger gap between the teaching orientations in the facilitators scores had mo re to do with their lower transmission orientation scores rather than their higher conceptual change or ientation scores relative to the respective case study faculty scores in this survey. Thes e findings might also i ndicate that readiness to relinquish the transmission philosophy may be more instrumental to orient the faculty toward a student centered approach than espousal of reform conceptions. In addition, this analysis of the results of the Teaching A pproaches Inventory corroborates both the preworkshop survey analysis and case study f aculty espoused perspectives expressed on their pre-workshop survey responses and in their practice described in the previous section (Research Question 2). The preference for lecture in the pre-workshop and postworkshop survey data and for transmission of content to students in the case study data substantiates the prominence of the transmissionoriented strategies and intentions in this survey data.

PAGE 137

126 Table 23. Multiple Comparisons Table of differences between case study faculty and other MIDP participants and facilitators Bonferroni 4.29 1.651 .059 -.10 8.68 -4.35* 1.570 .036 -8.53 -.18 .81 1.046 1.000 -1.98 3.59 -4.29 1.651 .059 -8.68 .10 -8.64* 2.227 .001 -14.57 -2.72 -3.49 1.894 .402 -8.52 1.55 4.35* 1.570 .036 .18 8.53 8.64* 2.227 .001 2.72 14.57 5.16* 1.824 .030 .31 10.01 -.81 1.046 1.000 -3.59 1.98 3.49 1.894 .402 -1.55 8.52 -5.16* 1.824 .030 -10.01 -.31 -.96 1.894 1.000 -6.00 4.08 -5.77* 1.801 .009 -10.57 -.98 1.30 1.200 1.000 -1.89 4.49 .96 1.894 1.000 -4.08 6.00 -4.81 2.555 .366 -11.61 1.99 2.26 2.174 1.000 -3.52 8.05 5.77* 1.801 .009 .98 10.57 4.81 2.555 .366 -1.99 11.61 7.07* 2.093 .005 1.51 12.64 -1.30 1.200 1.000 -4.49 1.89 -2.26 2.174 1.000 -8.05 3.52 -7.07* 2.093 .005 -12.64 -1.51 (J) QUALCASE Second cohort Case study Facilitators Spring 2004 worksop Second cohort Case study Facilitators Spring 2004 worksop Second cohort Case study Facilitators Spring 2004 worksop Second cohort Case study Facilitators Spring 2004 worksop Second cohort Case study Facilitators Spring 2004 worksop Second cohort Case study Facilitators Spring 2004 worksop Second cohort Case study Facilitators Spring 2004 worksop Second cohort Case study Facilitators Spring 2004 worksop (I) QUALCASE Second cohort N = 203 Case study faculty Facilitators Spring 2004 workshop Second cohort N = 203 Case study faculty Facilitators Spring 2004 workshop Dependent Variable Information Transmisssion Teacher Focused Conceptual Change Student Focused Mean Difference (I-J) Std. Error Sig. Lower Bound Upper Bound 95% Confidence Interval The mean difference is significant at the .05 level. *. To further analyze the relationship betw een conceptions concerning their teaching orientation and their observed practice, a comparison of the Teaching Approaches Inventory survey results was taken with th e in-class observations of teaching practices among the case study participants, viewed in Table 24. This comparison was taken to

PAGE 138

127 explore whether there were observable relati onships betweens these different sources of data regarding orientation and practice. The bold font is in tended in this table to make easy distinctions between the survey result s of faculty exhibiting high (bold) and low orientations toward lecturing. Interesting correspondences were found be tween these data sources regarding teaching orientation revealed in the survey data and observed practices. For example, that Greg presents a significant orientat ion toward conceptual-change-student based learning while retaining some preferences fo r transmission-teacher focused pedagogy. In contrast to Greg, Vern shows a higher prope nsity toward a teacher-focused transmission pedagogy relative to the conceptual change pedagogy. An anomaly is Howards results which show high scores in both scales. When Howard submitted his survey, he was asked which class he based his responses. He mentioned verbally and wrote in the margin of his survey that he was making reference to his course that was conducted completely online, through the internet. To be consistent with the treatment of his survey taking conditions relative to ot her case study participants, he was not asked to explain his responses. Therefore, the contradiction between his survey results and what was observed in his class cannot be re solved, other than to report that they dont reflect what he was observed doing in his class. Several faculty obtained sc ores on the two scales in the Teaching Approaches Inventory survey that were sufficiently similar to indicate that the faculty were not easily categorized by either orientati on singly. As observed in Table 24, these faculty are Kim,

PAGE 139

128 Laura, Cindy, Rita, Evan and Russ. Among thes e six faculty the greatest spread between scores in each scale was six poi nts obtained by Rita. The othe rs were more close, and Table 24. Comparison of the Teaching Appr oaches Inventory Results and In class observations among the Case Study Faculty Case study participant Observed orientation to lecture 1-7 L to H Kinds of questioning Conceptual/Algorithmic Survey scores: Conceptual Change/Student Focused 40=High, 24=Med, 8=Low Survey scores: Transmission /Teacher Focused 40=High, 24=Med, 8=Low Greg 1 L High/Conceptual 36H 26 M Kim 6 M-H Low/Algorithmic (GenChem) 4 M Med/Concept-Alg (Nurse/Health) 26M 29 M-H Howard 7 H Low/Algorithmic 40 H 34 H Cindy 6 M-H Low/Algorithmic 24 M 23 M Evan 7 H Low/Algorithmic 23 M 26 M Russ 7 H Low/Algorithmic 33 M-H 30 M-H Marcus 4 M Med-High/Algorithmic NA NA Rita 5 L-M High/Conc-Alg 16 L 20 M Laura 5 L-M High/Conc-Alg 25 M 24 M Vern 6 M-H Low-Med/Algorithmic 19 L 35 H in some instances, their practice shows simila r orientations. For example, both Rita and Laura are close in teaching orientations and their observed approach to teaching appears to be a hybrid of interactive lecturing. Kim s scores are close and her practice appears to be a combination of approaches that are separable by contexts. Revealing a more complex correspondence, two faculty (Evan and Russ) were observed to have more traditional practices of lecturing corresponding to one of their scales. But these two faculty also had relatively cl ose scores between both orient ations which corresponds to

PAGE 140

129 their choices in their pre-workshop surveys but less so to their pract ice. Therefore, with the exception of Howard who re ported that he responded to the survey based on his webbased class, the survey results generally app eared to corroborate approaches observed in their classes. A detailed comparison of the case study f aculty survey responses to the nine MID Project faculty facilitators also might serve to illustrate the orie ntation of the case study faculty relative to the MIDP faculty who w ould be considered reform implementers. Table 25 below shows a comparison between these two groups. The faculty who displayed a high orientation to traditional lecture in their general chemistry classes are shown in bold. On average, when the case st udy faculty scored highe r on the conceptual change scale, the average increase of thei r student oriented scal e above their teacheroriented scale was 4 points. The average increase in the student-oriented scale above the teacher oriented scale among the reformers wa s 13 points. As mentioned previously in the discussion on the ANOVA test, the signific ant statistical diffe rence between these groups was their preference for the transmissi on orientation, there were no statistical differences between these groups in the studen t-oriented (or conceptual change-oriented) scale. Therefore the distinction between these groups regarding the gap between their teaching conceptions and orientations appears to be the degree that the faculty maintain the transmission orientation rather than the degree they hold to the conceptual change orientation.

PAGE 141

130 Table 25. Comparison Between Case Study Facu lty and MIDP workshop Facilitators on Teaching Approaches Inventory Survey Case study participant Case study Survey scores: Conceptual Change/Student Focused 40=High, 24=Med, 8=Low Case study Survey scores: Transmission/T eacher Focused 40=High, 24=Med, 8=Low 9 MIDP facilitators survey scores Conceptual Changestudent focused 9 MIDP facilitators survey scores Information transmissionteacher focused Greg 36H 26 M (1) 40H 17L Kim 26M 29 M-H (2) 37H 19L Howard 40 H 34 H (3) 25M 21M-L Cindy 24 M 23 M (4) 30M-H 27M Evan 23 M 26 M (5) 33M-H 19L Russ 33 M-H 30 M-H (6) 31M-H 18L Marcus NA NA (7) 25M 21M-L Rita 16 L 20 M (8) 39H 12L Laura 25 M 24 M (9) 31H 19L Vern 19 L 35 H The discussion in this section has focuse d on the survey results and a comparison of those results to in-class obser vations. In addition to such comparisons it is pertinent to explore what conceptions faculty report in their interviews that might bring more awareness and understanding of the relationshi p between their survey derived teaching orientation and their practice. As described in the previous section on Research Question 2, Laura, Rita, Kim, Greg, and Marcus all use some reform-based activities in their classrooms or labs. Laura and Rita use thes e activities periodically in their chemistry courses of 35 students. Kim us es these activities periodically in her chemistry class for non-majors in a class size of 90. And Greg us es these activities consistently in his nonmajors class of 35 students. Both Greg an d Kim teach at a PhD gr anting university while Laura and Rita teach at a community college Thus a wide variety of contexts are

PAGE 142

131 represented and corroborate th e position held by reformers that reform is sufficiently fluid and that it can be imp lemented in all contexts. Despite the observation that the case study faculty all used some reform-based activities in different class sizes and institut ional levels, however, they all indicated in their interviews that they shared an impor tant teaching conception. They all expressed the viewpoint that reform could not be a c onsistent practice in the general chemistry course as a lecture replacement due to the feature of normative c ontent in the general chemistry course (their quotes are shown in Appendix F). While this espoused concept about normative content was corroborated in how the general chemistry classes were conducted, it did not provide an explanatio n as to why normative content required normative practice using the traditional lecture. Ev en faculty who used some reform activities in their general chemistry class, i ndicated that lecture wa s a better vehicle to deliver normative content. When asked why so me general chemistry topics were not left for the students to cover on their own, allo wing time for in-class learning, some faculty expressed the view that student s were not capable or could not be trusted to learn new topics on their own. And conversely, some of the faculty expressed the view that they do not expect their general chemistry students to learn the topics during class time, therefore requiring students to learn the topics on their own. These conflicting views about students capacity for learning in the classroom suggested that there might be yet another conception that might be linked to using a normative practice in the general chemistry course.

PAGE 143

132 The case study data was analyzed further to determine whether there was an inuse conception that might correlate to thei r practice. As mentioned earlier, prior research indicates that facultys notions of teaching are closely aligned with their conceptions of what learning is. (126) Therefore if faculty appear to have a notion that there is a normative way to teach general ch emistry, they might have a conception that there is a normative way to learn general ch emistry. To probe this possible perspective the faculty were asked how they best learne d chemistry. The facu lty conveyed in their response to this question th at they considered how they learned to be a normative scheme of learning chemistry. This conception varied with their in-class practice in a way that might provide more explanation for the lack of full use of reform pedagogy in the general chemistry course. The relationship between this in-use concept and their practice is shown in Table 26 below.

PAGE 144

133 Table 26. Case Study Participant Lear ning Concept and Practice Comparison Case Study Participant Practice Classification: Kind of practice relative to traditional lecture 1-7 Low to High Questioning Practice: Frequency/Observed kinds of questions asked: Higher OrderConceptual or Lower Order-Algorithmic Partial quotes describing how they learned chemistry (Note: bold font in the partia l quotes highlight terms that a ppear to distinguish types of learning described below) 4yr Grad Greg 1 collaborative groups High/Conceptual (80%) (non-majors) making connections to multiple things Kim 6 lecture Low/Algorithmic (GenChem) reading, doing problems thinking, having an interest Howard 7 lecture Low/Algorithmic reading and doing problems Cindy 6 lecture Low/Algorithmic drill (practicing problems) 4 yr College Evan 7 lecture Low/Algorithmic doing end of chapter problems Russ 7 lecture Low/Algorithmic working at it & getting help Marcus 4 lecture intervals & collaborative Med-High/Conceptual (1-5%) Algorithmic (95%) discovery process seeing how things work 2 yr College Rita 5 lecture-interactive High/Conceptual (2%) Algorithmic (95%) practicing problems, connecting concepts Laura 5 lecture-interactive High/Conceptual (2%) Algorithmic (95%) (prep) practicing problems, making connections Vern 6 lecture intervals LowMedium/Algorithmic reading and doing problems

PAGE 145

134 Several faculty mentioned that the wa y they learned chemistry is by doing problems but did not distinguish which ki nds of problems such as algorithmic or conceptual problems were important to the le arning process. While several faculty did not directly mention differences between al gorithmic problems and conceptual problems, a few of the faculty appeared to have a tac it understanding of the di stinction. (Refer to Appendix E for detailed desc riptions of types of lear ning under Blooms Taxonomy) Based on faculty discourse and practice in th is study and in the li terature on cognitive science, the cognitive skills implied in doing problems can be separated from those entailed in making connections. Mak ing connections connotes synthesizing and analysis, while doing problems connotes re call, comprehension and application of problem solving strategies. One of the distin ctions between these conceptions is whether the problem solving strategies students apply are their own creation or a prefabricated strategy provided by the text or teacher. To create a problem strategy on their own and apply it requires making connections between concepts whereas applying a provided problem solving strategy involves recall a nd knowing when (pattern recognition) to apply the strategy. The participants in this ca se study appear to hold either one of these conceptions and two appear to hold both. Those who onl y mention doing problems, or drill, with reading, conveyed that learni ng chemistry involved learning f acts and relied heavily on a traditional lecturing strategy. These perspec tives and approaches correspond to those views that project science as a producta body of received knowledge, described earlier in the introduction to this dissertation. This view contrasts with the view of science as a

PAGE 146

135 process, which emphasizes discovery, synthesi s and analysis. They also conveyed that learning chemistry involves a vertical proces s of building up ra ther than creating a network of connections. This conceptualizat ion conveys a view of science knowledge as amassing sequential or hierarchal layers where learning is building with static blocks of information rather than a fluid, in tegrating and continuous process. Interestingly, the two faculty who reported that they used bot h learning strategies (doing problems and making connections) also had the highest frequency of teacherstudent questioning during their traditional lectur e. They exhibit a conceptualization of their own learning that appear s to be a hybrid of two strands of orientation and their practice appears to exhibit a si milar hybridization. These findings suggest that faculty perceptions about how they learned chemistry might have an important influence on their practice in their general chem istry class. Their perception that their learning is a normative way to learn chemistry might be more closely tied to either their actual history of learning in chemistry or their percepti on of that history, rather than to other constraints. These results highlight the poten tial importance of faculty conceptions about their own learning patterns and history relative to findings of earlier studies which have focused mainly on faculty conception s about learning among their students. The two faculty who referred to only conn ections or discovery in their learning conceptions used collaborative learning proce sses in their classrooms. One (Greg) used collaborative strategies excl usively in a course for non-majors. Despite his obvious commitment to reform pedagogy, he voiced a concern that reform pedagogy may not be amenable to general chemistry because of the amount of content required in that course.

PAGE 147

136 Gregs espoused conception a bout teaching general chemistry is unusual relative to other case study faculty because while he perceived his learning as making connections he did not expect such learning appr oaches from his students. In contrast to other faculty, Greg did not see his way of learning chemistr y as normative. Rather, he believed that making connections was the learning strategy of the expert learner not necessarily of the novice learner, who lacked the knowledge base to make connections. Instead, he believed that students needed to be helped or taught to make their own connections and the teaching strategies he us ed, such as encouraging st udent reflections during class time and in homework assignments, were designed for this purpose. Here Greg distinguishes various levels of capacity for students to engage with the practices of making connections. This view is supported by cognitive learning theory. Furthermore, he presents his reasoning that because students need help to make connections then there is a distinction between what he is able to accomplish in his class for non-majors relative to what other faculty are able to do in the general chemistry course. The main distinction he points to is the difference in the amount of general chemistry content which he believes is normative and prohibitive to im plementing these kinds of activities. As described earlier, this viewpoint was expressed by several case study faculty. The argument that the content of the general chemistry course must have a large array of topics was also discussed in the re form literature, as described in the introduction of this dissertation. However, the discussi on on reform in chemistry also included and supported alternative views of what would cons titute appropriate content in the general chemistry course. While it might be inevitab le that faculty would have varying views on

PAGE 148

137 what topics to emphasize, not all topics can be covered, hence decisions need to be made to determine sufficient content at the introduct ory level. The contention that the reform literature raises concerning general chemistry c ourse content is this: that these decisions are inevitably made based on cr iteria which traditionally view s science as a product or as a body of knowledge. Because of this view a nd because of the bulk of the product that they desire to deliver, they consider that the product-content is better delivered didactically. Consequently, a wide arra y of topics becomes the normative product delivered. Equally pertinent and arguably vi able, but less traditional criteria that views science as a process, are not considered. Thus these ar e the reasons that reform documents have encouraged the propagation of reform perspectives, in part, so that the uptake of reform perspectives would lead to different decisions about appropriate content. If the amount of content in the general chemistry cour se is the main teaching conception (excluding for the moment impor tant external constraints such as administrative support or class size) that facu lty have for not implementing reform then they may find it difficult to accept or unders tand the rationale for the reform objectives described in the introduction. And perhaps related to this issue about normative content, faculty decisions about what approaches best facilitate students to learn this content might be related to their per ceptions about their own learning histories. They appear to believe that their learning histories are normative Thus the reform objective to help students be more successful learners might be misinterpreted by faculty to mean that faculty ought to reproduce their learning experience in stude ntsa conception which is unsupported by cognitive learni ng theory and research.

PAGE 149

138 Summary The findings from the post-workshop Teaching Approaches Inventory survey analysis of the second cohort (N=203) corr oborates the case study findings regarding a preference for using lecture. The prevalen t teaching conceptions, both strategies and intentions, are oriented toward transmission which is the did actic approach traditionally used in lecture. Furthermore, the case study data along with both the pre-workshop data and the post workshop data revealed that th ese conceptions include the idea that the practice of using transmission best conveys the content that students ar e given to learn in the general chemistry course. The observations in case study revealed that instructors perceptions about their own learning appear to be more strongly connected to the transmission orientation. In c ontrast, their strategies and inte ntions toward the conceptual change-student orientation appear to be le ss strongly related to th eir perceptions about their own learning through pro cesses of making connections. These distinctions in the case study data are observed to be greatest in the context of the gene ral chemistry course, where reform dissemination objectives have been most heavily directed. If this differential correspondence betw een facultys perceptions ab out their learning and their practice extends beyond the case st udy faculty, then encouraging faculty to recognize that their own processes of learning entail a lear ning cycle (of discovery, making connections and applications) may not be sufficient to orient them toward a conceptual change student-focused approach. Thus the survey data and the case study exhibit a complex movement toward reform that does not co rroborate the expected smooth movement

PAGE 150

139 along a continuum as described in the reform literature. Some faculty in the case study exhibit both hybridized practi ce and conceptions while othe rs exhibit a practice that conflict with their reported conceptions and a few exhibit reform practices but have a moderate engagement in reform conceptually. In addition to these conceptions that in fluence their practice in their general chemistry course, the case study observations and interviews reveal ed that additional factors, such as organizati onal influences, might mediate the differential implementation of reform in chemistry classes between nonmajors and majors. They mentioned that there were impracticalities to fully impleme nt reform approaches because of curriculum objectives stipulated by their administrati ons. Alternatively, rather than having inhibitions related to their conceptions such as those about normative content or normative learning experiences, the difficulty for some faculty may be limited only to physical or structural constraint s of class size, particularly in the PhD granting institution where classes often range above 100 students. Therefore this discussion leads us to the fourth research question of what external factors or c ontexts might be helpful to encourage faculty to adopt reform thinking and practice RESEARCH QUESTION 4 How do their specific contexts (faculty de mographic characteristics and teaching environment) influence both their teachi ng conceptions and practices and on their uptake of reform? Based on the case study observations and the teaching approaches inventory survey data it is pertinent to question whet her the workshop was inst rumental in helping

PAGE 151

140 people move toward reform pedagogy and whet her this movement is a general trend in the whole participant population. The post wo rkshop surveys suggest possible success. For example, the post-survey of the first c ohort [participants from the year 2000 to 2002] contained responses from 15 people who repor ted on the pre-workshop survey that they were currently using in-class problem solving but not collaborative learning. After the workshop, 60% of these people had moved to group problem solving at least 1-2 times per semester if not more frequently. Am ong the post-survey res pondents, 96% reported using lecture in their pre -workshop surveys. The post-surv ey asked whether respondents lectured most of the period and believed th at this was an effective practice. The McNemar test was applied to probe changes in their responses between the pre and post surveys regarding their lect ure practices and the possi ble impact of the MIDP intervention on lecture use. Table 27 shows that after MIDP intervention, 18% (15/85, lower left square of the table) of the faculty who indicated th at they used lecture in the pre-survey reported on the post-su rvey that they did not lect ure most of the period. In other words, the percentage of reported lectur e users in this group decreased from 96% to 79%. In a two-tailed test of significance, this proportion of change was significant with an intermediate, small/medium effect size ( w = 0.15).

PAGE 152

141 Table 27. Comparing Responses Pre/Post MIDP Intervention (N=89) In fact, as Table 28 shows, the majority of the first cohort responders had cited their attendance at the MID workshop as havi ng had direct influen ce on changes in their assessment methods. Collectively, the implication of these results from the first cohort is that MIDP has a positive impact on faculty who had favored traditional techniques such as lecturing and can influence their teaching conceptions away from lecture and toward reform pedagogical approaches. Table 28. Post Survey (N = 89): MIDP Influence on Asse ssment Practices What factors influenced change in your assessment practices? % Attendance at MID workshop 56 Dissatisfaction with previous methods 39 Attendance at another workshop/presentation 30 Implementation of one or more of the 4 MID projects 29 Difference in skill level of current students 16 Policy change within depa rtment or institution 7 New testing materials provided by publisher 1 In addition, the Inventory Survey administ ered near the end of the dissemination period, directly inquired whether workshop participants had made changes in their courses that they would attr ibute to MID workshop attendan ce. The responses of the Post-workshop survey response: I use lecturing No (N=17) Yes(N=72) No (N=4) 2 2 Pre-workshop survey response: I use lecturing Yes(N=85) 15 70

PAGE 153

142 faculty showing change away from lecturi ng in the post-survey (the fifteen people described above) were triangulat ed with their responses to a question from the Inventory Survey (Table 20) that directly asked what changes had been implemented as a result of attending the workshop. This comparison reve als that 60% (9/15) of those people who indicate change away from lecture in the post survey also repor t using collaborative learning as a result of attending MIDP works hops in the Inventory Survey. In addition, these switchers indicate that 67% place a gr eater focus on active learning (or process learning) in class, 47% use materials from one or more of the MIDP initiatives, and 80% report changing their assessment practices. Another point of reference is provided by MIDs consistent performance across different surveys with respect to its influe nce on assessment. As observed in Table 30, the majority (56%) of the pa rticipants responding to the pos t-survey of the first cohort reported that MIDP influenced a change in th eir assessment techniques. This finding is corroborated in the Inventory Survey in Ta ble 29, which shows agai n that a reasonable proportion (22.8%) report MIDP influencing ch anges in assessment practices. Table 29 demonstrates their additional belief that, not only was the workshop generally beneficial, but it actually helped th em to make changes. The majority (68%) indicate that MIDP intervention brought about a greater focus on ac tive learning (or process learning). MIDP also was cited as an influence on the use of group problem solving (53%) and the use of questions (53%). Notably, only 4% of the re spondents are unwilling to ascribe any actual pedagogical changes to their experience at th e workshop. In light of the findings on the case study facultys orientation toward transmission approaches described in the previous

PAGE 154

143 section, these results suggest the possibil ity that the espoused influence of MIDP workshops to encourage faculty toward student -centered approaches might have occurred in the absence of or reduced influence of the traditional teaching orientation/philosophy among these respondents. Table 29. Inventory Survey: Changes in Teaching Strategies Ascribed to MID What changes have you implemented in your class(es) as a result of attending the workshop? (Pleas e select all that apply) % Greater focus on active learning in class 68.0 Have students do more problem solving in groups 53.4 Use questions to introduce new concepts 52.9 Use collaborative learning in class 48.5 Use real world questions to dr ive the learning of concepts 44.7 Ask questions to elicit student ideas 41.7 Use materials from one or more of the projects 41.3 Implemented my own version of more active learning 41.3 Use common student misconceptions to structure in-class discussions 35.4 Base instructional decision on st udent responses to questions 29.2 Lecture less and do more "just in time" teaching 27.0 Changed my assessments 22.8 Other 7.7 No change 4.3 The inventory survey included a specific question regarding th e perception of the usefulness of MID workshops: What did th e MID Project workshop provide that was helpful to you? As can be seen in Tabl e 30, most respondents (82%) to the inventory survey report they benefited from the information MIDP provided them on teaching and learning research. The second highest propor tion of faculty (75%) benefited from the curricular materials that MIDP provided from the four initiatives. The remaining options are listed in the table according to decreas ing frequency. Note that respondents were

PAGE 155

144 explicitly offered the option nothing as a pot ential answer to the question, and 0.5% of the sample did choose this response. The low number indicates that, in general, the MID workshops were reported to be beneficial. Table 30. Inventory Survey Reported Benefits (N= 207) What did the MID Project workshop provide that was helpful to you? (Please select all that apply) % Information on teaching and learning research 82.2 Specific materials from the projects that I could use or adapt 74.5 The opportunity to work with colleagues who shared my vision of teaching and learning. 66.3 Ideas about how to implement what I wanted 56.7 Seeing that so many people were involved in changing how we teach 45.7 The opportunity to experience my own learning processes 39.4 Information on changing assessments 39.4 Reinforcement of what I already knew 37.0 Experiencing ideas I'd heard before 32.7 Nothing 0.5 While the survey results seem very positive about the influences of MIDP workshop, contrary arguments can be made becau se research indicate s that faculty report their espoused conceptions rather than their in-use conceptions or may exhibit reactivity (demand characteristics)answering what th e researcher wanted in their responses. (98) Therefore it is appropriate to triangulate the survey results with the case study faculty data.

PAGE 156

145 When the case study faculty were asked what they may have gained from the MIDP workshops, a range of responses indicate interesting and varied perspectives (see Appendix F for quotes from transcriptions). There are a combinat ion of responses both positive and less positive about what the workshop offered and what the faculty felt they could implement. Thus, these responses a dd greater variety and depth to the survey results provided by the greater participan t population concerning the reaction to the reform approaches presented in the workshops. These varied response also indicate that changing pedagogy is a complex process involving not only changing teaching philosophies but changing the traditional cl ass environment into an environment with which they have had little or no experience. Therefore exploring what influences faculty thinking may not be sufficient. In additi on to exploring facult y thinking, it may be important to explore whether faculty have gained sufficient confidence to implement approaches which may or may not have full departmental support. Several faculty indicate that collegial s upport is necessary to maintain continuity in a course which may be taught by differe nt teachers or by a first time teacher. Therefore changing the pedagogy in one class involves not only changing one faculty members philosophy but requires philos ophical changes among several colleagues which in turn, involves organizational mechan isms for change. Al so, several faculty insist that time (or lacking time) is a critical factor in their use of the reform pedagogy. Therefore according to their view, using refo rm approaches entails additional time for preparation for a new approach, in order to ma ke such change functional both inside and outside of class.

PAGE 157

146 The case study data indicate that environment appears to be important to these faculty. Therefore it may be prudent to expl ore the extent of the influences that these faculty mention in this inves tigation. For example, the envi ronment or cont ext appears to have an influence how chemistry is taught a nd learned in the general chemistry course. In the case study, the community college f aculty indicated that they did not have autonomy in curriculum and pedagogical decisions in contrast to one of the faculty in the four year college and one faculty in the Ph D institution who reported that they did. Two of the faculty, both Rita and La ura, expressed the desire to do more reform oriented pedagogy but felt they did not have the support of their institution. Vern also expressed that his administration expected him to sta nd up and lecture. De spite these reported influences, Rita and Laura e xhibited more frequent studen t questioning activities during their lecture relative to faculty in the four year college or PhD institution in the general chemistry course. Vern presented an interesting variati on to the trend among faculty in the case study. This variation involved the interacti on of his teaching stra tegy with the teaching environment. During his interviews he expr essed a fairly traditional outlook to teaching and learning that might have easily accomm odated his administratio ns expectations to just stand up and lecture, except for the st udent activity that occurred whenever he allowed enough wait time after a question. Si milar to the other te achers in the general chemistry, Vern presented problems and solution s as part of the class lecture. But in contrast to other facultys classes, his students spontaneously broke out into quiet collaborative problem solving whenever he pa used. In one of his interviews, Vern was

PAGE 158

147 questioned about his pauses during class time to determine whether or not he intended collaborative learning. He claime d that he preferred and often went faster in his delivery but happened not to on the occasi ons of my visit. His response implied that he may have unintentionally supported collabo rative learning by increasing his wait time and he may also diminish it by increasing the pace of his delivery. These findings suggest that the class environment, which included a greater number of mature students, the physical setting of tables rather than individual desks, and wait time may have contributed together to the collaborative problem so lving behavior observed in his students. The potential of the environment to infl uence teaching practices was also probed using a post workshop survey submitted to 89 MIDP participants. The results of this survey were used to triangulate the case st udy observations. There is agreement between the survey data and the case study data s uggesting that one of the reform oriented approaches, questioning st udents about their understand ing and basing curriculum decisions on students responses, has been incorporated into th e traditional lecture format. Similar to the case study observations, the post workshop survey responses indicate that environmental or demographic contexts do have an impact. As shown in Table 31 below, females more than males use questioning techniques to determine whether their students have unde rstood a topic. The survey re sponses also indicate that questioning techniques are used more in lowe r level institutions and by faculty having lower level tenure status.

PAGE 159

148 Table 31. Uptake of reformPost Surv ey Responses: Questioning Techniques There are four questioning techniques that obtained significant demographic associations in the Post-workshop survey data (N=89): a I use student responses to de termine whether a topic has been understood,[82%] b I base instructional de cisions on students respons es to questions, [39%] c I use questions to intr oduce new topics, [67%] d I use common misundersta ndings to structure cl ass discussions. [46%] In all of these practices (a, b, c & d), females reported higher frequencies than males (p <0.05). Two of these practices, (a and d) are associated with institution level (Spearman correlation (-.241) p=0.014) and tenu re status (L.R. p=0.015) respectively. Technique (a) is valued more in undergraduate institutions and community colleges rather than in higher degree granting universitie s. Technique (d) is valued more by those who are on tenure track than those who are te nured. The case study data confirm these results: Females were observed using ques tioning techniques in the manner described above more often than malesparticularly th e females at the community college level. The agreement with the case study data regarding the use of questioning techniques suggests that the su rvey results for these techniqu es may be considered valid. Consequently, the implications are that there is a high percentage of faculty who may be using the questioning technique s throughout the entire MIDP pa rticipant population. The adoption of these techniques may represent an early stage toward reform that these faculty found was amenable to th eir traditional lecture approach.

PAGE 160

149 SUMMARY The workshop participants report in th eir surveys that MIDP has influenced change in their knowledge, sk ills and behavior. Faculty report that they come to workshops for the purpose of acquiring the n ecessary skills for making change, such as implementing new assessment methods. Afte r their workshop experience, they report using the methods they have attained th rough their attendance to MIDP workshops. Furthermore, even faculty who report satisfa ction in traditional methods in the preworkshop survey, indicate that they have acquired experiences through MIDP to influence change in their teaching approaches These findings suggest that dissatisfaction with traditional tec hniques prior to the MIDP wo rkshop experience may not be a necessary pre-condition for the uptake of reform pedagogy. Th is is corroborated in the case study where faculty implement reform pedagogy in non-major classes while retaining a traditional approach in the genera l chemistry class. Finally, in terms of the reported experiences of the workshop particip ants, the MID workshops were influential in supporting actual pedagogical change. The data from the case study and the pre and post workshop surveys have provided four key findings. (1) Because faculty from all educational institutional levels are attending the MIDP workshops, it appears th at there is systemic interest in reform. However, the MIDP participants demography are different from the ACS census. This finding suggests that those who show an interest in reform by their attendance to a faculty development workshop, are not representa tive of the general academic chemist population. Therefore, the MIDP data may not be generalizable to the entire academic

PAGE 161

150 field. (2) Faculty conceptions about how they learned chem istry appear to have an impact on how receptive they are to implement reform pedagogy in the general chemistry course. Courses for non-majors and possibly higher level chemistry courses are not as affected by these conceptions. Because lecturin g is still used extensively in the general chemistry course across all se ttings, future reform dissemi nation programs must address this course specifically, the conceptions faculty have regarding their own learning experiences as being normative, and the percep tion that the course content is normative. (3) Faculty report differentially about the in fluence of administrative control on their teaching at the lower level institutions. So me of these faculty attempt to meet the administrations objectives while attempting to incorporate a higher level of student questioning. Future dissemination programs n eed to solicit and address administration participation to support the reform effort. (4) The uptake of some reform practices appear to be happening among lower ranking faculty. Because this group does not have job security, it is recommended that administrations wishing to support reform in their institution, give clear indicat ions for reward and tenure considerations for implementing reform pedagogy.

PAGE 162

151 VI. SYNTHESIS A MODEL OF REFORM This work began with a desc ription of the history of reform and two models of reform presented by different authors. Here a model of reform is developed based on the data gathered in this investigation which will be compared and contrasted with the earlier models. At the core of the reform movement are key perspectives promoted by the catalyst organizations described in the Introduction. Below are a few of these perspectives, recapped: Knowledge is constructed in the mind of the learner The learners prior knowledge and learne r contexts affect what is learned The learner contexts include the wider community in which the learner lives Both the learner and the wider community determine meaningful subject content Understanding occurs through a cognitive process called the learning cycle Reform teaching approaches intentionally engage the learning cycle Promoting the learning process takes prio rity over amount of subject content Learning is exhibited by conceptual cha nge in subject cont ent rather than a capacity to apply algorithmic rubrics

PAGE 163

152 Teaching approaches that involve pro cess-oriented guided inquiry-based group learning best approaches the re alization of all of the above. The foundational premises of these perspe ctives belong to a constructivist or non-positivist paradigm which has been given various labels in the literature including a student-focused or conceptual change paradi gm. Part of the thrust in science reform educational literature has been to present arguments in support of the non-positivist paradigm. (34, 36, 41, 48, 51, 52, 92, 93, 94, 96) Data demonstrating the insufficient capacity of higher education to overcome mi sconceptions in core or fundamental science concepts have been attributed to in fluences of the positiv ist paradigm on teaching methods. (34, 36, 41, 48, 51, 52, 92, 93, 94, 96) The foundation premises of the positivist paradigm argue for the authority of the univers al reality depicted in science texts and in the lectures of teachers. Th ere have also been various la bels given to this paradigm which include a teacher-focused paradigm. Arguments in favor of either one or the other paradigms will not be presented here because they have been made elsewhere and will detract from the work at hand. From the onset of this work, the merit of reform and its supporting paradigm is assumed, and read ers interested in a discussion giving more depth to these arguments are referred to literature on this topic. The research in this work seeks to dete rmine, in part, what teaching conceptions participants in a reform workshop have a nd whether there is evidence for the possible influence of their teaching conceptions on th eir observed teaching approaches. It may seem likely that if their teaching conceptions are infused with one or the other paradigms, positivist or non-positivist, that their teaching approach might reflect such orientation in

PAGE 164

153 favor of or against reform implementation. However, as indicated earlier in the discussion on prior literature, several factors might also mitigate such influences. Therefore evidence provided by the data to construct a model of how teaching conceptions relate to practice would be help ful in our understanding of the contexts of successful reform implementation. This discussion will focus first on the dis tinctions of the cas e study participants from the other workshop partic ipants and the workshop facilitators who promoted reform. The sample (N=203) of MID Project works hop participants who pa rticipated in the Teaching Approaches Inventory Survey submitt ed responses that were distinctively less oriented toward a conceptual change orientat ion (a reform orientation) relative to the facilitators. This might be unde rstandable insofar that they might still be assimilating the reform paradigm. However this assumption is questionable in light of the case study data. The case study faculty had some memb ers who attended the earlier workshop and whom might have had more time to adopt re form perspectives. However in both scales the case study faculty did not differ significantly from the larger sample of survey takers. Yet, the case study faculty submitted responses that were not significantly different from the facilitators on the conceptual change s cale and only differed in their responses to information transmission scale. This re sult suggests that moving faculty along a continuum from a teacher-focused paradigm to a student-focused paradigm is not what it was anticipated to be. Rather than one c ontinuum there appears to be two operating simultaneously. Furthermore it calls into que stion the notion of a transition from one paradigm to the other because it appears pos sible to have conceptions of one paradigm

PAGE 165

154 nestled within conceptions of another. Exam ples of this are seen in faculty who retain the reform paradigm for particular circum stances (courses for non-majors) and insist on the ill suitability of reform approaches in ot hers (the general chemistry course) regardless of the suitability of those circumstances for reform approaches as seen by reformers. Similar behavior regarding the adoption of a new paradigm (in cognitive literature paradigms are described as belief systems) has been described before in cognitive science literature on how learners adopt ideas which refute the va lidity of previously held conceptions. (34, 38) If the previously held conceptions belonged to a per ipheral set of beliefs which are not held as strongly as cor e beliefs, then the learner may exhibit more readiness to adopt the new concepts. On the other hand, should the new concepts be antithetical to the learners core beliefs, the learner might engage in creative ways to adopt the new ideas while retaining the older concepts. To accomplish this, the learner finds ways to create a boundary between th e closely held core beliefs and the new concepts. It may be possible that the be havior observed in the case study faculty regarding their percep tions about implementing reform in their general chemistry courses, is an example of this phenomenon. If the case study faculty hold concep tual boundaries between competing conceptions, then the boundaries might be found in the explanations they give to justify why the general chemistry course, but not necessarily other courses, lacked appropriateness for the application of reform approaches. Several explanations were given that followed a similar theme. Namely, the numerous topics that constitute the subject content of the genera l chemistry course and the wa ys that the faculty have

PAGE 166

155 successfully learned it, indicate to them a need for and the success of the traditional lecture approach. This is an approach which they likely experienced themselves as students in general chemistry, a nd according to their reports, is still widely practiced and considered appropriate among their colleague s and importantly, their administrations. This rationale might seem valid if research confirmed that students learn effectively and understand the subject content in the lecturebased class. But data from research on student outcomes in lecture cl asses do not support this view .(151) Therefore the presentation of these arguments might indi cate a conceptual bounda ry as described by cognitive scientists between their core con cepts about teaching science and the reform perspectives. Alternatively, some of the case study f aculty whose practice varied somewhat from a traditional lecture also mentioned th eir inhibitions to fully implement reform approaches because of a lack of depart mental or administrative support. These explanations might be indicating the presence of more than a conceptual boundary but a social boundary either between the faculty and their administrations or colleagues, or to reform practices or both. (92, 93, 94,95) While differences in job security (e.g. tenure status) might make obvious social boundaries, propensities to express reform oriented thinking, whether in behavior or speech did not appear to correla te to tenure status in the case study, but to personal histories. The Statewide Systemic Initiatives mode l indicated that reform dissemination influenced both sectors, administration and faculty and that administrations supported the preferred outcomes for students. The pyramid structure in this model had no obvious role

PAGE 167

156 for teaching conceptions and faculty histories in reform uptake. Therefore, the model of reform proposed here varies considerably from the model proposed by Zucker et al, evaluators of the Statewide Systemic In itiatives (Figure 3) because the faculty conceptions have a prominent role in the proposed model. Similar to the model that Gess-Newsome et al proposed, the model depicted in Figure 7 emphasizes the importance of personal histories in teaching practice. The entire model in Figure 7 might appropriately fit in the Gess-Newsome model, in the box framing personal practical theories and knowle dge and beliefs. However the variation proposed here from Figure 4 is not trivia l. Gess-Newsome pr oposed that critical intervention, pedagogical dissatisfaction and contextual dissatisfaction were critical features that contributed to the developmen t of reform practices. And as mentioned earlier, faculty dissatisfaction in their teaching approaches has been well documented in conceptual change theory and research as a necessary precondition to pedagogical change. However in the observations in this work, the close relationship between dissatisfaction and pedagogical change appear s less clear. Pedagogical dissatisfaction was described by faculty in the case study who did make the greatest strides in reform practices, generally. But this dissatisfaction did not appear to influence their perspectives or practice regarding the purported normative content of the general chemistry course. Greg, and Kim made significant strides toward practicing reform in their respective nonmajor classes, but neither Kim Greg or Marc us considered conducting a reform approach in general chemistry feasible pedagogically or appropriate for learners of general chemistry content. Therefore the findings of this study would suggest that modifications

PAGE 168

157 to both models of reform are necessary and a combination of both models appears to be required to depict the observe d behaviors and theories in use. But the role of dissatisfaction has been left out of this propos ed model because it does nt appear to be a factor that strongly influences change in the general chemistry course in either the field observations or in the survey data. Figure 7. Model of Reform The model proposed here depicts in the lower quadrant, influences of broad contexts such as administrative constraint s and/or controlling in fluences of senior colleagues mentioned by all of the case study faculty with the exception of Howard and General Chemistry (for majors) for non-majors Social Contexts I: Organization Colleagues/ Community Level of Institution Public or Private Administration/org philosophy Social Contexts II: Reform Interests/workshop participants Personal demography Social Contexts II: Non-visible reform interests/ Academic chemists Community Personal demography Learning History Teaching Conceptions Philosophy Teaching Learning Philosophy History Teaching Practices Teaching Practices Student Outcomes Student Learning History Student Affect Motivation Reform Traditional All classes Traditional Student Outcomes

PAGE 169

158 Evan. This context is a common experience fo r both reform interested faculty composing the left side of the model as well as the greater academic community composing the right side of the model. The models proposed by both Zucker et al and Gess-Newsome and literature cited in the rationale chapters of this dissertation al so referenced the influences of broad contexts common to teaching envir onments. Therefore the model proposed here does not differ from the others regarding the im portance of mutual institutional contexts. Because this model represents an expl anation specific for academic chemists rather than a general model for all academic science faculty or academics generally, the structure within the model reflects specific relationships that might not be found in the earlier models. For example, the bifurcation of academic chemists into two different groups makes this model distinct from the earlier models. The proposed distinction between sides of teaching practice lies in the influence of personal history derived from learning experiences, personal demography and te aching experiences that appear to have a combined effect to encourage reform-oriented teaching conceptions in chemistry. Neither this study nor any other has explored the teaching conceptions and practices of those who populate the right side of the model, thus the model shows a proposed relation that those who are not visibly involved in reform oriented functions will likely have teaching practices that reflect traditional approaches. The model conveys that the chemists on the right side represent the academic chemists documented demographically by the ACS census. The major demographi c features that characterize the ACS community (predominately male, white, seni or faculty) described earlier have not changed across the decades that the census has been taken. Such stable characteristics

PAGE 170

159 suggest that there exist factor s in broad institutio nal contexts that influence and support this stability, but they have not been expl ored here beyond representing a community that contrasts demographically with the participants on the left side. The faculty on the right side of the model are older and more expe rienced faculty, representing fewer women and ethnically less diverse faculty than those who participate in faculty development workshops, practice reform pedagogy, and who are depicted on the left side of the model. But whatever factors that might be at the root of these distinctions between groups among academic chemists, they do not appear to create a linear behavioral transition toward reform on the left side. Furthermore, even when reform-oriented conceptions are articulated or observed behavior ally, they appear to be seque stered behaviorally in ways that do not challenge the continued implementation of positivist orientations in classes that prepare students for continued studies within the chemistry discipline. The differential behavior appears to support different pedagogies fo r different students populating different classes. Thus this mode l depicts different practices for different groups of students among the faculty populating the left side of the model. Majors within the discipline are treated similarly by faculty on both sides of the model, yet the faculty on the left side hold reform values and perspe ctives that do not always translate to their practice based on their perception of student needs within the discipline. While these behaviors and perspectives are not unique, and they might not appear problematic to the greater community of academic chemists, they do not contribute to systemic reform within the discipline. Re searchers have called atten tion to the limitations of a functional science literacy taken from a t echnocratic perspectiv e which gives scant

PAGE 171

160 support to the epistemological and intellectual development of future scientists and teachers of science. (152) Therefore this model depict s that non-major students who experience the reform pedagogy will likely have different outcomes pertaining to their learning experiences that will distinguish them from majors who do not. This model does not account for the importance of these issues insofar as it only reflects and categorizes observations in this study and not the desired goals of reform. Implications and Future Studies Based on the observations in this study, se veral trends have been observed that provoke further questions and more study. One question regarding the facultys perspectives entails the constr aints in general chemistry cont ent: How wide spread are the views presented in this study concerning the normative content of general chemistry and the consequential outlook that a larger repe rtoire of teaching approaches cannot service this course better than lecture? Given how convinced these particip ants were in their interviews, especially those who were engage d in reform practices for non-majors, there appears to be indications that this phenom ena is wide spread and entrenched but not typically apparent in survey data. Thus this investigation indicates that future work is needed to expand the qualitativ e approach used in this research to study more in-class instruction of more participants in reform di ssemination projects to conclude whether this phenomenon is generalizable to the gr eater academic chemists community. A critical feature that differentiates this study from the Gess-Newsome study was the impact of dissatisfaction on developing te aching approaches. Both studies revealed

PAGE 172

161 that a favorable disposition toward reform practices as a necessary precondition for adopting reform practices. Both studies also revealed the pr esence of pedagogical dissatisfaction as a component of adopting nonlecture based practices. However faculty in the case study partitioned th eir adoption of reform to upper level classes for majors and for non-majors at the introductory level. Th ese faculty hold to a common personal theory about the immutability of the general chemis try course for majors that appears to be linked to their own learning a nd their practices in their ge neral chemistry courses. Therefore determining whether and to what degree this phenomenon persists throughout the whole academic chemistry community might lead to finding new ways to amplify their dissatisfaction with their general chem istry course practices, leading to systemic reform in undergraduate chemistry. It is unclear whether th e practice of sequestering reform pedagogy to higher academic levels and to non-majors is linked sole ly to participants histories. Many of the participants claimed that they were infl uenced by both senior faculty and their administrations. Therefore, future studi es should focus on triangulating participant conceptions and practices with administrative members conceptions and their influence on faculty practices. Careful interviews with members of their administrations appear to be warranted. The literature re view given in the introduction of this work indicates that such study of organizational influences w ould provide greater depth to in-class observations and personal histories in teaching experiences. Distinctions in practices performed across different institutional levels were observed in this study. However, these observations indicated th at faculty appeared to be

PAGE 173

162 influenced more by class size and scale of course organization and coordination rather than by institutional cultures. In contrast to these observations however, some of the faculty admitted in their interviews the existe nce of organizational influences that were not related to issues of scale. (Note: some of these comm ents appear in Appendix F.) Therefore future work should explore these findings, specifically whether faculty views about organizational culture compare with obs ervations regarding scale, to determine whether both faculty views and observed distinctions are common. A study that specifically investigates and triangulates faculty views and class characteristics with institutional social-organizational characteristi cs will help to clarify how these contexts mitigate faculty practice as described by the case study faculty in this investigation. Since this study revealed that the dominant group comprising academic chemists in the ACS census is not represented in th e MIDP workshops, future studies should be directed toward establishing the extent of systemic reform in undergraduate chemistry among this group. Other dissemination proj ects should compare their demographic results with those presented here to determ ine what degree the community documented in the ACS census participates in and promotes systemic reform. Given that ACS, as a scientific and scholarly societ y, purports to support and pub lishes documents to promote systemic reform, there appears to be an unusual phenomenon that its dominant academic constituent does not. As mentioned in the last s ection preceding this chapter, faculty conceptions about how they learned chemistry appear to have an impact on how receptive they are to implement reform pedagogy in the general chem istry course. If this is confirmed by

PAGE 174

163 future research, several actions are recomme nded. Future reform dissemination programs must address the general chemistry course sp ecifically and the conception that faculty appear to have regarding their own le arning experiences as being normative. Constructivist learning theory must be expl ained to faculty and documentation supporting learning outcomes from the appl ication of process oriented teaching approaches need to be disseminated. The perception that the ge neral chemistry course content must be normative should be approached with diplomacy and with research indicating that this perception is unfounded. Research results that show improved student postimplementation performance both at upper di visions and across di fferent professional examinations, must be published and disseminated. Chemistry academics have a tendency to value their persona l views of their learning experience in general chemistry above consensual data, when considering and valuing teaching approaches. Therefore, f aculty also need to be encouraged to distinguish their personal view s about their personal experience and personal preferences from those supported by cognitive research and research conducted by chemical education researchers across contexts and pe ople. As scientists, they should be encouraged to value data from the field of chemical educational research that might not coincide with their perception of thei r personal history of learning chemistry. Last, administrations should put money where their mouth is, that is provide time and additional income to those learning to implement new pedagogy. Rewarding systemic reform monetarily and with time is a clear message of institutional support. Therefore, funding agencies such as NSF, NI H and ACS should continue to solicit and

PAGE 175

164 fund institutions that consistently maintain re form practices in undergraduate chemistry. Furthermore, the case study data in this research has show n that self reportssurvey dataare insufficient alone to confirm consis tent and systemic practice. Thus reports need to be substantiated by funded evalua tion field research a nd evaluation programs conducted by trained researchers in chem ical education. Perhaps these are the institutional factors that wi ll help to bring about a syst emic change of practice in undergraduate chemistry, among the faculty w ho are the dominant academic constituency of ACS and among the faculty who are not.

PAGE 176

165 REFERENCES 1. Culliton, B.J., The Dismal State of Science Literacy. Science, 1989 243 (4891): p. 600. 2. Maienschein, J., Scientific Literacy. Science, 1998 281 (5379): p. 917. 3. NSF, Shaping the future: New expectations for undergraduate education in science, mathematics, engineer ing and technology (NSF96-139). 1996, National Science Foundation. 4. Seymour, E. and N.M. Hewitt, Talking about Leaving Ethnography and Assessment Research. 1994, Boulder Colorado : Bureau of Sociological Research University of Colorado. 5. Seymour, E. and N. Hewitt, Talking about leaving: Wh y undergraduates leave the sciences. 1997, Boulder, CO.: Westview. 6. Seymour, E., Tracking the Processes of Change in US Undergraduate Education in Science, Mathematics, Engineering, and Technology. Science Education, 2001 86 : p. 79-105. 7. NSF, NSF 92-1 National Science Foundation Annual Report 1992. nsf921, 1992. 8. Eiseman, J.W., et al., Evaluation of the Division of Undergraduate Educations Course and Curriculum Development Program in NSF 98-39 1997, NSF. 9. SRI, et al., Evaluation of the National Sc ience Foundation's Undergraduate Faculty Enhancement Program 2001, National Science Foundation 94-52964. 10. Stokstad, E., Reintroducing the Intro Course. Science, 2001 293 p. 1608. 11. Schulz, W., Reshaping Science Education at NSF. Chemical and Engineering News, 2000 78 (4): p. 27-30. 12. Yarnell, A., Focusing on Reform. Chemical and Engineering News, 2002 80 (43): p. 35-36. 13. Cech, T.R., Rebalancing Teaching and Research. Science, 2003 299 (5604): p. 165. 14. Frechtling, J.A., et al., Teacher Enhancement Programs: A Perspective of the Last Four Decades 1995, National Science Foundation. 15. Hamilton, L.S., et al., Studying Large-Scale Reforms of Instructional Practice: An Example from Mathematics and Science. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 2003 25 (1): p. 1-29. 16. Service, R.F., Assault on the Lesson Plan. Science, 1994 266 (5186): p. 856-858. 17. Mervis, J., Mixed Grades for NSF's Bold Reform of Statewide Education. Science, 1998 282 (5395): p. 1800-1805.

PAGE 177

166 18. Greenwood, M.R.C. and K.K. North, Science Through the Looking Glass: Winning the Battles But Losing the War? Science, 1999 286 (5447): p. 20722078. 19. Bloch, E., Education and Human Resources at the National Science Foundation. Science, 1990 249 (4971): p. 839-840. 20. Handelsman, J., et al., Scientific Teaching. Science, 2004 304 (5670): p. 521-522. 21. Culatta, E., New Modes for Making Scientists. Science, 1994 266 (5186): p. 875888. 22. ACS, Educational Policies for National Sur vival, A Statement of the American Chemical Society 1989, American Chemical Society: Washington D.C. 23. ACS, A CPT Commentary on Introductory Chemistry: Is There a Problem? 1990, American Chemical Society Committ ee on Professional Training: Washington D.C. 24. Jacobs, M., Careers for 2002 and Beyond: Focus on Diversity. Chemistry and Engineering News, 2002 80 (26): p. 35-39. 25. NSF, Program Announcement 97-29. Division of Undergraduate Programs, 1997. 26. SRI-International, Evaluating the National Science Foundation's Chemistry Initiative: A Workshop. Higher Education Policy and Evaluation, Center for Science, Technology and Educational Development, 2001. REC Contract No. 9912172 (SRI Project No. P10549.003). 27. Bunce, D., et al., Chemistry Education Research-The Task Force on Chemical Education Research 1992, The ACS Division of Chemical Education. 28. NSF, S. Ege, and O. Chapman. Innovation and Change in the Chemistry Curriculum in Division of Undergraduate Education 1993. Washington D.C.: National Science Foundation. 29. Wink, D.J., Shaping the Future: A Developing NSF Feature. Journal of Chemical Education, 1999 76 (4): p. 461. 30. NAS, From Analysis to Action: Unde rgraduate Education in Science, Mathematics, Engineering, and Technology in National Academy of Sciences 1996, Center for Science, Mathematics, and Engineering Education National Research Council: Washington, D.C. 31. Hutchinson, J. and M. Huberman, Knowledge dissemination and use in science and mathematics education: a literature review in Prepared for the Directorate of Education and Human Resources, NSF, Editor. 1993, University of Pittsburgh, The Networks Inc. 32. NSF, A Report on the National Science Foundation's Efforts to Assess the Effectiveness of It s Education Programs 1996, National Science Foundation. 33. SRI, et al., The SSI's Impacts on Classroom Practice 1998, National Science Foundation: Menlo Park, California. 34. Gess-Newsome, J., et al., Educational Reform, Personal Practical Theories, And Dissatisfaction: The Anatomy of C hange in College Science Teaching. American Educational Research Journal, 2003 40 (3): p. 731-767. 35. NRC, National Science Education Standards in National Research Council 1996, National Academy Press: Washington DC.

PAGE 178

167 36. Strike, K.A. and G.J. Posner, A Revisionist Theory of Conceptual Change in Philosophy of Science, Cognitive Psychology, and Educational Theory and Practice R.A. Duschl and R.J. Hamilton, Ed itors. 1992, State University of New York Press: New York. p. 147-176. 37. Byers, A. and M.A. Fitzgerald, Networking for Leadership, Inquiry, and Systemic Thinking: A New Approach to Inquiry-Based Learning. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 2002 11 (No.1): p. 81-91. 38. Eick, C.J. and C.J. Reed, What Makes an Inquiry-Oriented Science Teacher? The Influence of Learning Histories on Stude nt Teacher Role Identity and Practice. Science Education, 2002 86, p. 401-416. 39. ACS, Undergraduate Professional Educati on in Chemistry Guidelines and Evaluation Procedures 2003, Committee on Professiona l Training: Washington DC. 40. Bowen, C.W., A Quantitative Literature Review of Cooperative Learning Effects on High School and College Chemistry Achievement. Journal of Chemical Education, 2000 77 (1): p. 116-119. 41. Spencer, J.N., New Directions in Teaching Chemistry: A Philosophical and Pedagogical Basis. Journal of Chemical Education, 1999. 76 (4): p. 566-569. 42. Lewis, S.E. and J.E. Lewis, Departing from Lectures: An Evaluation of a PeerLed Guided Inquiry Alternative. Journal of Chemical Education, 2005 82 (1): p. 135-139. 43. Farrel, J.J., R.S. Moog, and J.N. Spencer, A Guided Inquiry General Chemistry Course. Journal of Chemical Education, 1999 76 (4): p. 570-574. 44. Hanson, D. and T. Wolfskill, Process Workshops-A New Model of Instruction. Journal of Chemical Education, 2000 77 (1): p. 120-130. 45. Odom, A.L. and J. Settlage, Teachers' Understandings of the Learning Cycle as Assessed With a Two Tier Test. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 1996 7 (2): p. 123-42. 46. Abraham, M.R., Research on instruction strategies. Journal of College Science Teaching, 19881989 18 (3): p. 185-187. 47. Settlage, J., Understanding the Learning Cycle: Influences on Abilities to Embrace the Approach by Preservi ce Elementary School Teachers. Science Education, 2000 84 p. 43-50. 48. Lawson, A.E., Science teaching and the development of thinking 1995, Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Company. 49. Marek, E.A. and A.M.L. Cavallo, The learning cycle: Elementary school science and beyond 1997, Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. 50. Abraham, M.R., Inquiry and the learning cycle in Chemists' Guide to Effective Teaching N.J. Pienta, M.M. Cooper, and T.J. Greenbowe, Editors. 2005, Pearson Education: Upper Saddle River, NJ. 51. Lincoln, Y.S. and E.G. Guba, Naturalistic Inquiry 1985, Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications, Inc. 52. POGIL. Process Oriented Guided Inquiry Learning [cited; Available from: http://www.pogil.org/.

PAGE 179

168 53. Davis, M.E., Knowing Others and Other Ways of K nowing: Cultural Issues in the Teaching of Science in Professional Development Leadership And the Diverse Learner J. Rhoton and P. Bowers, Editors 2001, National Science Teachers' Association Press: Arlington, VA. p. 113-124. 54. MID-Project. Multi-Initiative Dissemination Pr oject/NSF 2000-2003 Instructional Change in Chemistry [cited; Available from: http://www.cchem.berkeley.edu/~midp/main.html. 55. Gosser, D.K. and V. Roth, The Workshop Chemistry Project: Peer-Led-TeamLearning. Journal of Chemical Education, 1998 75 (2): p. 185. 56. Russel, A., O. Champman, and P. Wedgner, Molecular Science: NetworkDeliverable Curricula. Journal of Chemical Education, 1998. 75 (5): p. 578. 57. Anthony, S., et al., The ChemLinks and ModularCHEM consortia: Using Active and Context-Based Learning To Teach Stude nts How Chemistry is Actually Done. Journal of Chemical Education, 1998 75 (3): p. 322. 58. Landis, C.R., et al., The New Traditions consortium: Shifting from a FacultyCentered Paradigm to a Student-Centered Paradigm. Journal of Chemical Education, 1998 75 (6): p. 741. 59. Magner, J.T. and J. Barreto, NSF Curriculum Reform, Get Involved! Journal of Chemical Education, 1998 75 (8): p. 956. 60. Gutwill-Wise, J.P., The Impact of Active and Context-Based Learning in Introductory Chemistry Cou rses: An Early Evaluation of the Modular Approach. Journal of Chemical Education, 2001 78 (5): p. 684-690. 61. Prosser, M., K. Trigwell, and P. Taylor, A phemonographic study of academics' conceptions of science learning and teaching. Learning and Instruction, 1994 4 (217-231). 62. Bonwell, C.C. and J.A. Eison, Active Learning: Creati ng Excitement in the Classroom in ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Reports Vol. 1. 1991, The George Washington University School of Education and Human Development: Washington DC. p. 98pp. 63. Novak, J.D., Meaningful learning: The essential factor for conceptual change in limited or inappropriate pr opositional hierarchies le ading to empowerment of learners. Science Education, 2002 July p. 548-571. 64. Niaz, M., A.M. Damarys Aguilera, Gustavo Liendo. Department of Chemistry, Estado Sucre, Venezuela 6101A, Arguments, contradictions, resistances, and conceptual change in students' underst anding of atomic structure (Research Article). Science Education, 2002 86 (4): p. 505-525. 65. Posner, G.J., et al., Accommodation of a Scientific Conception: Toward a Theory of Conceptual Change. Science Education, 1982 66 (2): p. 211-227. 66. Bretz, S.L., Novak's Theory of Education: Human Constructivism and Meaningful Learning. Journal of Chemical Education, 2001 78 67. Apple, D.K., An Introduction to the Philosophy of Process Education 2000: Pacific Crest. 68. Apple, D.K. Nurturing Self-Growers: Orientation to Process Education in Staff and Program Development 2004. Brevard Community College: Pacific Crest.

PAGE 180

169 69. Apple, D.K. and K. Krumsieg, Designing and Implementing a Quality Program Assessment System: Program Assessment Handbook 2002, Lisle, IL.: Pacific Crest, Inc. 70. Harrison, A.G. and D.F. Treagust, Learning about Atoms, Molecules, and Chemical Bonds: A Case Study of Multiple-Model Use in Grade 11 Chemistry. Sci Ed, 2000 84 : p. 351-381. 71. Zoller, U. and Y.J. Dori, Algorithmic, LOCS and HOC S (chemistry) exam questions" performance and atti tudes of college students. Int. J. Sci. Edu, 2002 24 (2): p. 185-203. 72. Bowen, C.W. and A.J. Phelps, Demonstration-Based Cooperative Testing in General Chemistry: A Broader Assessment-of-Learning Technique. Journal of Chemical Education, 1997 74 (6): p. 715-719. 73. ACS, Science Education Policies for Sustainable Reform 2001, Society Committee on Education. 74. Russel, A., Symposium on Systemic Reform in Chemistry. Journal of Chemical Education, 1997 74 (11): p. 1268. 75. Colwell, R.R. and E.M. Kelly, Science Learning, Science Opportunity. Science, 1999 286 (5438): p. 237. 76. Bardeen, M.G. and L.M. Lederman, Coherence in Science Education. Science, 1998 281 (5374): p. 178-179. 77. Borthwick, A.C., et al., Achieving Successful School-University Collaboration. Urban Education, 2003 38 (3): p. 330-371. 78. Camblin, L.D. and J. Steger, Rethinking faculty development. Higher Education, 2000 39 p. 1-18. 79. Oakes, J. and S. Wells, Detracking for high student achievement. Educational Leadership, 1998 55 (6). 80. Clune, W., Toward a Theory of Systemic Reform: The Case of Nine NSF Statewide Systemic Initiatives N.S. Foundation, Editor. 1998, Center Document Service, Wisconsin Center for Education Research. 81. SRI, et al., Evaluation of the National Scien ce Foundation's Statewide Systemic Initiatives (SSI) Program: Assessing the SSI's Impacts on Student Achievement: An Imperfect Science 1998, National Science Foundation: Arlington, Va. 82. Bullough, R.V. and C. Kridel, Workshops, in-service teac her education, and the Eight-Year Study. Teaching and Teacher Education, 2003. 9 p. 665-679. 83. Lieberman, A., Practices that Support Teacher Development: Transforming Conceptions of Professional Learning in Innovating And Evaluating Science Education: NSF Evaluation Forums, 1992-1994 http://www.ehr.nsf.gov/REC/publicati ons/NSF_EF/lieber.htm, Editor. 1995, Prepared under Contract #SED 92-55369: Westat, Inc. 84. Cranton, P., Self-directed and Transformati ve Instructiona l Development. Journal of Higher Education, 1994 65 (6): p. 726-744. 85. Clarke, D. and H. Hollingsworth, Elaborating a model of teacher professional growth. Teaching and Teacher Education, 2002 18 : p. 947-967.

PAGE 181

170 86. Joyce, B. and B. Showers, Student Achievement Through Staff Development 3rd ed. 2002, Alexandra, VA: Associatio n for Supervision and Curriculum Development. 87. NSF, Partnerships for Innovation 2003, Program Solicitation: Washington D.C. 88. Silver, H., Does a University Have a Culture? Studies in Higher Education, 2003 28 (2). 89. Braxton, J.M. and L.L. Hargens, Variation Among Academic Disciplines: Analytical Frameworks and Research Higher Education: Handbook of Theory and Research, ed. J.C. Smart. Vol. XI. 1996, New York: Agathon Press. 90. Wheeler, G., The Wake-up Call We Dare Not Ignore. Science, 1998 279 (5357): p. 1611. 91. Fiol, C.M. and M.A. Lyles, Organizational Learning. The Academy of Management Review, 1985 10 (4): p. 803-813. 92. Mayberry, M., Reproductive and Resistant Pedagogi es: The Comparative Roles of Collaborative Learning and Feminist Pedagogy in Science Education. Journal of Research in Science Education, 1998 35 (4): p. 443-459. 93. Bowles, S. and H. Gintis, Schooling in capitalist Amer ica : educational reform and the contradictions of economic life / 1976, New York: Basic Books. 94. Oakes, J., Classroom Social Relationships: Ex ploring the Bowles and Gintis Hypothesis. Sociology of Education, 1982 55 : p. 197-212. 95. Fenwick, T.J., Expanding Conceptions of Experien tial Learning: A Review of the Five Contemporary Perspectives of Cognition. Adult Education Quarterly, 2000 50 (4): p. 243-272. 96. Bodner, G.M., Constructivism: A Theory of Knowledge. Journal of Chemical Education, 1986 63 (10): p. 873-878. 97. Bunce, D.M., Does Piaget Still Have Anything to Say to Chemists? Journal of Chemical Education, 2001 78 : p. 1107. 98. Neuman, W.L., Social Research Methods: Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches 2003, Allyn and Bacon: Boston. p. 62-66, 69-75. 99. Prosser, M. and K. Trigwell, Understanding Learning and Teaching: The experience in Higher Education 1999: The Society for Research into HIgher Education & and Open University Press. 194. 100. Kane, R., S. Sandretto, and C. Heath, Telling half the Story: A Critical Review of Research on the Teaching Beliefs a nd Practices of University Academics. Review of Educational Research, 2002 72 (2): p. 177-228. 101. SRI, et al., Evaluation of NSF's (SSI) Pr ogram: The SSIs and Professional Development for Teachers 1998, National Science Foundation Directorate for Education and Human Resources. 102. Murray, K. and R. MacDonald, The disjunction between lecturers' conceptions of teaching and their claimed educational practice. Higher Education, 1997 33 : p. 331-349. 103. Martin, E., et al., What University teachers teach and how they teach it. Instructional Science, 2000 28 : p. 387-412.

PAGE 182

171 104. Clark, S.M., M. Corcoran, and D.R. Lewis, The Case for an Institutional Perspective on Faculty Development. The Journal of Higher Education, 1986 57 (2): p. 176-195. 105. Kurtz, R.S., et al., Faculty Performance: Suggestions for the Refinement of the Concept and Its Measurement. Journal of Higher Education, 1989 60 (1): p. 4358. 106. Kyle, W., Untracking Science Education. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 1998 35 (10): p. 1065-1067. 107. Knight, P.T. and P.R. Trowler, Departmental-level cultures and the improvement of learning and teaching. Studies in Higher Education, 2000 25 (1): p. 70-83. 108. Weick, K., Educational Organizations as Loosely Coupled Systems. Administrative Science Quarterly, 1976 21 : p. 447-464. 109. Martin, E., et al., Variation in the Experience of Leadership of Teaching in Higher Education. Studies in Higher Education, 2003 28 (3): p. 247-260. 110. Olsen, D. and S.A. Maple, Gender Differences among Faculty at a Research University: Myths and Realities. Initiatives, 1993 55 (4): p. 33-42. 111. Olsen, D., S.A. Maple, and F.K. Stage, Women and Minority Job Satisfaction: Professional Role Interests, Professional Satisfactions, and Institutional Fit. Journal of Higher Education, 1995 66 (3): p. 267-293. 112. NSSE, The NSSE 2000 Report: National Benchm arks of Effective Educational Practice 2000, Indiana University: National Su rvey of Student Engagement: The College Student Report. 113. Antony, J. and K. Boatsman, Defining the Teaching-Leaning Function in Terms of Cooperative Pedagogy: An Empirica l Taxonomy of Faculty Practices. Paper presented at the annual meeting of th e Association for the Study of Higher Education (19th), 1994. 114. Hativa, N. Teaching in Research University: Professors' Conceptions Practices, and Disciplinary Differences in Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association 1997. 115. Perna, L.W., The Status of Women and Minor ities Among Community College Faculty. Research in Higher Education, 2003 44 (2): p. 205-240. 116. Kenen, P.B. and R.H. Kenen, Who Thinks Who's in Charge Here: Faculty Perceptions of Influence and Power in the University. Sociology of Education, 1978 51 (2): p. 113-123. 117. Smart, J.C. and C.A. Ethington, Disciplinary and institutional differences in undergraduate education goals in Disciplinary differences in teaching and learning: Implica tions for practice N. Hativa and M. Marincovich, Editors. 1995, Jossey-Bass: San Francisco. 118. Bourdieu, P. and J.C. Passeron, Reproduction in Education, Society and Culture 1977, Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. 119. Anyon, J., Ideology and United States History Books. Harvard Educational Review, 1979 49 (3).

PAGE 183

172 120. Percell, C.H. and P.W. Cookson, Microcomputers and Elite Boarding Schools: Educational Innovation and Social Reproduction. Sociology of Education, 1987 60 (2): p. 123-134. 121. Newmann, R., Disciplinary Differences and University Teaching. Studies in Higher Education, 2001 26 (2): p. 135-146. 122. Newmann, R., S. Parry, and T. Becher, Teaching and Learning in their Disciplinary Contexts: A Conceptual Analysis. Studies in Higher Education, 2002 27 (4): p. 405-417. 123. Justi, R. and J. Gilbert, Science teacher's knowledge about and attitudes towards the use of models and modeling in learning science. Int. J. Sci. Edu, 2002 24 (12): p. 1273-1292. 124. Roehrig, G.H. and J.A. Luft, Inquiry Teaching in High School Chemistry Classrooms: The Role of Knowledge and Beliefs. Journal of Chemical Education, 2004 81 (1): p. 1510-1516. 125. Kember, D., A RECONCEPTUALISATION OF THE RESEARCH INTO UNIVERSITY ACADEMICS CONCEPTIONS OF TEACHING. Learning and Instruction, 1997 7 (3): p. 255-275. 126. Entwistle, N., H. Tait, and V. McCune, Patterns of Response to an Approaches to Studying Inventory across C ontrasting Groups and Contexts. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 2000 15 (1): p. 33-48. 127. Samuelowicz, K. and J.D. Bain, Revisiting academics beliefs about teaching and learning. Higher Education, 2001 41 : p. 299-325. 128. Ajzen, I., From Intentions to actions: A theory of planned behavior in Action Control: From Cognition to Behavior J. Kuhl and K. Beckman, Editors. 1985, Springer-Verlag: New York. 129. Zint, M., Comparing Three Attitude-Behavior Theories for Predicting Science Teachers' Intentions. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 2002 39 (9): p. 819-844. 130. Haney, J.J., Teacher Beliefs and Intentions Re garding the Implementation of Science Education Reform Strands. Journal of Research in Science teaching, 1996 33 (9): p. 971-993. 131. Haney, J.J., et al., From Beliefs to Actions: The Beliefs and Actions of Teachers Implementing Change. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 2002 13 (3): p. 171-187. 132. Haney, J.J. and J. McArthur, Four Case Studies of Pros pective Science Teachers' Beliefs Concerning Construc tivist Teaching Practices. Science Education, 2002 86 : p. 783-802. 133. Clandinin, D.J. and F.M. Connelly, What counts as "personal" in studies of the personal. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 1987. 19 : p. 487-500. 134. Marland, P., Response to Clandinin and Connelly. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 1987 19 : p. 503-505. 135. Pajares, M.F., Teacher Beliefs and Educational Research: Cleaning up a Messy Construct. Review of Educational Research, 1992 62 : p. 307-332.

PAGE 184

173 136. Pratt, D.D., Conceptions of Teaching. Adult Education Quarterly, 1992 42 (4): p. 203-220. 137. Prosser, M. and K. Trigwell, Rational Perspectives on Higher Education Teaching and Learning in the Sciences. Studies in Higher Education, 1999 33 : p. 31-60. 138. Trigwell, K., M. Prosser, and F. Waterhouse, Relations between teachers approaches to teaching and student s approaches to learning. Higher Education, 1999 37 : p. 57-70. 139. ACS. Academic Chemists 2000 2001 [cited; Available from: http://www.chemistry.org/portal/a/c/ s/1/resources?id=3db6c18e41c011d6ea2e4fd 8fe800100. 140. Burke, K.A., T.J. Greenbowe, and J.I. Gelder, The Multi-Initiative Dissemination Project Workshops: Who Attends and How Effective Are They? Journal of Chemical Education, (Preprint). (preprint) 141. Trigwell, K. and M. Prosser, Changing Approaches to Teaching: a relational perspective. Studies in Higher Education, 1996 21 (2): p. 275-284. 142. Eybe, H. and H.-J. Schmidt, Quality Criteria and Exemplary Papers in Chemistry Education Research. International Journal of Science Education, 2001 23 (2): p. 209-225. 143. Arnold, D.O., Dimensional sampling: An approac h for studying a small number of casese. American Sociologist, 1970 5 : p. 147-150. 144. Baxter, J.A. and N.G. Lederman, Assessment and Measurement of Pedagogical Content Knowledge in Examining Pedagogical Content Knowledge J. GessNewsome and N.G. Lederman, Editors. 1999, Kluwer Academic Publishers: Dordrecht, The Netherlands. p. 147-161. 145. Bloom, B.S., et al., Taxonomy of educational object ives: The Classification Educational Goals. Handbook I: Cognitive Domain 1956, New York: David McKay. 146. Kang, K., Healthy Economy Yields Even Lower Rate for Doctoral Scientists and Engineers. Data Brief Division of Science Resources Studies, Directorate for Social, Behavioral, and Econom ic Sciences, 1999(NSF-99-340). 147. Nelson, D.J., "Nelson Diversity Surveys" Top Fifty Universities. http://cheminfo.chem.ou.edu/facu lty/djn/diversity/top50/html, 2002. 148. Cohen, J., Statisticall Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences 2nd ed. 1988, Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers. 149. Huang, C.-M., C.-C. Tsai, and C.-Y. Chang., An investigation of Taiwanese Early Adolescents' Views about the Nature of Science. Adolescence, 2005 40 (1): p. 645-655. 150. Green, S.B. and N.J. Salkind, Using SPSS for Windows and Macintosh 3rd ed. 2003, Upper Saddle River: Pearson Education Inc. 151. Bodner, G.M., I have found you an argument: The conceptual knowledge of beginning chemistry graduate students. Journal of Chemical Education, 1991 68 : p. 385-388.

PAGE 185

174 152. Zeidler, D.L., T.D. Sadler, ML. Simmons, E.V. Howes, Beyond STS: A ResearchBased Framework for SocioScientific Issues Education, Sci. Ed., 2005 89 : 357377.

PAGE 186


PAGE 187

176 APPENDIX A: CHEMICAL THINKING ACTIVITY Chemical Thinking Why? We have been applying fundamental c oncepts of chemical thinking from the earliest known times in human history. Archaeo logists report that our understanding and use of fermentation extends beyond thousands of years. We have purified chemicals such as oils and ointments for medicinal, cosm etic and culinary purposes. Coatings of particular chemicals such as salts, spi ces, fats and resins have been used for weatherproofing, curing, and ge neral protection from infestat ion of animals, insects and bacteria. While this knowledge has been acqui red over thousands of years, the discipline of chemistry as a science is more recent. We define chemistry as the study of matter and the changes it undergoes. But before we begi n to study matter, it is helpful to consider and define what matter is and how to diffe rentiate matter into different kinds of substances. Learning Objectives Identify and define matter Identify pure substances, mixtures, elements and compounds Success Criteria Quickly identify kinds of substances such as mixtures, elements and compounds, identify and define matter New Concepts Element, compound, pure substance, mixture, physical properties, chemical properties Vocabulary macroscopic, nanoscopic, composition, s ubscript, superscript, mass, weight Definitions In your own words, write definitions of matter, atoms and molecules

PAGE 188

APPENDIX A (continued) 177 Model 1: Classification of phenomena Below is a list of different kinds of phenomen a. Create two lists to separate what you might label as matter from what you would not label as matter. Add five more terms to each list of matter and not matter. Dust Air Steam Electricity Chirp Rust Sunlight Idea Pudding Pain Key questions 1.What is your criteria, in other words how were you ab le to distinguish between phenomena falling into these categor ies of matter and not matter? 2.What is the difference between mass and weight? 3. How would you find the mass of air?

PAGE 189

APPENDIX A (continued) 178 Model 2: Classification of Matter The table and diagram below show a few de finitions of kinds of matter and their relationships. Study this table a nd diagram and then using this information classify from the list below which is a pure substance and which is a mixture. Classification of Matter Macro Scale Nano Scale Pure Substances Element Cannot be broken down into simpler units Only one kind of atom Compound Fixed composition but capable of being broken down into elements Two or more elements in fixed combination Mixtures Variable composition of Elements and/or Compounds Variable assortment of atoms and/or molecules Kinds of Matter Relationships Matter in the Universe HOMOGENEOUS (SOLUTIONS, ALLOYS) Break down MIXTURES PURE SUBSTANCES Two or More HETEROGENEOUS Break down Compounds Elements Two or more

PAGE 190

APPENDIX A (continued) 179 List of Substances : White sugar Brown sugar metallic bracelet metallic earrings Baking Soda Wood Gold Beer Charcoal Diamond Pencil lead Classify these substances into mixtures and pure substances Key Question How do you know when something you see is a mixture or pure substance? Model 3: Atomic symbolism Sometimes it is hard to identify a pure substa nce from a mixture at the macroscopic level but it can be easier if we trie d to identify them at the nanoscopic level. For example below are dots which represent atoms which are the smallest part of an element. One dot is one atom and another similar dot is a diffe rent atom of the same element and two dots touching each other represents a molecule where two atoms are chemically bonded. Atoms of one element Molecules Draw a compound with 3 atoms

PAGE 191

APPENDIX A (continued) 180 Is this a compound? Why or why not? If it is not a compound how many substances are there? Is this a compound? Why or why not? If it is not a compound how many substances are there? Properties and Changes in Properties Definition: Any characteristic that can be used to describe or identify matter is called a property: eg size, amount odor, color, temperature Properties can also be classified as either physical or chemical depending on whether the property involves a change in the chemical makeup** of a substance. Physical properties are characteristics that do not involve a change in chemical makeup Chemical properties are characteristics that do involve a change in chemical makeup (**A chemical makeup is the composition a nd combination of atoms in a substance)

PAGE 192

APPENDIX A (continued) 181 Which of the phenomena & items below repr esent chemical or physical properties? Gasoline is flammable Electrically conductive wire Magnet sticks to fridge Density of water Baking soda mixed with vinegar makes bubbles Sugar tastes sweet Soap makes bubbles in water Exercises: 1. Classify each of the following as a C (for compound), E (element) and M (mixture) Water Brass Diamond Milk shake Sulfur Chicken soup Table salt Sugar Ice cube Diet coke Ethanol Ammonia Liquid nitrogen Carbon Steel Pancake syrup Gasoline Concrete Iron Candy bar Chocolate cake Lemon Wood Gold Laundry detergent Baking soda 2. Underline each of the following which is not an example of matter. Air heat paper dirt gasoline Light Water vapor Sand concepts sound Electricity Table salt Wood Soap sugar

PAGE 193

APPENDIX A (continued) 182 3. Write a C before each of the following statements that describes a chemical property and P before each that describes a physical property. Potassium metal melts at 64 degrees Celsius Sodium metal is soft and shiny Water is colorless Copper sulfate (root killer) is blue Ethanol is flammable Bromine is liquid a room temperature The density of water is 1 gram pe r milliliter at room temperature Magnesium reacts with oxygen Lemon juice tastes sour Diamonds are hard Silver will not react with hydrochloric acid Sodium metal can be eas ily cut with a knife Sugar dissolves in hot tea Sulfur burns in air forming sulfur dioxid e, which is a precur sor to acid rain 4. A sample of matter that contains only one kind of atom is: (Circle) A solution A homogeneous mixture An element An alloy A compound 5. Write a C before each of the following statements that describes a chemical change and a P before each statement that describes a physical change Fruit decays A window is broken Cream is separated from milk Photographic film is developed Gasoline is burned in an automobile engine Silverware tarnishes An electric iron is heated A potato is cooked in a microwave oven A pen writes Dry ice is changed from a solid to a gas Hydrogen is burned in air Baking soda reacts with acetic acid to produce carbon dioxide & water Dew forms on grass Classified documents are shredded into small pieces of paper

PAGE 194

APPENDIX A (continued) 183 6. How would you classify these substances according to the table and diagram of kinds of matter?

PAGE 195

184 APPENDIX B: SURVEYS Surveys pasted into dissert ation starting next page.

PAGE 196

APPENDIX B (continued) 185 Multi-Initiative Dissemination Pro j ect Pre-workshop Survey Please complete the following pre-workshop survey. The information that you provide project evaluators via this survey will be treated as confidential. The information will be compiled and used to create a general picture of MID Project Workshop Attendees. No specific identifyin g information will be made available to anyone outside the evaluation staff. Direct quotations used for any purpose will remain completely anonymous, that is, there will be no reference to identity or institution of respondents. Thank you for completing this survey. Important do not press the enter key or the return key while you are answering these questions. Your Browser will interpret either key the same as clicking the mouse on the Submit button. So BE CAREFUL and use the TAB key to move between the fields! What workshop will you be attending: 1a. Your Name: 1b. Your ID code is: 2. What is your gender? Choose Male Female 3. What is your ethnic group? 4. In what type of institution do you teach? Choose 2 Year 4 Year Undergrad 4 Year Masters 4 Year PhD High School 5. How long have you been teaching at one college level? (For HS teachers only, how long have you taught HS science?) Choose < 1 Year 1 5 Years 6 10 Years > Ten Years

PAGE 197

APPENDIX B (continued) 186 4. What is your tenure status? Choose Tenured Not yet Tenured Not on Tenure Track Other (see below) If you selected other in Question 6, please explain: 7a. What courses do you teach? (p lease mark all which apply) Preparatory Chem for liberal arts or nonscience students Chem For nursing, allied h ealth, applied biology, etc. Science, engineering, pre-professional majors Soph., Jr., and Sr. undergrad courses Other (please explain) 7b. Please select ONE of the courses that you teach and base the answers to the questions on the rest of this form on that ONE course. Please select one of the following categories that best identifies the course you will be describing. Preparatory Chem for liberal arts or nonscience students Chem for nursing, allied health, applied biology, etc Science, engineering, pre-professional majors Soph., Jr., and Sr. undergrad courses Other (please explain)

PAGE 198

APPENDIX B (continued) 187 7c. What is the approximate enrollment in this course per semester? Choose 1 25 26 50 51 75 75 100 101 200 > 200 8. What would you describe as the most impor tant goal(s) of your chemistry class? 9. What are the most serious challenges you face when instructing your students? 10. How would you describe the climate in your department in terms of faculty engaging in instructional reform?

PAGE 199

APPENDIX B (continued) 188 11. Which of the following teaching t echniques do you use to teach in your lecture section ? Please click on the approp riate box. Please select the three techniques you think are most effective. Techniques I use this technique Three most effective techniques I dont know what this is a. Instructor lecturing b. Students doing writing c. Students doing collaborative learning d. Instructor using conceptual questions e. Instructor using computer animations f. Instructor doing an experiment/demo g. Students doing an experiment/demo h. Students following guided inquiry i. Students working on worksheets/tutorials j Students doing in-class problemsolving k. Students participating in discussion l. Students working at the board or overhead m. Other 12. If you have recitation/discussion sections associated with your course, are they run by a TA or by you, the instructor? Choose Run by TA Run by Instructor We have no recitation discussion sections Workshops run by peer facilitators 13. Do you have undergraduate peer facilitat ors (students who help tutor other undergraduate students)? Choose Yes No

PAGE 200

APPENDIX B (continued) 189 14. Which of the following teaching t echniques do you use to teach in your laboratory section ? Please select the appropria te box. Also, please rank which three techniques you think are most effective. Techniques I use this technique Three most effective techniques I dont know what this is a. Students doing pre-lab assignments b. Instructors doing pre-lab instruction c. Students designing an experiment d. Students doing verification laboratories e. Students doing demonstrations f. Students doing guided inquiry g. Students doing discovery lab work h. Students preparing a lab notebook i. Students doing multi-week experiments j Instructors presenting/students doing lessons on laboratory safety K. Other 15. Describe any teaching techniques used in your classroom that have not been mentioned. 16. What methods do you currently use to a ssess student learning ? Please click on the checkbox(s) of the c hoice(s) that best descri bes your current practices. a. Examinations I use this technique Three most effective techniques I dont know what this is 1. ACS exams 2. Multiple choice questions (not ACS) 3. Essay or short answer questions 4. Show your work problems

PAGE 201

APPENDIX B (continued) 190 b. Other Activities I use this technique Three most effective techniques I dont know what this is 1. Group assignments, quizzes, or exams 2. Short writing assignments 3. Debates 4. Poster presentations 5. Defense of a position using data 6. Expert group act ivities (jigsaw) 7. Portfolios c. Laboratory Activities I use this technique Three most effective techniques I dont know what this is 1. Group assignments, quizzes, or exams 2. Lab reports 3. Pre-lab quizzes 4. Lab practical exams 5. Expert group act ivities (jigsaw) 6. Oral examinations 7. Student design and conducting of experiments d. Please describe any additional assessment practices you use: 17. Do you use conceptual questions or c onceptual understanding questions in your assessment practices? If no, please go to Question eighteen. If yes, please describe how you characteri ze a conceptual question:

PAGE 202

APPENDIX B (continued) 191 18. Please rank your familiarity with each of the MID projects before attending this MID workshop by selecting the appropriate boxes. a. ChemConnections (Chemlinks and MC2): Choose Not Familiar A Little Familiar Somewhat Familiar Very Familiar Currently Using b. Molecular Science: Choose Not Familiar A Little Familiar Somewhat Familiar Very Familiar Currently Using c. New Traditions: Choose Not Familiar A Little Familiar Somewhat Familiar Very Familiar Currently Using d. PLTL: Choose Not Familiar A Little Familiar Somewhat Familiar Very Familiar Currently Using

PAGE 203

APPENDIX B (continued) 192 19. How did you find out about the MID projects ? Please select all boxes that apply. Web site JCE article ACS or Gordon Conf. Colleague Email notice U.S. mail notice ACS local notice Other (please explain) a. ChemConnections (Chemlinks and MC2) b. Molecular Science c. New Traditions d. PLTL If you selected other, please explain below: 20. With which of the MID projects do you wi sh to become more familiar? (Please select all that apply. All of them ChemConnections Molecular Science New Traditions PLTL Dont know Not familiar enough with them 21. Do we need to change the registration process for the workshop and if so, how? Submit Form Start Over

PAGE 204

APPENDIX B (continued) 193 MIDP Evaluation Form Section 1: Demographics (Questions 2a 6c of 32) 2a. Which workshop did you attend? Select all the workshop/presentations you attended. Project Kaleidoscope Summer Instit ute, Snowbird, UT July 22-25, 2001 Florida Atlantic University Feb 23-24, 2001 University of Massachusetts at Dartmouth March 23-24 2001 University of Southern Colorado April 27-28 2001 Raritan Valley Community College Nov 16-17, 2001 Project Kaleidoscope Summer Institut e, Williamsburg, VA June 2-5, 2002 TxCEPT, Texas A&M Jan 25-26, 2002 University of South Florida Feb 22-23, 2002 The Ohio State University, Columbus March 22-23, 2002 University of Arizona, Tucson April 26-27, 2002 University of New Hampshire, Durham, NH Sept 27-28, 2002 University of Alabama-Birmingham Oct 11-12, 2002 University of Wisconsin, Madison June 7-9, 2001 (Chem Connections only) CSU-Fullerton, June 28-30, 2001 (Molecular Science only) Other (not listed) 2b Check if you have: Which of the following have you implemented? Used project development materials Authored your own materials 1. Calibrated Peer Review 2. Molecular Science 3. Guided Inquiry (GI) Labs 4. GI Chem Activity Worksheets 5. Concept Tests 6. Peer-Led-TeamLearning 7. ChemConnection Modules 8. A hybrid of the Above

PAGE 205

APPENDIX B (continued) 194 2c. In how many courses have you used the above teaching strategies? Choose: 1 2 3 More than 3 2d. Where have you implemented the above? In class/lecture In lab In recitation As homework 3. In what type of institution do you teach? Choose: 2 year 4 year undergraduate 4 year Masters 4 year Ph.D. High school

PAGE 206

APPENDIX B (continued) 195 4. How long have you been teaching? (For HS teachers only: How long have you taught HS science?) Choose: Less than one year 1 5 yrs. 6 10 yrs. > 10 yrs. 5. What is your tenure status? Choose: Tenured Not yet tenured Not on tenure track Other 6a. Please select one of the courses yo u teach and base your answers to the rest of this survey on that one course. Preparatory Chemistry for liberal arts or non-science students Chemistry for nursing, allied health, applied biology, etc. Chemistry for science, engin eering, pre-professional majors. Sophomore, Junior, or Senior undergraduate chemistry courses Other (Please write in what course is):

PAGE 207

APPENDIX B (continued) 196 6b. What is the approximate enrollment in this course per semester? Choose: 1 25 26 50 51 75 75 100 101 200 > 200 6c. If you have a recitation/discussion secti on associated with y our course, indicate by choosing the appropriate box. Choose: There are no recitation sessions The instructor is a teaching assistant I am the instructor Another faculty member is the instructor Peer facilitators are used

PAGE 208

APPENDIX B (continued) 197 Section 2: Goals (Questions 7 of 32) 7. List the most important goals you hope to accomplish in your chemistry class. Place a (1) after the goal of highest priority, a (2) afte r the second highest, etc. Goals Priority 1. 2. 3. 4. Section 3: Innovation within the Institution (Questions 8 10 of 32 ) 8. Innovative teaching is a high priority at my institution among the following: (Check all that apply) Myself Higher administration My dean My chair A majority of my colleagues Support staff Teaching assistants None of the above Other: 9. Support for innovative teaching at my in stitution is shown by the following: (Check all that apply) Availability of internal grants Availability of released ti me for curriculum development Availability of professional development workshops on campus Availability of travel support for faculty development

PAGE 209

APPENDIX B (continued) 198 Importance in tenure and promotion considerations Importance in yearly evaluations and salary considerations None of the above Other: 10. How interested are your colleagues in trying innovative teaching methods? (Check all that apply.) One or more of my colleagues are interested No one appears to be interested One or more of my colleagues are hostile to new teaching methods My colleagues are neutral about new teaching methods Comments:

PAGE 210

APPENDIX B (continued) 199 Section 4: Teaching Practices (Questions 11 16 of 32 ) 11. Questioning Techniques I use this technique: I believe this technique to be: In my course: Daily Week ly 2 times or more per semester Never Very effective Somewhat effective Not effective 1. I ask questions during class in which a response is expected of each student 2. I record students responses to questions in some manner 3. I use student responses to determine whether a topic has been understood 4. I use student responses to questions to introduce new topics 5. I base instructional decisions on student responses to questions 6. I have students discuss the questions with each other 7. I use questions to introduce new topics 8. I use common student misunderstandin gs to structure in-class discussion

PAGE 211

APPENDIX B (continued) 200 12a. Group work I use this technique: I believe this technique to be: In my course, group work occurs: Daily Weekly 2 times or more per semester Never Very effective Somewhat effective Not effective 1. In lecture 2. In lab 3. In recitation / discussion 12b. The groups have peer leaders The peer leaders trained The group members have assigned roles When I use groups. Yes No Yes No Yes No 1. In lecture 2. In lab 3. In recitation / discussion 4. Via computer 12c. If students work in groups, plea se indicate your typical group size. 2 3-4 5-6 7-8 >8 1. In lecture 2. In laboratory 3. In recitation / discussion 4. Via computer

PAGE 212

APPENDIX B (continued) 201 13. Real world applications I use this technique: I believe this technique to be: In my class: Daily Weekly 2 times or more per semester Never Very effective Somewhat effective Not effective 1. I introduce concepts using real world examples 2. I use real world examples as extensions after teaching a concept 3. I use real world questions to drive the chemistry course concepts 14. In a non-testing situation, I use writing assignments I use this technique: I believe this technique to be: Daily Weekly 2 times or more per semester Never Very effective Somewhat effective Not effective 1. To give a factual answer or definition 2. To have students compare and contrast concepts 3. To explain the logic behind an answer 4. To have students explain the chemistry in a real world application

PAGE 213

APPENDIX B (continued) 202 (Question 14 Continued) 5. To help students organize what they know 6. To have students explain what they dont understand (example: one minute paper) 7. To have students explain or share knowledge with their peers For other reasons:

PAGE 214

APPENDIX B (continued) 203 15. Teaching Techniques I use this technique: I believe this technique to be: Daily Weekly 2 times or more per semester Never Very effective Somewhat effective Not effective 1. I lecture most of the period 2. I give brief mini lectures as needed 3. I have teacher led demonstrations 4. I have student led demonstrations 5. I use computer animations 6. I have students solving problems individually in class 7. I have students solving problems in groups in class

PAGE 215

APPENDIX B (continued) 204 16. Laboratory practices I use this technique: I believe this technique to be: In my course. Daily Weekly 2 times or more per semester Never Very effective Somewhat effective Not effective 1. Laboratory experiments introduce or develop a concept rather than confirm it. 2. Laboratory experiments lead students to develop data-handling analytical skills or investigative strategies 3. Laboratory experiments lead students to develop an understanding of the scientific method 4. The outcome of laboratory experiments is unknown to students before they gather the data. 5. Laboratory experiments require students to pool data in order to see the desired pattern/ outcome

PAGE 216

APPENDIX B (continued) 205 Section 5: Assessment (Questions 17 21 of 32) 17. Which of the following methods do you currently use for assessing student learning? Check whether the assessment occurs on an individual basis or on a group basis or both, and check all that apply. Also, please mark with an x the three methods you think are the most effective, whether on an individual basis or on a group basis. Individual Use Best 3? Group Use Best 3? 1. Multiple choice questions on exams / quizzes 2. Multiple choice questions on exams/quizzes for which students explain their choices 3. Essay or short answer questions on exams / quizzes 4. Conceptual questions on exams / quizzes 5. Show your work problems on exams / quizzes 6. ACS standardized exams 7. Short writing experiences 8. Oral presentations 9. Poster presentations 10. Debates 11. Guided Inquiry ChemActivity worksheets 12. Participation in Peer-led team-learing 18. Please use this space to describe more fully any other assessment practices you use to assess student learning.

PAGE 217

APPENDIX B (continued) 206 19. Have your assessment practices changed in the past two years since attending the MID workshop? If so, please co mment on how they have changed. 20. What factors have influenced this change ? Please check all that apply and mark with an X the top three factors in terms of their importance to you. Use Ranking 1. Attendance at MID workshop 2. Implementation of one or more of the 4 MID projects 3. Attendance at another workshop/presentation 4. Dissatisfaction with previous methods 5. Difference in skill level of current students. 6. Policy change within department or institution 7. New testing material s provided by publisher Section 6: Barriers to Implementation (Questions 22 29 of 32 ) 22. Curricular materials Major Problem, prevents innovation Major Problem, but surmountable Minor Problem / No Problem Not Applicable 1. Project materials that I am interested in do not exist for the course I am teaching 2. The materials are too expensive 3. The publisher doesnt have the materials I am requesting

PAGE 218

APPENDIX B (continued) 207 23. Scheduling and staffing issues Major Problem, prevents innovation Major Problem, but surmountable Minor Problem / No Problem Not Applicable 1. There is insufficient support staff 2. I am unable to schedule computer facilities 3. The setup of available rooms/labs does not support the project I am interested in 4. There is insufficient financial support at my institution 24. Facilities Major Problem, prevents innovation Major Problem, but surmountable Minor Problem / No Problem Not Applicable 1. The available computer facilities are not adequate 25. Time Major Problem, prevents innovation Major Problem, but surmountable Minor Problem / No Problem Not Applicable 1. Too much time is required to get project started 2. Too much time is required to use project on a regular basis 3. I would be required to teach course beyond my standard teaching load

PAGE 219

APPENDIX B (continued) 208 26. Established Curriculum Implementing a project requires that .. Major Problem, prevents innovation Major Problem, but surmountable Minor Problem / No Problem Not Applicable 1. I eliminate content that I want to include 2. I eliminate content that is expected to be covered in the course 3. I modify project materials which are too difficult for my students 4. I modify project materials which are too easy for my students 5. I convince other faculty members who oppose the project and who teach the same course 27. Student Response To implement the project Major Problem, prevents innovation Major Problem, but surmountable Minor Problem / No Problem Not Applicable 1. I anticipated significant student resistance to change 2. I experienced significant student resistance to innovative teaching 3. I anticipated negative student response on course evaluations 4. I didnt expect significant student response one way or the other

PAGE 220

APPENDIX B (continued) 209 28. Support Major Problem, prevents innovation Major Problem, but surmountable Minor Problem / No Problem Not Applicable 1. I lacked sufficient knowledge concerning the project of interest 2. I lack access to colleagues implementing similar projects 3. I lack continuing access to project leaders/presenters 4. Colleagues and/or administrators lack sufficient understanding of the project 5. Innovative teaching is not valued in promotion and tenure decisions 29. Are there any additional barriers that discourage you from implementing innovative teaching practices at your institution? Please explain what you have encountered.

PAGE 221

APPENDIX B (continued) 210 Section 7: Dissemination (Questions 30 32 of 32 ) 30. Do you plan to continue with the innova tions you have implemented and if so, what additional help do you need for th is additional implementation? Innovation Continue? Help needed 1. 2, 3. 4. 31. How have you communicated the success you have experienced with your innovations? I have not told others of innovations I have tried in the past two years I have discussed my innovations informally with a colleague I have presented my innovations in a seminar to the department I have presented my innovations at a regional professional meeting I have presented my innovations at a state or national professional meeting I have written a paper for public ation describing my innovations I have conducted a resear ch experiment investiga ting the effects of my innovations I have written a research paper based upon my investigation of the effects of my innovations I have implemented innovations but have not publicized what I have done Other: 32. Please describe any other ways attend ing the MID workshop has influenced your thinking or practice as a teacher.

PAGE 222

APPENDIX B (continued) 211 Online Survey System MID Project Follow-Up Survey Participant Identification Please enter your name below. (Your name will be removed from the file once it has been matched with your assigned identification number) First name: Last name: Section 1: Approaches to Teaching Inventory (Questions 1a 2 of 4 ) This inventory is designed to explore the way that academics go about teaching in a specific context and/or subject. This may mean that your responses to these items may be different to the responses you might make on your teaching in other contexts or subjects. 1a. Please select one of the courses you teach and base your answers to these questions on that one course. Preparatory. Chemistry for liberal arts or nonscience students. Chemistry for nursing, allied health, applied biology, etc. Chemistry for science, engin eering, preprofessional majors. Sophomore, Junior, or Senior unde rgraduate chemistry courses. Other (Please write in what course is) 1b. What is the approximate class size in this course? Choose 1 25 26 50 51 75 75 100 101 200 > 200

PAGE 223

APPENDIX B (continued) 212 2. For each item please select one of the num bers (1 5). The numbers stand for the following responses: 1. this item was only rarely true for me in this subject. 2. this item was sometimes true for me in this subject. 3. this item was true for me about half the time in this subject. 4. this item was frequently true for me in this subject. 5. this item was almost always true for me in this subject. Please answer each item. Do not spend a long time on each: your first reaction is probably the best one. 1 2 3 4 5 1. I design my teaching in this subject with the assumption that most of the students have very little useful know ledge of the topics to be covered 2. I feel it is important that this subject should be completely described in terms of specific objectives relatin g to what students have to know for formal assessment items. 3. In my interactions with students in th is subject I try to develop a conversation with them about the topics we are studying. 4. I feel it is important to present a lot of facts to students so that they know what they have to learn for this subject. 5. I feel that the assessment in this subj ect should be an opportunity for students to reveal their changed conceptual understanding of the subject. 6. I set aside some teaching time so that the students can discuss, among themselves, the difficulties that they encounter studyi ng this subject. 7. In this subject I concentrate on coveri ng the information that might be available from a good textbook. 8. I encourage students to restructure their existing knowledge in terms of the new way of thinking about the subj ect that they will develop. 9. In teaching sessions for this subject, I use difficult or undefined examples to provoke debate. 10. I structure this subject to help students to pass the formal assessment items. 11. I think an important reason for running teaching sessions in this subject is to give students a good set of notes. 12. In this subject, I only provide the students with the information they will need to pass the formal assessments. 13. I feel that I should know the answers to any questions that students may put to me during this subject. 14. I make available opportunities for student s in this subject to discuss their changing understanding of the subject. 15. I feel that it is better for students in this subject to gene rate their own notes rather than always copy mine. 16. I feel a lot of teaching time in this s ubject should be used to question students ideas.

PAGE 224

APPENDIX B (continued) 213 Section 2: MID Project Workshop Inventory (Questions 3 4 of 4 ) 3. What did the MID Project workshop provi de that was helpful to you? (Please select all that apply) The opportunity to work with colleagues who shared my vision of teaching and learning. The opportunity to experience my own learning processes Information on teaching and learning research Information on changing assessments Specific materials from the projects that I could use or adapt Ideas about how to implement what I wanted Experiencing ideas I'd heard before Reinforcement of what I already knew Seeing that so many people were in volving in changing how we teach Nothing Other: 4. What changes have you implemented in your class(es) as a resu lt of attending the workshop? (Please select all that apply) Use collaborative learning in class Greater focus on active learning in class Use materials from one or more of the projects Base instructional decision on st udent responses to questions Use questions to introduce new concepts Use common student misconceptions to structure in-class discussions Use real world questions to dr ive the learning of concepts Lecture less and do more "just in time" teaching Have students do more problem solving in groups Changed my assessments Implemented my own version of more active learning No change Other: Ask questions to elicit student ideas Submit Survey

PAGE 225

214 APPENDIX C: RUBRIC OF INTERVI EW QUESTIONS-SEMI STRUCTURED How would you describe yourself as a Chemistry teacher What role model do you have for your self as a chemistry teacher? When you have your classroom running the way you like, what do you see happening? How long did it take to develop this model of teaching? What principles of teaching chemistry do you think are important? How do you learn chemistry best? How do you know when you have learned chemistry? What are characterist ics of a good learner? Do you think other places where you have taught before been an influence on your current teaching practices? How are chemistry models arrived at? What are models in chemistry? What is chemistry? How is chemistry different or similar to l earning mathematics or biology or history (or physics)? What do you think students will take out of their general chemistry classroom? What was your best teaching experience? How do you decide what to teach or not teach? How do you decide when to move from one concept to another? Are there any things happening locally in this institution that affect your teaching? How do you overcome these constraints? How do you know when your stude nts understand a concept? How do you believe your student s best learn chemistry? In what ways do you manipulate the educat ional environment to maximize student understanding? What chemistry concepts are impor tant for your students to learn? What are your main strengths as a teacher? When did you realize that you were havi ng a positive effect on your students and satisfied that you were doing the right thing? How would you slice up a pie chart to i ndicate the amount of influence your undergraduate training vs your graduate trai ning vs your on the job experience had on your teaching practices? What have been the greatest influences on your teaching approach in (general) chemistry? Were your undergraduate course experiences beneficial to you when you began teaching? What changes would you make to your chemistry text book? What criteria do you use to choose chemistry textbooks?

PAGE 226

215 APPENDIX D: CODING RUBRIC AN D DEVELOPMENT OF CODING PRACTICES These broad themes of codes were developed sequentially order over time and represent a sample of the coding schemes used to categorize the qualitative data. The first categorization of data was the first attempt to categorize data early in the collection phase. Few categorizations were generated and those that were generated were very broad until trends began to be observed. Th ese trends became more observable as data was collected, and subsequently, the application of the in-class protocol adapted to gain more detail. The second categor ization took place after severa l faculty had been observed and detailed data was collected and organized into categorizations. Greater refinement was achieved in the third level or third categorization, which was the level of categorization conducted later in the collection and analysis phase. For example, records of numbers of questions faculty asked were taken and categorized under Lectureinteractive. The broad category of l earning was refined to observations and categorizations of specific kinds of learni ng, such as undergoing parts of the learning cycle. This was determined by the amount of time students spent in the processes of discovery or concept building. The rationale fo r this approach is described more fully in the rationale and methods section.

PAGE 227

APPENDIX D (continued) 216 First Categorization 1: Pedagogy 2: Nature of Science 3: MIDP content 4: Teaching Rationale 5: Learning 6: Teacher Characteristics 7: Learner Characteristics Second Categorization Code 1 Perception of their pedagogy relative to MIDP promoted pedagogy Code 2 Perspective of MIDP pedagogy Code 3 Pedagogical knowledge Code 4 Content knowledge Code 5 Pedagogical Content knowledge Code 6 Implemented pedagogy Code 7 Nature of Science Code 8 Learning Code 9 Rationale for instruction Code 10 Conceptions of teaching science Code 11 Learner characteristics Code 12 Preferred inst ructional techniques Code 13 Metaphor use Code 14 Student-student interactions Code 15 Teacher-student interactions Code 16: Learner actions Code 17: Questioning Practices Third Level Categorization Code 17: Kinds of Questions Asked Teacher/transmission oriented Algorithmic Low Cognitive Skills questions Student/Conceptual Change-oriented High Cognitive Skills questions Code 8: Learning Analysis Critical Thinking Process learning-Learning cycle Surface-memorizing Applying given rubric Devising rubric Code 11: Learner characteristics

PAGE 228

APPENDIX D (continued) 217 Ethnicity Sex Temperament On task Code 6: Implemented pedagogy Lecture Lecture intervals Lecture intervals-collaborative learning Lecture-Interactive Collaborative learning groups The following provides an example of ho w the coding rubric was applied to qualitative data. First the collection of qua litative data is described then examples of data are provided. A general protocol was followed that en tailed first writing notes that captured details of the physical aspect s of the room, followed by physi cal characteristics of the students (number, sex and visible ethnicit y and age), where they sat and how they positioned themselves to each other and to the teacher. The researchers perspective might be different depending on their position in the classroom therefore the position of the researcher varied on each class observed but not during the class. Next, notes were taken on the acoustics in the room and the noise-behavior of the students as the class began. Teacher appearance, behavior, voice m odulation, gestures and apparent emotional tone were noted. If questions were asked and answered, teacher and student behavioral interactions including voi ce qualities and tone were not ed, whether they conveyed enthusiasm or uncertainty. Notes were take n of class content that were written or projected on the board or overhead or screen. If demonstrations were used they were fully described in the notes. If particular students dominated questio ning or the classroom

PAGE 229

APPENDIX D (continued) 218 setting they were also described more fully including details of how they related to the teacher. Before or after class, the researcher might speak briefly to the teacher. These brief conversations were also included in th e notes. Depending on the days schedule, brain dumpingany information that can be remembered that wasnt captured in the moment during class was written down as soon after class as possible. A class synopsis was generated usually as part of the brain dumping procedure that summarized the notes. Occasionally the synopsis also had a comment ary on what took place in the classroom, explaining the researchers perspectives on what took place in the classroom. One of the earliest data collected were in Gregs class. His class was the most complicated to record becau se it entailed group learning and many different micro situations occurred simultaneously in response to Gregs facilitation. The description of the first class recorded include s a description of the conversat ion in which the researcher solicited him to partic ipate in the study. ************************Data Begins******************************** 10/10/04 Initial Solicitation and Talk This is the description of the discussion that took place with Greg just after the solicitation for him to participate in the study which he immediately accepted. Notes were written down immedi ately after our talk.

PAGE 230

APPENDIX D (continued) 219 Greg initially asked what the study was a bout. I mentioned that I wanted to learn about MID Project participants teaching philosophy and practices in the classroom. Greg stated that he wasnt sure that his class would tell me anything because it wasnt exemplary of the kind of things promot ed in the MID Project. I responded that his perspective was similar to other MIDP partic ipants that I have spoken to however what he thinks and how he has or has not used the MIDP materials was important information to help dissemination programs learn what is helpful and what isnt and that this information needs to get out. He mentioned that he felt that he di dnt learn very much from the MIDP workshop other than the peer-leading group me thod of learning. This was because he had already learned quite a lot from ear lier experiences of implementing new methodologies. He said that he tried som ething ten years ago however the students werent ready for the methodology (I believe it was group learning) and they complained. Greg mentioned that you have to eat what you do and that youre trying to feed an entire family therefore the r amifications can be very exte nsive. Therefore he reasoned that one cannot startup some methodology without consideri ng the ramifications. He mentioned that students need to have fam iliarity with the methodology before they come to the university level. By having the met hodology in the K-12 learning experience, they would be better prepared to en ter into group learning at the university level without all the difficulties they had in their previous e xperiences. At this tim e (and without earlier experiences of the methodology in the K-12 scho oling), he felt that s tudents arent ready for that stuff. I said to Greg that I hoped one result of this study would be to communicate his experience and thoughts to others, for exampl e in the K-12 school systems in order to encourage better preparation of students for the university le vel learning experience. At the end of this talk Greg said that he was looking forw ard to our future talks. 10/11/04 I arrived five minutes late for Gregs cla ss. Students are se ated at tables, 4-5 students per table. Greg is speaking to the class: What is your dew point? Students appear to be work ing in teams and discussing. Students are being directed to explain why th ey are doing what they are doing to answer the question. There is writing alr eady on the board, a list of terms: Condensation

PAGE 231

APPENDIX D (continued) 220 Evaporation Heat capacity Humidity Pressure Density Greg is asking students: What temperature are you looking for? He is going around tables students are freely asking him questions as he comes around and he appears to be asking them questions in response to their questions. The two people at the table immediate to the left of me appear to be off task and are talki ng about what they did last weekend. There is a lot of talking and I hear Gregs voice intermittently above the students voices: Sixteen point five grams per cubic centimet er. Then as he sees different numbers obtained in different groups he asks the class: How co me we are getting different numbers? Estimatewhat do you do to estimate? Do you have to use a scale?...Describe how to use the graph. Greg appears to be a little frustrated he pacing around and his voice is a little louder. Twenty grams of water is in the air, at wh at temperature will air hold twenty grams of water? A team of students call out and students at a table near them ask, how did you get that? After that they are back to discussing their numbers. Greg admonishes one team who appear not to be discussing the problem. He asks them how come theyre not engaged. But the studen ts protest, they say they are engaged. Then Greg asks the class what are you going to see at this temperat ure? Rain or Dew? Greg calls on specific students by name. Then Greg asks the class to tie the ideas together. A student asks Greg a question and he repeats it aloud saying this is a good question. The question is does the graph they are using involve pr essure. He answers that the curve in the graph involves pressure but that pressure is not explicitly written on the graph theyre using. Greg is using the overhead to connect the ideas. The overhead is a graph which the students appear to have hard copies in their ma terials. He points to the graph and assigns teams to explain the parts of the graph. The handout is a graph on weather showing how air circulates over the surface of the earth, go es up into the sky forming clouds. Cooler air causes precipitation, hot air makes the moister rise. Teams are combined (some students move to join other groups) th e two students to the left of me get up to move elsewhere but they pause and seem not to want to join any group. Both of these students, a male and female (James and Cindy), seem to be ethnic minorities in appearance (and may possibly be the same ethnicity) and were the students

PAGE 232

APPENDIX D (continued) 221 who were off task described previously. Af ter hesitating, the female asks Greg, do we have to join another group, theres no room . Greg doesnt force them to join. The students task are to describe the relati onships on the graph and what the words mean regarding the physical properties written on the board and in the physical properties content in their handout. Students are given 4 minutes. At the table directly in front of me all of the students appear to be white in ethnicity. One male and four females and the male appears to be explaining to the females the physical dynamics of the weather system. At the table to my left James and Ci ndy are comparing ID card pictures. At the table to the front right are four students (all females) who appear to be a mixture of ethnicities and who have spent almost the en tire time reading silently their handouts. Now nearing the end of their time to come to some consensus they are beginning to discuss but are reading aloud. Greg asks the group at a table furthest from me at the opposite side of the room How are you doing? he is asked a question and he is talking but I hear only part of his answer depending on how much water.. James and Cindy are talki ng about their weekend. Greg asks the class: Ok how are we doing? There is no general response. At a table near Greg are three students who ask a quest ion I cannot hear them At a table behind James and Cindy are three students, also ethnic minorities in appearance and all males. One of the students (Tom) at this tabl e asks, what are we supposed to do? Greg answers, Real weather versus what we see in this little cartoonWhat does this figure represent? Then Greg asks the tabl e with the one male and four females to answer they look a little surp rised and attempt an answer but it is apparently wrong. A couple of females at this point quietly giggle. Then Greg asks a question and pauses for a moment and then answers it himself: What ar e we talking about? [with emphasis in his voice lowered in tone] Thunderstorms! Then Greg asks Tom, What happens when the sun hits the surface? Tom an swers that the water rises (water rises is written on the graph on the overhead) Greg asks Tom agai n whats going on? a nd Tom answers the water is rising up. Greg responds, like th e ten commandments? Students at several tables laugh and then they respond, the water evaporates . Greg asks, whats involved in evaporatio n?...make a connection with the terminology. The male at the table with four females attempts an answer but it is wrong, the same two

PAGE 233

APPENDIX D (continued) 222 females at that table are silently giggling ag ain. Greg provides a scenario to the class, there are couples on a dance floorwhat happens when it gets hot?....what happens between the dancers? The dancers are sp reading out, when they are moving more energetically, they need more space.. Now what happens to the density when you heat air?...How does this relate to pressure? The male at the table with four females asks the females, do we know what pressure is guys? Greg asks this table for the definiti on of density. They respond concentration of a substance in another substance Then Greg addresses the other teams: w hat do the other team s think about this? The students at the table across and at the oppos ite side of the room have a dictionary open and respond, amount of material per uni t space Greg interjects, in this case volume. Greg continues, mass over volum e, what does it mean in terms of the compounds in the atmosphere? Students at various tables respond, lower pressure means less density. Then Greg asks, what about high pressure in the atmosphere? Students dont respond. Greg writes the same question on the board and then states, lets think about heat, remember the exam ple with the dancers on the dance floor?...you have the same volume but the number {of da ncers ? (but not st ated in my notes)} increases. Greg writes on the board: 100/500 100/1000 an d then states Do the mathmath is goodwhat is the numberI want a numberw hich has the higher density? The students get out their calculat ors and are pressing buttons. Greg gives two answers 0.2 g/cc and 0.1 g/cc respectively written on the board then he states, therefore the first one is the more densetherefore if we heat mo lecules density will decrease. {but I have written in my notes that he said increase and I dont know if this is my mistake or Gregs} Then Greg continues, think of a hot air balloonhot air ri sesand as part of the air is hot moisture.. O k, what things are going to a ffect pressure?...Students are not responding and Greg makes a decision, Do this as your homeworkwhat affects pressure and explain why.that way you will be more engaged with the process. Students appear not to want the work as homework and appear to be discussing among themselves possible responses. I left at this point approximat ely 5 minutes before the end of class. Total in-class time was 40 minutes out of a 50 minute class. I noted that there were 28 students in all in the class and 8 of the 28 were visible minorities.

PAGE 234

APPENDIX D (continued) 223 Interpretation of the class activities: (synopsis) There appears to be some reluctance in the class for the minorities to sit with nonminorities. Students appear to be seated where they wa nt to sit and the teams appear to be informal. Therefore this pedagogy may have some resemblance to group learning but not necessarily to the pedagogy presented in the MID Project workshops. I think that this activity might have resembled process (disc overy and understanding) inquiry more if the students had not been confused w ith the intention of the activity. In the table nearest front (one male and f our females): while the male appears to be taking charge he also appears not to have a strong understanding of the material. While a least a couple of the females appear to have some humor about this situation they still appear to be ready to defer to his answer s. On one occasion Greg asked one of the females a question and she immediately looked to the male student for help. Males generally appear to be more willing to speak out, however the student who read out of the dictionary the definition of density was female. James and Cindy were off task for the entire pe riod and they were not called on or asked to become more engaged. Generally, students appear to have been more c onfused rather than not engaged. In the numerical example that Greg used to demonstr ate density, he varied the volume to show differences in density. However, the non-num erical model did not match (and hence did not reiterate) the numerical mode l because in the scenario he gave, the volume (the dance floor) was constant but the number of dancers were varied. While students were told to make links between the terms and the process depicted in the diagram, they indicated that they did not understand what was expected of them. On several occasions they offered their ideas but had difficulty drawing the relationships between terms and the process depicted in the diagram. Instead, when asked to describe what they saw in the diagram they used word s written in the diagram itself rather than cross link with a separate list of terms. Pe rhaps more explicit instructions such as instead of using the terms written in the diagrams I would like you to use the terms written on the list to describe the processes depicted on the diagram. Or Use your knowledge of the terms in the list to help you describe the processes in the diagram. However this task may still be difficult for the students to achieve without scaffolding by using examples and questions that woul d lead the students to make the links.

PAGE 235

APPENDIX D (continued) 224 The analogy, rising like th e ten commandments, confounded me, however the students appeared to know what Greg wanted for a re sponse. The use of the ten commandments appeared to have a more immediate positive eff ect to obtain the desired student responses than the dance floor analogy (when discussi ng evaporation). This difference may be related to the differences in meaning of the da nce floor analogy to the students and Greg. When I have seen people of the students ag e dancing on a dance floor, they are often dancing very closely (constantly touching and bumping) and energetic ally. The sort of dance that Greg described sounded more like the popular dance of an older generation (e.g. swing dancing), where dancing ener getically required more space for the dancers to move. The relationship I believe that Greg wanted to link was between density and pressure. Hot air has hot energetic molecules (e.g. hot water molecules) that require more space therefore involve a decrease in density and an increase in pressure. The decrease in density suggests that the less dense air wi ll rise. The hot moisture in the air will accumulate and eventually will fall back to the earth when there is sufficient amount of moisture in the air (increase in density and lower pressure). However the analogies used, dance floor and hot air balloon, involved re latively constant volumes (e.g. closed systems). Students may have been experi encing difficulty making the links with the analogies to the diagram depicting an open system such as the atmosphere. Four days after observing this class Greg mentioned that I should have come to the subsequent class (on a later occasion) because the class went much better. I couldnt tell from this statement whether he meant he was better or the students or both. Greg seems a little concerned that I didnt see a be tter example of his te aching so I reassured him that I was going to come on more occasions. ****************************Data Ends********************************* Initially, as part of the process of tran sforming the raw data to data used for analysis and triangulation, a colo r coding scheme was used to co lor the text. Below is an example of the color scheme used. The scheme was used initially when the study was still underway and the majority of the data was yet to be collected. Later the color scheme was abandoned and code words or numbe rs were used within the synopsis itself when it was written shortly after class.

PAGE 236

APPENDIX D (continued) 225 Coding Colors Broad Code/Schemes: C/S 1: Pedagogy C/S 2: Nature of Science C/S 3: MIDP content C/S 4: Teaching Rationale C/S 5: Learning C/S 6: Teacher Characteristics C/S 7: Learner Characteristics Specific Codes: Code 1 Perception of their pedagogy re lative to MIDP promoted pedagogy Code 2: Perspective of MIDP pedagogy Code 3 Pedagogical knowledge Code 4 Content knowledge Code 5 Pedagogical Content knowledge Code 6 Implemented pedagogy Code 7 Nature of Science Code 8 Learning Code 9 Rationale for instruction Code 10 Conceptions of teaching science Code 11 Learner characteristics Code 12 Preferred inst ructional techniques Code 13 Metaphor use Code 14 Student-stude nt interactions Code 15 Teacher-student interactions

PAGE 237

APPENDIX D (continued) 226 Below is the text of Gregs class that had been partially coded using the color scheme. The example shown here depicts how the solicitation and class activities were coded. Pedagogy, learning, MID Project content, tea cher rationale, learner characteristics and pedagogical content know ledge were color coded in this example. **********************Data Coding Example Begins******************** 10/10/04 Initial Solicitation and Talk This is the description of the discussion that took place with Greg just after the solicitation for him to participate in the study which he immediately accepted. Notes were written down immedi ately after our talk. Greg initially asked what the study was a bout. I mentioned that I wanted to learn about MID Project participants teaching philosophy and practices in the classroom. Greg stated that he wasnt sure that his class would tell me anything because it wasnt exemplary of the kind of things promot ed in the MID Project. I responded that his perspective was similar to other MIDP partic ipants that I have spoken to however what he thinks and how he has or has not used the MIDP materials was important information to help dissemination programs learn what is helpful and what isnt and that this information needs to get out. He mentioned that he felt that he di dnt learn very much from the MIDP workshop other than the peer-leading group me thod of learning. This was because he had already learned quite a lot from ear lier experiences of implementing new methodologies. He said that he tried som ething ten years ago however the students werent ready for the methodology (I believe it was group learning) and they complained. Greg mentioned that you have to eat what you do and that youre trying to feed an entire family therefore the r amifications can be very exte nsive. Therefore he reasoned that one cannot startup some methodology without consideri ng the ramifications. He mentioned that students need to have fam iliarity with the methodology before they come to the university level. By having the met hodology in the K-12 learning experience, they would be better prepared to en ter into group learning at the university level without all the difficulties they had in their previous e xperiences. At this tim e (and without earlier

PAGE 238

APPENDIX D (continued) 227 experiences of the methodology in the K-12 scho oling), he felt that s tudents arent ready for that stuff. I said to Greg that I hoped one result of this study would be to communicate his experience and thoughts to others, for exampl e in the K-12 school systems in order to encourage better preparation of students for the university le vel learning experience. At the end of this talk Greg said that he was looking forw ard to our future talks. 10/11/04 Gregs Class I arrived five minutes late for Gregs cla ss. Students are se ated at tables, 4-5 students per table. Greg is speaking to the class: What is your dew point? Students appear to be work ing in teams and discussing. Students are being directed to explain why th ey are doing what they are doing to answer the question. There is writing alr eady on the board, a list of terms: Condensation Evaporation Heat capacity Humidity Pressure Density Greg is asking students: What temperature are you looking for? He is going around tables students are freely asking him questions as he comes around and he appears to be asking them questions in response to their questions. The two people at the table immediate to the left of me appear to be off task and are talki ng about what they did last weekend. There is a lot of talking and I hear Gregs voice intermittently above the students voices: Sixteen point five grams per cubic centimet er. Then as he sees different numbers obtained in different groups he asks the class: How co me we are getting different numbers? Estimatewhat do you do to estimate? Do you have to use a scale?...Describe how to use the graph. Greg appears to be a little frustrated he pacing around and his voice is a little louder. Twenty grams of water is in the air, at wh at temperature will air hold twenty grams of water? A team of students call out and students at a table near them ask, how did you get that? After that they are back to discussing their numbers.

PAGE 239

APPENDIX D (continued) 228 Greg admonishes one team who appear not to be discussing the problem. He asks them how come theyre not engaged. But the studen ts protest, they say they are engaged. Then Greg asks the class what are you going to see at this temperat ure? Rain or Dew? Greg calls on specific students by name. Then Greg asks the class to tie the ideas together. A student asks Greg a question and he repeats it aloud saying this is a good question. The question is does the graph they are using involve pr essure. He answers that the curve in the graph involves pressure but that pressure is not explicitly written on the graph theyre using. Greg is using the overhead to connect the ideas. The overhead is a graph which the students appear to have hard copies in their ma terials. He points to the graph and assigns teams to explain the parts of the graph. The handout is a graph on weather showing how air circulates over the surface of the earth, go es up into the sky forming clouds. Cooler air causes precipitation, hot air makes the moister rise. Teams are combined (some students move to join other groups) th e two students to the left of me get up to move elsewhere but they pause and seem not to want to join any group. Both of these students, a male and female (James and Cindy), seem to be ethnic minorities in appearance (and may possibly be the same ethnicity) and were the students who were off task described previously. Af ter hesitating, the female asks Greg, do we have to join another group, theres no room . Greg doesnt force them to join. The students task are to describe the relati onships on the graph and what the words mean regarding the physical properties written on the board and in the physical properties content in their handout. Students are given 4 minutes. At the table directly in front of me all of the students appear to be white in ethnicity. One male and four females and the male appears to be explaining to the females the physical dynamics of the weather system. At the table to my left James and Ci ndy are comparing ID card pictures. At the table to the front right are four students (all females) who appear to be a mixture of ethnicities and who have spent almost the en tire time reading silently their handouts. Now nearing the end of their time to come to some consensus they are beginning to discuss but are reading aloud. Greg asks the group at a table furthest from me at the opposite side of the room How are you doing? he is asked a question and he is talking but I hear only part of his answer depending on how much water..

PAGE 240

APPENDIX D (continued) 229 James and Cindy are talki ng about their weekend. Greg asks the class: Ok how are we doing? There is no general response. At a table near Greg are three students who ask a quest ion I cannot hear them At a table behind James and Cindy are three students, also ethnic minorities in appearance and all males. One of the students (Tom) at this tabl e asks, what are we supposed to do? Greg answers, Real weather versus what we see in this little cartoonWhat does this figure represent? Then Greg asks the tabl e with the one male and four females to answer they look a little surp rised and attempt an answer but it is apparently wrong. A couple of females at this point quietly giggle. Then Greg asks a question and pauses for a moment and then answers it himself: What ar e we talking about? [with emphasis in his voice lowered in tone] Thunderstorms! Then Greg asks Tom, What happens when the sun hits the surface? Tom an swers that the water rises (water rises is written on the graph on the overhead) Greg asks Tom agai n whats going on? a nd Tom answers the water is rising up. Greg responds, like th e ten commandments? Students at several tables laugh and then they respond, the water evaporates . Greg asks, whats involved in evaporatio n?...make a connection with the terminology. The male at the table with four females attempts an answer but it is wrong, the same two females at that table are silently giggling ag ain. Greg provides a scenario to the class, there are couples on a dance floorwhat happens when it gets hot?....what happens between the dancers? The dancers are sp reading out, when they are moving more energetically, they need more space.. Now what happens to the density when you heat air?...How does this relate to pressure? The male at the table with four females asks the females, do we know what pressure is guys? Greg asks this table for the definiti on of density. They respond concentration of a substance in another substance ***************************Data Coding Example Ends**************** Coloring the initial transcription of the class data was changed in favor of using written codes with examples in the synopsis that was written shortly after class. These were marked for greater ease of reference us ing colored tabs that stuck to the page. Below are observations transcribed and written in synopsis form with associated codes written as abbreviations. For example, Mst d means male student, wfstd or whfstd may

PAGE 241

APPENDIX D (continued) 230 mean white female student, T means teacher Categories of inte ractions were also coded T-Std interactions (t eacher-student interactions ) were noted and kinds of interactions (questions) were noted. For example, types of questions coded and noted were rhetorical or algorithmic or con ceptual. These designations were based on prior theory and categorization as described in Appendix E. If several faculty used the same class room, the physical characteristics of the room were noted in the first class observed in the room. The notes that follow show the greatest detail on the physical f eatures of the room in Evans class because his was the first observed in a room that Marcus and Russ used. Marcuss classes are presented next and Ritas last. Ritas cla ss took place in a different school and room, however the notes provided here were chosen to demonstrate he r classroom practice that focus on the style and frequency of her interactions with her students, which were among the most frequent of all faculty in the case study. These synopses of data are provided to s how the progression of data analysis and coding leading to the condensed synopses a nd the descriptive categ ories comprising the continuum of practice from lecture to learni ng groups displayed in Table 20. Three case study faculty have been chosen to demonstrat e the process because they represent three significant points in the continuum from lect ure to collaborative learning approaches. Evans class represents the one end of the continuum comprising lecture and Gregs class represents the other end of th e continuum. Marcus class is intermediate toward group

PAGE 242

APPENDIX D (continued) 231 learning and Ritas class is intermediate towa rd lectures. (Since an example of Gregs synopsis has been shown above it is not repeated here.) *******************Data Synopsis Coding Examples Begin******************** Evan: Class Synopsis IOct. 2004 (first class 8:30am) I first encountered Evan by calling him by phone after asking Ma rcus to intervene on my behalf to encourage his participation. Evan acknowledged that he had received my email and that Marcus spoke with him and was amenable for me to come to his class. The class took place in a small, tiered audito rium room, with a podium, a bench area and a separate sink on a low, small stage. Two ramped (low gradient) isles cut into the seating area which was divided into three sections: a large central section and smaller wings side sections. There were no outer isles between th e wing seats and the walls of the room. The auditorium seats were small wooden fixed desks with non-moving writing surfaces. There was a lowered ceiling over th e stage and a high ceiling in the audience area. From the standpoint of the audience ther e was a large 12x8ft screen to the left side of the stage with an overhead projector positioned in front of it. On the right hand wall nearest the stage there was a large (~8x10ft) hanging of the periodic table. A white board was positioned against the back wall of the stage and lighting above the stage illuminated the stage and the whiteboard. All th ree instructors described the acoustics in the room as bad. Creaking sounds of th e wooden seats could be heard around the room if students squirmed in them and the voice of the instructor carried in an echo. When I came into the room, (about five minutes before class) Evan was already there and taking items out of a cardboard box such as student no tebooks, a binder which appear to hold his classnotes, and whiteboard markers. When he saw me (by the time I reached the stage) he said Oh, hello, you must be Beverly. I introduced myself and he quickly came to the edge of the stage to shake my hand (I was standing at a sligh tly lower level which required for him to extend his reach to gras p my hand). Evan was dressed in an opennecked light blue short-sleeved business shirt and long suit pants. His demeanor appeared to be a composite of friendliness and shyness. He asked somewhat awkwardly and somewhat rhetorically so, youre studying education? I men tioned at this point that I was trained in chemistry and was obtaining a de gree in chemical education and wanted to learn about chemistry faculty teaching philosop hy (he already heard this from me on the phone). I asked him whether it was ok that I interviewed hi m after Marcus class which took place directly after his. He said this was fine because he was teaching another class immediately afterward and he wouldnt be ab le to see me then, regardless. Several students had approached the stage to ask que stions and Evan turned his attention to answer their questions about homework and a pending exam (this was the Friday class

PAGE 243

APPENDIX D (continued) 232 and the coming Monday was their examination cl ass). With about a minute left before class he writes on the board details about th e homework and the quiz. He started class punctually with the loudly spoken, OK!. He made announcements about the coming exam on Monday and reminded the students abou t a review period which will be offered to them on Sunday in the same room. The instructor providing the review was a female (Ph.D.) who taught general chemistry and physic al chemistry and appears to have been teaching at this college for a couple of y ears and who did not hold a permanent position in the department. The other instructors we re all males (two tenured in chemistryEvan and Marcus, and Russ, not yet tenured?) IN CLASS 20-25 students in attendance Evan starts his class with a quiz on doi ng calculations on dilutions of solutions (M1V1=M2V2) and using the definition of th e vant Hoff factor in combination with recognizing water soluble ions among ionic com pounds that are dissolved in water. After the quiz he gives the answers on the board. He comes to the front chairs while he speaks to the classhe later tells me that there is a dead spot on the stage that makes it difficult for him to hear any responses from the students. Verification sequence: Given molarity and volume of first solution and add 75 mL of water (dilution) give ne w volume and molarity Verification sequence: Barium Hydroxide gives 3 ions Finishing up chapter 5 then doing a review: Content, New concept: = MRT like gas law We have 3 particles = iMRT get the ionic strength of sea water Since most of you are Marine Science Majors (Students laughing a nd shuffling feet) Example/verification: Using 0.7M NaCl in sea water, gas constant and temperature (K) and plugging in the numbers without giving uni ts in the equation get out of the equation 34 atm uses conversion factor (14.7Psi/atm) to convert atm to psi Anecdote: Evan attempts to make a connection of this information above (example) with real life applicationmost of you folks live in Tampa Bay well that plant (reverse osmosis plant to convert sea water to drinki ng water) is supposed to be working now but is million in debt and 2 years latewas supposed to make 25 million gallons a daythats a lot Model: gives diagram of reverse osmosis in overhead the figure comes from the text bookdescribes the elements in the figure Rhetorical Q: How much pressure? (no wait time) (E van answers:) A lot of pressure

PAGE 244

APPENDIX D (continued) 233 Content, New concepts: Boiling point elevation, Freezing point depression, colligative propertiesstated no immediate details begins with figure from textbook put on overhead. Model: figure from textbook showing two blowups of particles inside two beakers one with pure water and one with water mixture s howing contrast of contents in beakers and then labels with effects on temperature constants. Example/verification: equation: Tb=iKbm Tf=iKfm These are constants every substance will have a constant What do you think the units of Kf and Kb are Male student answers correctly (allowed wait time) Molal solution of NaCl Example/Verification: Tb=iKbm (2)(0.52)(1.0) no units given Tb=1.04 T=100+1.04= 101 So will elevate the boiling point one degree Example/Verification: repeats same idea with Tf Anecdote :Ive never seen an example (ie real life) of using Boiling point elevationFreezing point can be used to determine molecular weights Describes how in words no figures or writing Example of freezing poin t depression anecdote: Describes how salt is used on the roads in the north I used to live in Detroi tDetroit sits on a large salt minecars get rusted outeasy to calc ulate but not use the bo iling point elevation. Transition: You guys have any questions on Ch apter 5? (no response)will go over previous years test. Begins review: Verification/example problems: showing problems on a previ ous exam a set of ~10 each equal 1 point you should be able to do this very quicklyHow many OHs are there? (no response) % of the students got this wrong because it has a positive charge of 2given the name students will need to know the charges and stoichiometry Which will have the la rgest number of moles? (male student answers correctlysame student is answering) which ever has the smallest molecular weight Chemical Nomenclatureexpect these on th e exampoints to th e molecular formula and students are calling out name ssometimes starts with a hi nt providing the prefix of

PAGE 245

APPENDIX D (continued) 234 the name how about this one(goes in re verse and gives the name then writes the formula on the board) students are watchi ng but very few are writing down notes Rhetorical Q: Do you think something will look like th is on this years test?...One thing you have to do is write out the equation: Std/T interaction: Evan writes on board 2Hg 2Hg + O2 Male student (same) corrects Evan you forgot an o Evan corrects the equation 2HgO 2Hg + O2 Std/T interaction When Evan writes on board students write bu t when he points to the overhead students stop writing Anecdote: By the way I have a recollecti on(missed some of this beca use of voice was either too low or students cellphone overwhelmed Evans voice) Std/T interaction cell phone going off Does anyone wa nt to accompany the music? Anecdote contd: teaspoon of mercury oxidecandle(?) bubbles of oxygen fo rmingtold the woman not to do the demo because mercury oxide is very toxic (laughs) this is a classic way of making oxygen Std/T interaction Evan goes back to writing on the board and st udents go back to taking notes and when he stops to point to the ove rhead students stop writing Verification/example: grams of HgO converted to grams O2 Verification/example : empirical formula of Ibupro fen A type of aspirin Algorithm-model lets try my tried and tr ue technique of constants Provides a table on the board of 3 elements: C, O, H and uses ma ss and amu to derive empirical formula Std/T interactionVerification/example So what are we going to do next?

PAGE 246

APPENDIX D (continued) 235 (girl answers) divide by 0.969 (to get whole numbers in the empirical formula) Evan repeats her answer and writes the result of the operation on the board Std/T interaction (Girl STD) so its ok to round? Evan laughs I did do that di dnt I but I would do that Rhetorical Q : pointing to the next problem on the ove rhead of the previous years exam Do you recognize this as a limiting reagent problem? Verification/example: Limiting reagent problempoints out the conver sions necessary (grams to moles or to molarity) to do the problemthen does the problem Std/T interaction E: what do I do to get the two answers? (std) have to get th e limiting reagent..(T) which one is the limiting reagent? (s td) the smallest one (T) ok you st ated the limiting reagent is the smallest one Verification/example Balance the equation Std/T interaction so what do you expect to see? (Mstd answ ers) Fe reacts with OH(T) yesand writes the answer on the board Verification/example Solubility rules Verification/example Oxidation/reductionoxidizing reagentreducing reagent After class: Evan mentions that another faculty (Russother than Marcus) also teaches Gen Chem but is teaching the labs at this timesuggests that I solicit him for the study and that he will be teaching the Gen chem. lecture next se mesterI find this curious because it came up in the context when he asked about whethe r I was staying in the classroom to observe Marcus. Evan encourages me to come to hi s analytical class at 9:30am to observe a different format in which his class works in groups. Because this class conflicts with Marcus class I decline but told him that I would be in terested to hear more about it during the interview. We make arrangements for me to see him after Marcus class. He allows me a generous window of time 1.5hrs that I could come to see him.

PAGE 247

APPENDIX D (continued) 236 Evans 1st interview addition: what was not recordedspoken after I turned off the recorder: Evan taught for one year as a visiting professor at the Univer sity of Wisconsin there were 100 students in each section and there were 7-8 TAs Worked at General Motors.then decided to teachtaught at his alma mater and taught there for one yearlooked at the jobs advertised looked for smaller schools because he chose to have th e interactions between students and teachers that exist in smaller schools He walked into the labs (at Wiscons in?) saw the TAs how they did the labsthey also did the grading Marcus Class Synopsis IOct. 2004 (first class:30am) {there are 36 students 3-4 visible minorities} Marcus teaches in the same cla ssroom as Evan. Marcus is dr essed in blue jeans and in a Central American woven shirt. His hair is a little longer about 2-3 inches down the neck and has a short beard. He is also wearing a v ote pin and just as he starts class he encourages his students to vote in the coming election. He is active in a local democrat unit. He tells his students to vote ahead (prior to the election da y) and mentions that the age group of his class had the lowest representation in th e previous national election. He mentions that it is a privilege to vote and that there is a car pool available for their use and their participation. Marcus mentions that the cl ass did poorly on their last quizthe median grade was (T)you made it easy for me to gradestudents laugh Begins Review...covering same material as Ev an, Marcus also walks to the front of the stage near the front row of students to talk to the class. He begins by writing equations on the board and then puts on an overhead of the solubility rules (same as Evan)a list of soluble compounds and a list of insolubl e compounds. Marcus writes on the white board in two pen colors and his writing is somewhat small and more difficult to read relative to Evan. Verification/example problem: Net Ionic equations (T) asks students to complete the equations: (NH4)2 + S(aq) + ZnCl2(aq) ? H2SO4(aq) + KOH(aq) ? Fe(NO3)3 + BaCl2 ?

PAGE 248

APPENDIX D (continued) 237 Std/T interaction: After Marcus puts these equations on the board he directs his stude nts to start working out the problem and begins timing and tells th em when they should have the first problem done. Then he asks how many students have worked out the first problem. About of the students raise their hands showing that a bout half of the class are able to solve the problem in the time frame that he expects. Concept explanation/methodology : Marcus goes over the solubility rules uses a laser pointer to point to the periodic table Ca Carbonate is insolubl e because its in the 2nd column Methodology : tells students to talk to the person ne xt to you to get help with solving the problems and move around to find someone you want to talk to in order to figure out how to solve the problems Std/std interactions Students are talking quietly and some get up to move closer to other students two female students in front of me turn around and ask me if I am a chemist and would I help them I answered feebly that I didn t know the answers so they go on to someone else to get help Std/T interaction: T chooses students to come to the board and write their answers so we have number two.Who wants to do number 3?...Ok le ts do it!!...come down herewhat are you doing?...you have to wash your hands? (stude nts laughingT appears to be talking to a male student who is slowly coming forward to the board) There are 3 students at the board 2 fem and one male Concept explanation: Std/T interaction (T)First of all recognize that the Ammonium Sulfide are insolubleso I put them to the sideI know that NH is soluble so its not goi ng to precipitateso what s right about this answer?...Is there something mi ssing here?...(Fstd) the ne t ionic equatio n?(T) what else is missing here? Put the designation of aq (aqueous) and s (solid) here [writes these on the board and points to them with the la ser pointer]so we will have a net ionic equation that looks like this: Zn(aq)2+ + S2(aq) ZnS(s) net ionic NH(aq) + S(aq) + Zn(aq) + 2Cl(aq)

PAGE 249

APPENDIX D (continued) 238 (Fstd) do we have to write it just like th at? (T) yes because youre showing how they dissolvedwhats the name of that compound? ...raise your hand if you have itis it an acid or a base? [two students answer simultaneously one is co rrect the other not]..(Fstds) sulfide sulfate (T) what is the name of this compound [H2SO4] what part will react? What part will react on the other side [KOH]?...(Fstd) OH(T ) break it up into ions that dissociate (T)[writes on the board] 2H+(aq) + SO4 2+ + K+(aq) + OH-(aq) (T) you see what is going on there? Water is formedwhat do I do with this partI need to balance the equation now I can make this into a net ionic equation (Mstd) thats not a reaction (T) no this is a reaction when wate r is formed [writes on the board] 2H+ + 2OH 2H2O (Fstd) do I need to l eave in all the 2s? (T) thats not the important partyou need to write something down [points to the overhead on the list of soluble i ons and writes formula on the board] (T) C2H2O2 CH3CO2 there is another way to write this (Mstd) why do you want us to show the ions? Concept explanationT/Std interaction and use of multiple meth ods/teaching aids (T) ok the reason why I want you to dissociate this into ions is so that you know what to do with the ionswhat ions will precipitate? [draws a beaker with a line indicating the surface of water]give a list of the ions [T is at the board and uses the laser pointer to point to the overhead screen then writes on th e board the ions that will dissociate in the water (Fstd) why doesnt Fe+ and Ba+ precipitate together? (T) good question, because they both have pos itive charges [jumps on a desk near the periodic table and uses the laser to point to specific elements in the table and indicating which will take positive charges wh ich will take negative charges] (Fstd) wants a photocopy of th e solubility and ions lists (T) ok Ill make a photocopy (T) please memorize this listI dont usuall y condone just memorizing but this is something that you have to know New concept/explanation-T/std interactions (T) writes on the boardall students are list ening and writing down what is on the board Mn2+(aq) + ClO3-(aq) ClO2(aq)Identify the oxidation statethe oxidation numberwhich is oxidized and which is re duced then write a ba lance equation for the reaction in an acidic solutionI m not going to give you as much time as I did last time so go ahead and talk with you neighbor [wa it time 2-3 minutes] raise your hand if you

PAGE 250

APPENDIX D (continued) 239 need some guidance [ both F and M students raise their hand periodically and T comes over to talk about and to prai se what they have for solu tions] Std ask T to go over the problem (T) first of all determ ine the oxidation number [gives three more problems with similar interchange between students and between teacher and students] gives a table as a mn emonic devise to help understanding of half reactions and reminds students oxidation is loosing electrons and reduction is gaining electrons] Interview took place directly af ter the in-class observation. Evans second class Oct.2004 {came in 20minutes late} {23 student s; 17 female; 4-5 visible minority} Harmonic Oscilator IR spectrum Overheads and handouts Shows MO diagram Equation: Frequency is proportional to the sq uare root of k/m (k = force constant; m = mass) ____ f k/m T/rhetorical Q (T) the larger the wave numbers the highe r the frequency Why? Because H has lower mass Concept development/explanation double bonds are stronger bonds and absorb { non specific } and higher frequencies Triple bonds are stronger bonds means higher frequency

PAGE 251

APPENDIX D (continued) 240 Overhead (picture from the textbook) carbon dioxide 3 different types of molecular motion [Picture shows atoms attached by springs] (T) two of these motions absorb {non-specific} Concrete example: Greenhouse effect [Draws picture on the board of sun and earth and word indicating atmosphere] a little green house effect is a good thingit keeps the ea rth warmwater absorbs IR radiation and it doesnt cool o ff very much at night does it? [students shake their heads] T/demonstration/model [ A weight suspended by a single spring from a metal bar supported by a base. T lets the weight bounce at the end of the spring] (T) notice that the spri ng action is much slower than the triple spring it takes a longer time to make the oscillations this is like the single and triple bond Anecdote: (T)Alaska used to have permafrost in certa in places and now they have mud and people are not happy New concept/explanation (T Announces)Vesper theory Valence shell electr on repulsion theory T/rhetorical question (T) A B atoms how are Bs oriented around As? T/std interactions Q Where do the electrons orient to keep the electrons as far as possible from each other? (Mstd) they take opposite sides (T) uses example of a linear molecule draws on board A and B atoms attached by a line used the overhead to show CO2 and electr on clouds of the center carbon atomthe electron clouds are as far away as possible (T)expands concept to next case AB3now we have 3 groups of electrons around AHow do we make them as far away as possible? (Mstdsame student) the electr ons take 120 degrees apart

PAGE 252

APPENDIX D (continued) 241 (T) trigonal planar arrangement [shows overh ead of the orbital arrangement and atomic arrangementtalks about O3 resonance structure] {Draws distinctions between electron and mo lecular geometrythe molecular geometry considers only the atoms} Concept/expansion/ T/std interaction AB4now how can the electrons sepa rate as far as possible? (Mstdsame person as before) a pyramid (T) exactly rightits called tetrahedral[demonstrates how to draw a tetrahedral on the board using wedges and dashes and straight lines] Can you see this in your minds eye?...[draws the structure of ammonia] the electron geometry is tetrahedral but the molecular shape is pyramidal.the electron geometry for water is tetrahedral but the molecular shape is bent ( T)rhetoridalQ what is the angle of a tetrahed ral? 109.5 degreesso you guys have to know this. Time is out and students are getting ready to leave and some are already leaving. Only student who is responding verbally to th e teacher is a white male. Others nod their heads. Marcus Class 2: Oct. 2004 {33 students; 5 visible minorities} First 5 minutes handed back exams and ga ve directives for beginning the class Concept explanation Spectroscopy is a technique that helps us to find out how molecules and atoms fit together We are going to focus on the IR part of the spectrumwhen we say IR we think about heat what do we use IR for? (Fstd 1) Infrared lamp(F std 2) tanning salons(T) no thats UV Begins with Lewis dot structure of CO2 a nd explains that it has two double bondswant to understand the nature of these bondsthey also absorb lightthe bonds are not like

PAGE 253

APPENDIX D (continued) 242 sticks the way they are drawn in the te xt bookdont think about them as sticks anymorethink about them as springs because they have dynamic movement T/demonstration [uses same demo model that Evan used] there is a particular frequency with a single bond it is a longer fr equency and with three bonds the frequency is shorter and the frequency va ries with the different weight s [shows the effect of the heavier weight comparing it with the less hea vy weight] so the take home message is that stronger bonds absorb at higher frequencies {disconnect between the frequency of the bond motion and the frequency of absorption} Concrete example/explanation: Greenhouse effect can be a lo t better understood if we unde rstand spectroscopy (has the same overheads as Evan showing the IR spect rum and draws similar picture on the board with sun and earth but instead of writi ng atmosphere Marcus has drawn clouds T/std interaction (T)what kind of light do we have coming from the sun? (F& M stds) IR, visible, UV (T) a lot of the energy is coming in the IR a nd UV rangethe important thing here is that there is water in the atmosphere and a lot of N2 and O2it turns out that the gases lets most of the energy through, the CO2 does not absorb in the visible frequencyin fact they have a specific frequency that th ey absorb.What happens to the light? (F&M stds) the light bounces back? Concept explanation/model demo (T) some light is absorbed at a particular frequency [shows overhead with CO2 springs the same figure that Evan usedstudents are looking at the overhead] T goes over to the spring demo and moves the weights to start th e oscillations and describes the relationship of the light absorption to the motion of th e bond the frequency of the light absorbed depends on the motion of the bondCO2 absorbs at __micronswater absorbs at ___...[ shows overhead that Evan used depicting the IR spectrum of energy vs wavelength Concept/explanation with overhead solar radiation is on the side of the graph terrestrial radiation is at the bottom of the graph and the CO2 absorption has a peak at a particular wavelength] CO2 absorbs in the IR, H2O is an impor tant greenhouse gas, O3 is an important greenhouse gas, CH4 is an important gree nhouse gaswe need some greenhouse effect to live herethe problem isnt that the greenhouse effect ex ists but that the amount of CO2 and O3 is changing

PAGE 254

APPENDIX D (continued) 243 Transition That was a little foray into the IR spectros copy this is more about the structure and how molecules are put together now we are going into chapter 7 about molecular structure New Concept/explanation Vesper Theory (T) the electrons are going to orient themselves so that there is the least amount of repulsionthere is a bus and th ere are two seatsthey want to sit apartthis isnt the best example[writes on board a list] (1) electrons in bonds and lone pairs stay as far apart as po ssiblefirst step is draw a Lewis structure and count the number of charge clouds (2)2nd step arrange so that they are as far apart as possible Examples [on board]T/std interactions lets pick CO2[draws a circle around each bond between C and O and calls it the charge cloud] I see a charge cloud here and herenow have I drawn them as far apart as possible? (F&Mstd) yes (T) HCNI see two charge clouds againalso a linear moleculelets look at something that you are really familiar withlets look at waterH2O can you do the lewis structure pretty quickly? [draws linear lewis structure of water on board] how is this drawing is this right (Fstd) I know it isnt but I dont know why because it looks right to me. [T takes out large balls and sticks from a box and shows three dimensional model of the molecule] We need to imagine the 3 dimensionality of it there are 4 charge clouds that find a place as far part as shown in th e picture [makes a tetrahedral out of the structure hes holding]adding two more ballswhat shape is this? (Fstd) a tetrahedral (T) but we have to draw water in 2 dime nsions and depict 3 dimensionsthe overall structure is a tetrahedral shape [uses overhead of diagrams from the textthe same ones that Evan used] CO2 is linearlets look at formaldehyde CH2Odraw the lewis dot structure and [drawing on the board] I want to make this bond and that bond as far apart as possibleso Im going to start drawing like this (Mstd Q) why didnt you draw the electrons on the oxygen? (T) the reason that I didnt draw the electrons is that were concerned about the geometry about the central atom {not explained yet in class}

PAGE 255

APPENDIX D (continued) 244 T/std interaction (T)[refers to overhead CH2O structure and electron clouds are shown} lone pairs and bonding pairs countF stude nt raises hand and T calls on her by name (Fstd) Are we using the octet rule? (T) we should proceed as Im showing rather than trying to just satisfy the octet rulelets look at PCl5this involves the expanded octet rule [shows overhead of the structure] (Mstd) what about the noble ga ses how do they form compounds? (T) sometimes the compounds break the rules fluorine is very electronegative can bond to that. End of class students leaving Rita Class 1 (Nov. 22, 2004) {18 students; 4 males; 4 visible ethnic minor ities; 3 non-traditional older students} [T makes announcements and writes some of the details on the black boardQuiz 3 on Web assign on trends of ionization energyLab on molecular geometry] [T starts lecture with Power-point (ppt) slides] T/std interaction and teaching aid and concept explanation ppt slide: figure showing Ei genera l trend increasing (T) Explain it!! (Fstd) answers incorrectly (T) no (Mstd) this is a special case? {students appear to be off track and dont have a clue how to begin} (T) Ok which has the higher EiNa or Al? (Mstd) Al(T) how about Al or __In (?)..(a few std answer)(T) which element in the periodic table has the smallest Ei? (Mstd) answers (T) whic h element has the largest Ei? (several students answer) (Fstd) are we skipping higher electron ener gy? [student apparently was referring to electron affinity] (T) no lets s ee a movie on electron affinity Teaching aids {movie was shown taken from McMurray text se ries however the text they are using in their class is Zumdahl}

PAGE 256

APPENDIX D (continued) 245 Teaching aids and flexibility ppt Ea definition [T also writes on board at the sides of the screen] change of energy that occurs when an electron is added [on the power point slide there are sentences with blanks in them that students call out the answ er as T reads the sentences and pauses a the blanks=the cue for the students to call out the missing word][apparently students have access to the ppt slides online through Bl ackboard, however I dont see any student with a print out of the slides as reference] Use of ppt with blanks If the atom has a tendency to accept elec trons Ea will have a ____ sign. The more___ the value, the _____ the tendency of the atom to accept electrons. If the atom doesnt have a tendency to accept el ectrons, Ea is stated as_____ T/std interaction O + e O? (Mstd answers) E O+ e O2? (Mstd answers) + E= unfavorable energy change The above was asked as questions regarding the change of energy with male students (mix of ethnic) responding (T) note the atomic relationshipselect rons are not stagnanthow about the trendwhich way does it go? (s everal students ) right to left (T) does that make sense? You who made those answers explain your rati onale {not correct}(T) explains and writes on the board Na with valence electrons then Cl with valence electrons(T) why is Cl smaller than Na? (both F& M answer simultaneously) Std/Std interactions/problem solving (T) lets do an exercise arrange in the re quested way: [students working together] Increasing: Rb Na Be Sr Se Ne Fe P O Decreasing: S+ S SK Rb+ Br{this is from their homework in the text pgs 339, 85, 89} T/std interactions [T calls on specific student by name] (Which are the trends for #1? FStd answers {but T treats the correct re sponse as though it was wrong}[T calls on second student] Mstd [several students respond to T and say th at she is asking about the wrong trend and T admits mistake] T reasks the question but doe s it on the board hersel f and then asks the students did she do it correct ly and they answer yes T/std interactions and use of ppt /demo of concept using her body

PAGE 257

APPENDIX D (continued) 246 T points to the ppt slide and asks students to provide answers to more blanks various students answer ******************* Data Synopsis Coding Examples End******************** Subsequent passes over these synopses of the raw transcriptions were used to create broader categories of description a nd condensed synopses of types of classes observed. This process led to the creation of descriptive categories shown in Table 20 and produced here. Practice categorizations are code d and ascribed numerical values of a Likert Scale from 1= Collaborative learning to 7= Lectures. Seven values were chosen because statistical research indicates that seven categorizations have greater propensity for reproducibility.[98] Practice Categorization [and practitioners] Observations-Synopses Lecture= 7 [Kim (General Chemistry Course), Cindy, Howard, Evan, Russ] 5. Teacher stands in front of the class, writing on the board or writing on an overhead or pointing to PowerPoint projected slides 6. Talk is often oral repetition of written words or vocalizations of equations w ith occasional elaboration or an oral description of a diag ram drawn or depicted model of molecular phenomena 7. Subject content is either probl em solving or a description of a chemical model 8. Occasional anecdotes may be described or real world examples used from the text Lecture Intervals=6 [Vern] Same as lecture above but in approximately 15 minute intervals interspersed with 1-2 minutes wait-time for students to spontaneously/voluntarily inte ract to obtain a solution to a problem presented by the instructor. Lecture-Interactive=5 [Rita (General Chemistry), Laura (chemistry preparatory)] A lecture with frequent (eve ry 5-7 minutes) short answer questions directed to specific st udents or to have students fill in the blank orally in a narra tive about a chemistry concept. Or as the teacher solves a problem, she may stop to ask students help her complete the particular component of the solution.

PAGE 258

APPENDIX D (continued) 247 Practice Categorization [and practitioners] Observations-Synopses Lecture Intervalscollaborative learning=4 [Marcus (General Chemistry), Kim (nonmajors)] A shorter 10 minute interval le cture component interspersed with group interactions of approximately 5-7 minutes. Students are directed to work t ogether to solve problems that may or may not have been solved previously by the instructor and to write their answers on the board. Collaborative learning groups=1 [Greg (non-majors course)] Students continuously work in groups that have been previously defined. They have defined roles and are involved in problem solving requiring exploration of their own concepts, creating their own definitions or criteria for categorizations, creating their own models of chemical phenomena, and their own rubric for problem solutions. Examples of a progression between L ecture Intervals with Collaborative Learning to Collaborative Learning Groups we re not observed in this data. However categories can be set up that might be observed in future studies. An intermediate class between Marcuss class and Gregs class w ould entail a collaborative learning format with fewer, shorter lecture intervals. A next category closer to Gregs class would be a collaborative learning class where students part icipated in loosely structured groups (that would be less structured than Gregs, for example, where students were not assigned designated roles). Features of these in termediate group learning approaches were observed in Kims and Marcuss class but did not have significant duration in their classes. To observe how Ritas class was categoriz ed and placed in this table shown above in the category designated as Lecture-Interactive, a synopsis of all her observed classes ( Table continued )

PAGE 259

APPENDIX D (continued) 248 (four in all) was created from four synopses of transcriptions of raw data. Her class was placed in a continuum between Gregs which entailed the most group oriented collaborative work, and Evans which entailed a more lecture-based format with fewer student-teacher interactions involving more verificati on/algorithmic-lower cognitive order questions. Based on the frequency of interactions and the occasional working in groups, her class was considered more lectur e based than Marcus but more interactive with more frequent conceptual questions th an observed in Evans class. Thus the deciding factors in this categorization enta iled general organization, pace, content, number of interactions both student and teacher and student-student, percent time observed in these interactions, type of in teractions, and types of student learning processes observed. These decisions were listed at the beginning of the synopsis and characteristics of the class were listed afterward. *******************Begin Sample Condensed Data Synopsis***************** Ritas classes : General organization, pace, content, # interactions std-T & std-std, % time in interactions, type of interactions types of student learning processes Main technique: Power point presentations on large screen covering a black board Ppt slides of two types: introducing overview of concepts and linkages and giving details of concepts. The second type of slide often has blanks inters persed in the presentation for students to verbally speak out the appropriate word to complete the sentence as T reads the slide aloud. Sides of the blackboard are used for wr iting out explanatory and example problems pertinent to ppt slides. Class 1 ~15 slides per class, Class 2 ~10, ppt slides & 6 overheads, 1 handout;

PAGE 260

APPENDIX D (continued) 249 Class 3~17 slides and students doing in-class problem set; Class 4~example class detail: 11ppt slides, 1 overhead T-std interactions asked stude nts 30 questions for which she waited for and received voluntary answers or called on people by name or went down row of desks to get answers. These questions tended to be listening checks and mainly algorithmic. Class also included a 5 minute probl em set from the back of the chapter in which students were allowed to di scuss and share their answers. *********************End Sample Condensed Data Synopsis******************* A condensed synopsis was formulated for each faculty member in the case study and placed in relation to each ot her. Further condensation of the description of each style of class was formulated to create a descri ptive category for the ta ble as shown above. While these descriptive categories were usef ul for much of the data analysis and triangulation, coding notes using abbreviations from the coding list were used before and after construction of these cat egories. Reviews and re-ch ecks over the initial synopses and raw data were taken throughout data analysis and reflections.

PAGE 261


PAGE 262

APPENDIX E (continued) 251

PAGE 263

APPENDIX E (continued) 252 Learning Cycle Exploration Concept Development Application Types of Questions:: (71) Low Order Cognitive Skills Questi ons or Surface Learning Approach: Algorithmic question definition: Questions that require the us e of a memorized set of procedures for their solutions (e.g. computations) Examples: Q1 Calculate the maximum weight of SO3 that could be obtained from 1.9 moles of oxygen and an excess of sulfur in the reaction 2S + 3O2 2SO3. Q2 Potassium, vanadium, and iron crystall ize in a body-centered cubic unit cell. Given the lengths of the unit cell edges a nd the atomic weights listed below, which of these elements has the highest density? Low order cognitive skills questions: Knowledge questions that requ ire simple recall information or a simple application of known theory or knowledge to familiar situations and contexts. They can also be problems solvable by means of algorithmi c processesmechanistic application of taught/recalled/known, but not necessarily unde rstood, procedures (algorithms)that are already familiar to the learne r through previous specific directives, practice or both. Examples: Q3 The atomic number of the element magnesium is 12 and its molar mass is 24.3 g/mole. The mass numbers of its three natu ral isotopes are 24, 25 and 26. Which of the following statements is true: (Circle the appropriate letters) a. The three isotopes have the same chemical properties. b. The three isotopes have the same nuclear charge c. The mass number of the most abundant isotope is 26.** d. A portion of the nuclei of Mg atoms contain 14 neutrons

PAGE 264

APPENDIX E (continued) 253 e. All elements have two or more natural isotopes.** (** denotes correct answers) Q4 Is PH3 or BH3 a base or acid? High order cognitive skills questions or Deep Learning: Knowledge questions that requ ire students to engage in the learning cycle shown in Figure 1 and above. Questions for which st udents may not have prior knowledge or algorithms that pertains directly to the questionthat prompt students to explore, generate and apply their own algorithms and models of phenom ena, that require them to be able to break a topic, phenomena, data or c oncept into parts and relate the parts to each other. Questions that prompt students to expl ain their knowledge to others and to critique knowledge claims of others eff ectively by established criteria. Examples: Q5 Ionization potential refers to the ener gy required to remove an electron from an atom. The first ionizati on potential refers to the en ergy required to remove the first electron, the second potential refers to the removal of the second electron, etc. Which of the following two would you expect to have a higher ionization potential: a sulfur (S) or a phosphorus atom (P)? Explain. Q6 Adding an electron to an oxygen atom is a reaction which is associated with emission of energy. Adding a seco nd electron to the resulting O ion is associated with energy absorption. What is your explanation to the phenomena? (Note more examples can be found in th e activity located in Appendix A.) What follows is an excerpt from field data of observed, in-class questioning behavior in Verns class. Examples of teacher-student and student-student interactions involving both lower order a nd higher order questioning are presented. CONTEXT In Verns general chemistry class, stud ents were typically shown PowerPoint slides containing concepts from their text book. Generally Vern asked students to solve

PAGE 265

APPENDIX E (continued) 254 algorithmic, lower order questions however as several mature students (apparent age of >26 years) proceeded to answer the posed que stions they shared their ideas aloud with each other and then asked each other (and finally their instructor) more thoughtful questions. Student characterization summary: The class had 16-20 students attending the cla ss when observed. Nearly half of the students were females. Five students appeared to be non-traditional age (3 males 2 females, one of which was a visible ethnic minority) Class organization and physical lay out: PowerPoint slides were used to present information. Vern read the slides aloud and the slides also contained the questions that students were to answer in class. (Preplanned questions) Students had print-outs of the slides in th eir hands or notebooks, indicating that the PowerPoint lecture file was made availabl e to students in advance of their class. The screen c overed 2/3 of the whiteboard be hind the screen. The classroom was rather small (approximately 15x15 feet). St udents sat at tables forming three rows with three isles between the rows of tables and three ta bles form each row abutted end to end, leaving no break between tables in each row. Students appeared to be scattered randomly but appeared to sit in groups of twos or threes in each row. Each group of twos and threes were formed by mixes of sexes with few groups (approximately two

PAGE 266

APPENDIX E (continued) 255 overall class periods observed) forming singl e-sexed groupings. Three students can sit comfortably at each table (betw een the legs of each table). Figure 8. Verns Classroom Example 1: TEACHERSTU DENT INTERACTIONS Vern: (standing front right of the screen (as viewed from the perspective of students) facing students, reading the te xt from the slide which show s a section of the periodic table with an arrow showing the dir ection of increasing atomic radius) Question posed to students: Arrange these atoms in increas ing order of atomic radius: S, Se, Te (students are shown the periodic tabl e on the screen Ver n points to itand the periodic table has spheres representing each element atom and its relative size to General standing p osition of teache r door screen in front of white board Tables and chairs Projector hanging from ceiling

PAGE 267

APPENDIX E (continued) 256 surrounding atoms. The text on the screen and ar rows drawn in the slide suggest that the students are to visually follow the arrows dr awn in the PowerPoint figure, to note the changing sizes of the atoms in a column, indi cating that the atomic radii increase within and going down a column in the periodic table.) Observations of student behavior: Students did not immediatel y answer this question aloud, although to the research er, the question and the expe cted answer seemed very apparent and easy to answer. However, the st udents appeared to be perplexed as they were looking at distinctions between the se ction of periodic table shown on the slide and what they had in their texts, which apparently had a table that was s lightly different from the one depicted on the slide. Their text contained a periodic table that included ionization energies that appeared to follow a trend that coincided partially with atomic size. While they were looking at their te xtbooks and the slide th ey talked with each other. Vern waited for 2.5 minutes for an answer for the question posed above, and while he waited the students deliberated on questions that they posed to each other: STUDENTSTUDENT INTERACTIONS: Male (mature) student (nearest me) is talki ng to neighbor student (apparent traditional age female) sufficiently loudly for me to hear: why does the energy decrease between Boron and Carbon? Female student: maybe it has something to do with how many electrons there are in the outer shell. Male student: But the electrons are coming out of the same p orbital, wont they have the same energy? Female student: maybe it has something to do with the size of the atom? At the opposite side of the room a male stud ent then asks Vern a question aloud for the whole class to hear: What if you hit an atom with an electro n, how does this change their

PAGE 268

APPENDIX E (continued) 257 size and their energy?--Can atoms lose all th eir electrons? Im tryi ng to understand what plasma is, like in the sun. Another male student sitting next to this st udent asks a similar que stion: Would that be the same plasma thats in a plasma torch? Vern goes off-task from the content presented in the PowerPoint slide to answer th ese questions. While he does this, students continue to deliberate their que stions regarding the numerical value of ionization energy and its relationship to electron valence and atomic radii. Commentary: These students appear to be looking at a pe riodic table in their texts that resembles the one in the PowerPoint slide but the table in their text presents additional information on ionization energy that they s pontaneously try to incorporat e into the information that they had just received on the PowerPoint slide. The question that Vern asks is a lower order cognitive skills question. His question in categorized as lower order because Vern presented a pattern or algorithm in the slide (sequential variation in atomic size going down a column in the periodic table) and aske d students to use the presented pattern (not generate their own) to order a set of elements presented on the slide. In contrast to the level of questioning that Vern used, the stude nts proceeded to ask each other higher order questions without Vern verbally prompting them However, behaviorally, he appeared to give permission for the spontaneous discussions by allowing time for these deliberations. A few students (who were discussing and trying to understand the phenomena of plasma) explored ideas that they ob tained elsewhere, either in their texts or outside the course, and attempted to integrat e that information with the content on the slide and in their texts. The spontane ous behavior of stude nts deliberating and

PAGE 269

APPENDIX E (continued) 258 questioning their understanding of ionization energy and plasma are examples of processes occurring in the learning cycle, where students explore and build concepts accommodating or assimilating new information into their prior knowledge. However this behavior is not the usual response to a lower order cognit ive skills question. Typically students comply in kind with the skill level of the question posed, responding without additional critical analys is or additional exploration to algorithmic questions. An example of a more common response to an algorithmic question was also observed in Verns class: Example 2 TEACHERSTUDENT INTERACTIONS: CONTEXT: Vern presented content from the text on electron shell filling order. He showed a PowerPoint slide of an algorithm depicting the order of filling electron valence shells shown below: 1s 2s 2p 3s 3p 3d 4s 4p 4d 4f 5s 5p 5d 5f 6s 6p 6d 7s Vern read from the PowerPoint slide text whic h didactically described that the 3s orbital is filled after the 2p orbital. Ve rn then asks the following question: Question posed to students: What orbital is filled before the 5d orbital and what two orbitals are filled after the 5d orbital?

PAGE 270

APPENDIX E (continued) 259 Several students answered aloud, almost simulta neously: The 4f is before and the 6p and 7s are after. Commentary This is a lower order question because students are shown an algorithm and are asked to follow the given pa ttern to answer the question instead of giving students the opportunity to create their own algorithm to explain to each othe r the electron filling patterns. Additionally, students answered in a way indicating that they understood the algorithm but not necessarily understandi ng the atomic phenomenon. (Note they responded by naming the order of the symbols rather than including in their description the action of electrons filling orbitals). One female student attempted to explore further and asked two related questions, why the electro ns behaved this way (the way shown in the algorithm) and why the convention of labeling didnt involve a sequential order (where 5f would be filled after 5d). He r questions were not answered, and no other student engaged in these questions. She may have been out of both Verns and students hearing range. However, other students seem ed satisfied with the level of understanding they had because I heard no spontaneous delib erations among the stud ents. Alternatively, its also possible the time that the topic wa s covered (near the end of the class period) may have curtailed students and Verns desire to draw out the topic and finish the lecture content for the day.

PAGE 271

260 APPENDIX F: INTERVIEW T RANSCRIPTS AND QUOTES The following quotes have been included to reveal distinctions about the general chemistry course that may influence in-cla ss pedagogy. Below are sample responses to interview questions probing the case study f aculty espoused conceptions regarding their different approaches in genera l versus higher level courses. Russ: [referring to using reform pedagogy in the upper level course] Um, it worked well for, I had my juniors and seniorsthe problem is that the students [referring to the general chemistry class] wouldnt always communi cate and they would get poor turnouts. Laura: [referring to implementing reform pedagogy in an honors class] And, it became a little bit more apparent that it might need to be like an honors level course and then we went back to the objectives situation and just nobody fe lt that we would be able to cover everything that we need to cover so that they could go on to General Chemistry II Howard: In other words, I believe you should come inif youre going to take a course like chemistr y or physics, youd better come in preparedthat means you have to know the languagesoso Im a very strong believer in, um, starting at the foundation and building up. You cant do the f un things until youve some of the preparation. Evan [using group learning in his adva nced analytical class] what Ill do is just have them do problems. So everyday, what I do is[I give out] a handout of that divide the stud ents into four groups, each studenteach group is assigned to do a

PAGE 272

APPENDIX F (continued) 261 problemthey solve itput the answer on the board so the other people can see what they do. Faculty in the case study, as shown in previously with the exception of Kims, Howards and Cindys general chemistry classes, teach classes of a si ze that could easily accommodate the reform pedagogy using gr oup learning, based on prior reports and research. Kim, Greg and Marc us taught classes having enroll ment sizes that were either larger or of similar enrollment to those that were ascribed as too large by other faculty in the study. Beyond the claims that include d problems with class size, faculty also mentioned lack of administration acceptance, or lack of convenience, however these claims often conflicted with othe r perceptions that either they or other faculty held in this study. One claim that was reported consisten tly and had no counter claims among faculty was that the general chemistry course cont ent was normative and required specific topics to be covered. Several faculty also e xplained why having normative content in the general chemistry course required the use of th e traditional lecture format, as observed in the following quotes.

PAGE 273

APPENDIX F (continued) 262 Faculty Perspective (Note: The bold font used in these qu otes was intended to emphasize specific words suggesting the existence of no rmative subject matter in general chemistry) Greg: I dont think you can do this [group co llaboration] in General Chemistry because you have a serious amount of contentyou just cant do big ideas you really have to be more detailed orientedso you can deliver more material at a higher level. Laura: I approached our dean about actually implementing it [ChemConnections pedagogy] and she was very supportive, but what I came across was the fact that we have to teach a certain number of objectives within our curriculum and the things [pedagogy] they stressed at the [MIDP] workshop is that youre not really able to cover every single objective that you normally would. Rita: But it seems like a consensus that this is the material that needs to be covered Theres so many examinations that students need to take if they go to premed, if they go to pharmac y, if they go to this or that so we have to cover so much material to make sure that theyre prepared for those tests. Howard: its like learning Tai Chithe learning of 108 [set number of] moves sequentially from week to weekand also its imitation when youre doing a rehearsal what youre really like is the conductor doing a complete performance of the work Marcus: But, along the way, we dont try to get them to discover how to do it, we tell them how to do it Um, you cant cover as much when you ask them to discover how to do ityou cant cove r nearly as muc h, um, and you know, Im givenworking with my other colleagues here certain expectations on what we cover, so

PAGE 274

APPENDIX F (continued) 263 Faculty Perspective (Note: The bold font used in these qu otes was intended to emphasize specific words suggesting the existence of no rmative subject matter in general chemistry) Kim: Yes, its just too overwhelming for me to think about doing it in a class that big. Also in the general chemistry.institutional thingis the general chemistry is that we have a common syllabus we have five sections or whatever, theyre all going on a common syllabus so youre really forced to keep on a common track and be covering exactly what everyone else is covering whereas in the nurses chemistry, Im the person that makes the schedule, and Im the person that make s the syllabus, so that I have more flexibility if things go a little bit more slowly, its not a di saster, whereas in general, we have to cover certain thi ngs. So, I do feel mo re constrained in General [chem.] by being one of the teach ers in one of several sections where were all covering the same materi al over the same period of time. Vern Yeah, its kind of a bottom up approach, and its a matter of hitting the standard fundamentals of general chemistry I mean, general chemistry is a pretty standard course So there are certain things that you are expected to learn in general chemistry, but within that it s kind of personal preference of how you approach it. [regarding his approach] Yeah. It varies from chapter to chapter. Depends on what the chapter lends itself to. :Thats pretty much it. The content intensive approach In these quotes faculty reveal that the ma terial presented in a general chemistry course is normative and vast and that there is an insufficient amount of in-class time to engage in the process of l earning typical of reform pedagogy. Furthermore, Greg points out that not only the amount of material but also the level of material, is better served by pedagogy that does not use reform practices su ch as collaborative learning processes. Laura indicates that there exists a set of objectives in the general chemistry class

PAGE 275

APPENDIX F (continued) 264 (suggesting normative material) in which ever y single objective requires coverage in the classroom. Both she and Rita (at the same community college) indicated that the administration, comprised of a dean and a core group of senior faculty, were responsible for determining the objectives of the course Rita also explained that maintaining the normative content was necessary as a respons ibility to students to help them pass entrance exams to other programs. Howards explanation echos a similar theme about the norm ative content in general chemistry by his analogy of a set number of moves in Tai Chi. He also provides a colorful description of the meani ng of topic coverage. He describes a runthrough of a complete performance of chemis try topics where the instructor acts as conductor and musician, while students act as the audience, being attentive listeners rather than participants in the creation of th e music. With these analogies in conjunction with a quote presented previously, Howard conve ys that there is a fixed set of topics presented in a sequential fashion, delivered by the teacher which students are expected to hear but are not expected to understand during class. Given that faculty have conceptions about the general chemistry course content as normative, it is possible that they either do not agree with the refo rm perspectives about changing course content away from science as product conceptions or perhaps do not understand it. Alternatively there may be additi onal external influen ces that might affect their teaching approaches. The following quot es indicate how the faculty perceived the

PAGE 276

APPENDIX F (continued) 265 MIDP workshop intervention. In addition to their conceptions about the workshop, these quotes reveal their possible contextual infl uences both for and against reform uptake. Greg Q: Um, you mentioned that when you went to the MID project workshops that you didnt see that much new. You already had built up a fairly G: Well that was a long timethat was three years agoso that was alreadyI mean Id been to a lot of national meetings on this subject and spent a lot of time reading about it Q: were there any specific things that you found out from the MID project workshops that prompted you to think everor rethink about anything or did you find it mo re like a reiteration.? G: I.O.K., the answer is, yes, the peer led learning is directly useable in chemistry and in perhaps other cour ses. Most of the other stuff focused on chemistry courses and most of them were chemistry courses that I dont teach and therefor e it was of less va lue I think if I were doing those particular course s, that that would have had more relevance and interest. But I think the difficult thing ultimately with any of these is that you cannot get agreement amongst the faculty that you want to do things in this way, instituting one of these courses is probably going to fail miserably in that you may have some small successes and youll have some student s that absolutely love it, but you will not get it institutionalized because once that faculty member wears out on putting all that time and energy in, and the next faculty member takes it over, theyll revert back to something much simpler. In all likelihood. And th e other element is its difficult to get the materials completely.the material s in such a way that you can hand them to somebody to do withoutits almost impossible to do without some sort of professional development. The problem with the professional development is you rea lly need direct mentoring not a workshop to institute something because its like, okay, wait, I dont knowit sounds great at a workshop, but the day to day implementation turns out to be messier and different. Evan Q: Was there anything that you remember there that you found provocative or interesting or new or was it pretty much reinforcing some things that you had known from the past? How did that experience.? E: I was paying attention to what they were doing and, the overall

PAGE 277

APPENDIX F (continued) 266 impression I had was that these movements or trends or whatever the hell you want to call them, seem to be trying to simulate in a big school what people have always been doing forever in a small school. For instance, like, uh, like New Tr aditions, this is sort of a waywhen you have a lecture of three hundred students, how do you get interaction with your students. I mean, thats the idea. How do you do that? And, of course, we ge t interaction with our students because our classes are a heck of a lot smaller than thatThis appeared to me to be a universitys ort of like Florida Atlantic, that needs lots and lots of TAs b ecause the TAs are the ones who do most of the teaching in the labs. But they dont have enough graduate students. So how you get around that problem is using your undergraduates to fill that role.wha t theyre doing is they pick up like four or five modulesthey do it in a given semesterand the second semester they do another four or five modules picking them so that theyll cover the material th ey need to cover, but at the same time they still have to use the te xt book. Those modules omit some of the nitty-gritty details like th e greenhouse onethey have them do Louis dot structures of molecules, but they never actually explain how to do a Louis dot structure. So either the professor has got to come up with handouts or what they do at Berkley is that they simply usedeverybody bought a general chem book and they used it as a reference book. And Im thinking to myself those modules cost like fifteen bucks apiece so the stude nts are now paying sixty dollars a semester for four modules plus an other sixty for the second semester so were paying an extra hundred and twenty dollars in addition to the textbook theyve already bought. Rita Q: What were the key things that you think really impressed you? Like what was most provocative about? R: The MID [New Traditions] was the a pproach that had guided inquiry. How to change the class from trad itional to guided inquiry. Id done very little of that in the classr oom although they say it doesnt take up more time than usual teac hing, I find that it does. Q: It takes away from the actual time in the classroom? R: Yes, but in the labIve changed my laball of my labs to that format. Q: Can you explain a bit more about how it takes time away from the class situation.

PAGE 278

APPENDIX F (continued) 267 R: If Im allowing them to discover the concepts and work on it, they all move at different times. And it takes longer for them to go to the book and analyze and come up with th eir answers on their own versus if Im prompting them. I can move them at a quicker pace. I think theres too much material that needs to be covered in general chemistry. Whats required to be covered. Q: So this sounds like, is guided inquiry the main thing that you feel like you got from these other workshops or are there other things you got too that you thought were interesting? R: So thelets see, whats the correct term for itI forgotbut its having like a test question where they have to vote on the answer and come up with the answer. Im keep ing those in between. I think those are very helpful. Q: It kind of looked like you were doing something lik e that in class. Is that what you would say you were doing? R: Yes. And sometimes Ill have them vote on it if I see that the class is very divided on opinionsand then de pending if its divided after the vote Ill have them discuss it betwee n them and then make a new vote. Laura Q: Ill probably ask a few questions as you go on. L: Please do. One of the things that I really liked at the MID Project conference that I went to was the Chemistry Connectuh, was it called Chemistry.ChemConnections. But I actually attended a follow up workshop in New York for, I think it was three days on that, which was very intensive, and I wa s very, very excited. I really wanted to come back and implement that in our lab program, because I thought it was just wonderful that it was very student focused, not so much teacher focusedthat they were facilitatingI wa s a facilitator not just a person up there feeding th em information, that they had to come up with their own ideas and re ally, I was mainly there to help them, not necessarily to just lecture and give them all the information. And I approached our dean about actually implementing it at our campus and she was very supportive but, what I came across was the fact that we have to teach a certain number of objectives within our curriculum, and the things they stre ssed at the workshop is that youre just not really able to cover ev ery single objective that you normally would And I know youve talked to [R ita], so one of the things that kind of came out of that when [R ita] came on board, was that she was

PAGE 279

APPENDIX F (continued) 268 interested in the guide d inquiry, cooperative learning teams and that was kind of along the lines of what I wanted to try at least do in the laboratory, and so we both moved in that direction, for general chemistry I and General Chemistry II, and Im really, really excited by what were doing in the laboratory b ecause the students really have to do a lot more work on their own, come up with ideas, theyre using the scientific method versus, you know, us just giving them a set procedure, where they just follow it and verify what they already know. Kim K: Youre asking me to think about two influences? Q: Yes, two possible influences and there might be others... K: One influence was definitely [New Traditions, POGIL]. Withguided inquiry. One influe nce was definitely [a POGIL facilitator], when he came to talk about it. I was very influenced by him and his working groups. And th ats.Ive tried to introduce that into the nurses chemistry morenot really in the general chemistry because the nurses chemistry group is smaller. The idea of having students talk to each other and actu ally be solving problems in the classnot just sitting there and me lecturing, but actually having to work and think about problems in the classso thats been one influence. And it does mean the class goes more slowly but it does mean that they really have to think a lot moreand they have to work, actually, while theyre in class. Its very different from the old idea that you would lect ure and then they woul d go away and do their homework. Howard H: Well, actually I.years agolet s seeabout eight or nine years ago now.when J. E. was running things I did thehis active learning stuff. Although I found a lot of the techniques not really applicable to science and a lot of them dont work in large lectures. But, um, certain thingsideas I got from that were a little bit useful. They did workthey worked well.because one of the things that we learned in there through the years was web teachingand I like to use web teaching as a supplement to the lecture But the main thing is that really, all the different parts of t echnology that can be used, not just computers, also audio-visual things, all the things that they have that are available impressed me the most. Then, the other thing was thejust some of the teaching tech niques, and some introduction into the education literature. But, umthere are just so many things that went through there, Ilike I said, Ive been to about fifteen, twenty

PAGE 280

APPENDIX F (continued) 269 workshopsI dont remember which one each one did. Q: What sort of th ings have you tried? H: Okay, well I, um, in smaller cour ses, I have tried occasionally having discussion groups, and, in advanc ed courses, I know the science students dont like that. They hate it. So Ive actually also do a lot of questionsIll ask the class questions, and sometimes Ill even go so far as to point at somebody and say, alright, what does this mean? And so, some kind of an active comp onent. Also encourage questions of me while Im lecturing, and a lot of students.even in a big lecturethey do ask them. Marcus Q: Um, so was there anything at the MID project workshop that surprised you given that you had some b ackground alreadyyou said you went to different workshops. Was there something that stood out, that was provocative, or anything that you remember thatand if not, thats fine M: You know, I dont know if youre into, kind of, science educationdo you know CN?. [Q: No I dont.] Hes fantastic. He does biology. Hes retired now, and he goes ar ound the country giving talks about science education. Hes at Indian a University. And you should check his stuff out if youre interested in science education. Hes certainly informed me a lot about what works and what doesnt workthe Chem Modules, have I used the right words?we actually ended up adopting thatadopting one of them the following year on global warming and we used it the last week and I think we made the mistake of not assessing for it, and, um, you knowclearly if you dont grade it at the end, all parties take it le ss seriously. So I liked that. But again, we have a certain amount that we need to cover and Id rather spend time on the material that we need to cover and do that in a creative way, than add more stuff on. And so, what the Chem Module did was just add more to the st udents plate instead of replace something. Does that make sense? Vern Q: Was there anything in partic ular that impressed you about it [MIDP workshop], or that you disagreed with, or.? V: Well, it was interesting seeing diffe rent approaches. It was nice that they kind of brought in a bunch of di fferent methods in. I mostly go to the workshops just to see what people are doing.

PAGE 281

APPENDIX F (continued) 270 Q: What did you think of [POGIL in New Traditions]? V: Once again, a little different than the way I do it but, you know, it was an interesting approachpurely pr oblem solving approachhaving the students work through the things themselves.and the guided inquiry approach. One thing Ive co me to a conclusion of, in looking at all the way people do things is that lots of different ways things will work and it really comes down to what youre comfortable with because if the professor is not comf ortable with a particular approach its just not going to work, no matte r how good the approach is. So, the other thing is enthusiasm. Just about anything will work if theres enough enthusiasm to make it work. So, yeah, I just go to see if theres something there and pick up a few things here and there. Q: Is there anything in particular that you disagree with, that you thought wasnt well thought out or.? V: No. No. Occasionally Ill see something.I particularly detest the latest book from the American Chemical Society. Q: They have a few different ones. Which one.? V: The latest one. [looks for the book]. This one. Yup, this is the one. This is what threw me off. They put hydrogen righ t here on top of carbon and that just killed my interest right there. It was kind of like, youve got to be kidding. Cindy C: Well, to be completely honest when I first started, when I was getting readywhen I knew that I was teaching this large General Chemistry I class, obviously I wa s not concerned about getting the materialor knowing the material myself. But I emailed the coordinator at the time and said th is is the first time Ive ever done this. What do I need to know. And I got no response. None. Therefore, and I guess, one of my problems was when I did this, is I didnt take general chemistry in college I A.P.d out of it, so I never took it. I dont even know what we nt on in a freshman level general chemistry class. And so, um, I ju st assumed that I would get up and talk. And thats what I did. I know that there are other things out there, but without any guidance, without any suppor t, without any time, if I were gonna research it my self, to figure out what to do, I just was gonna get up and talk. A nd thats still my default, you know. A couple times in class I w ould pass out a worksheet, and say lets get together in groups, but since my students werent used to

PAGE 282

APPENDIX F (continued) 271 working in groups, because we only did it once or maybe, I guess, three times that semester, you know it didnt always go over well because, you know, [mimics student] I dont want to work with these guysI didnt make them do it, you know. I didntit wasnt something that was part of the thingit was just something I would try. .and so I guess, realizing the amount of work that goes into it, I think that my first semester, I was getting completely stressed out because I was spending so much time doing this class and I think that even if you had one class of ten st udents, and nothing else to do, you could still manage to spend 40 to 50 hours a week planning for that one course. I dont think you could and I think I was disappointed on some level that I couldnt put all th at time into it, I just couldnt. Russ Q: You mentioned that there were like three differentI think you said three different institutions that you taught at. And you did different things in different institutions? R: At bigger schools there ar e positions for professional educatorschemical educators. Li ke at NAU, one of my colleagues, they hired him as a professor of chemical education.But, it was an interesting teaching experience because I had about 150 students in a big lecture hall and it was somewhat impersonal. I went up there, I taught, it was very rare that peop le would come see me At a big school, the only..the disadvantage at a big school youre going to get a lecture hall of a hundred plus and it becomesits not personal anymoreyoure just teaching a crowd. And you might recognize a few people and thats about it. You can do peer learningyou know, you can grab some people that are r eally good and have them work in groupsand thats probably one of the best ways to do it because that kind of takes that middle section [C students] that I was talking about and gives them a chance to move up. But you have to be able to really trust those peer leaders. Its not as easy as it sounds. Its a lot of work. Q: Tell me about some more about that, about your experience about how that worked for you? R: Um, it worked well for, I had my juniors and seniorsthe problem is that the students wouldnt alwa ys communicate and they would get poor turnouts. Q: So theywho wouldnt communicatethe undergraduates who needed help wouldnt communicate to the more experienced ones, or

PAGE 283

APPENDIX F (continued) 272 the.? R: It was kind of both ways actually because we would set up a room and we would set up a time, and say okay, lets work in assigned groups or whatever you want to do and have them working with a certain individual. The problem is that the people in that middle region which are the peopl e that really need th e help so you can boost them up to a B level and get potenti al chem. majors are too busy doing other things and they feel theyre okay. And so its tough. You know, if you have a really dynamic pe rson thats leading the group, sometimes that works out. But, th ats another problem, finding people that are like thatthat even want to do that because theyre busy as well. So, its tough. You can do it, and I think thats the best way to try to do it, but. Q: How is it a lot of work for you? How does that? R: You have to set everything up. So you have to set up the room, youve got to set up the time, youve got to make the schedules, you got to recruit people to do it, and sometimes they have a good experience and sometimes they dont. Its one of those things that. Q: Would you be involved in the monito ring? Does that also encroach on your time? R: Yeah. Especially initially when youre doing it. You want to make sure everything is set up. So its a big time sink.

PAGE 284

260 ABOUT THE AUTHOR Beverly Barker received her B.Sc. in Ch emistry (1997) from the University of Victoria in the field of phot o-organic chemistry under Dr. Peter Wan with whom, as first author, she published two papers in that fiel d while an undergraduate, one of which won a Merck research award. For her graduate work, she pursued her interest in cytochrome-c oxidase by joining Dr. Randy Larsens group at the University of Hawaii, Manoa where she won her Masters of Chemistry (2000), in Physical Chemistry. She published two papers with Dr. Larsen in the field of bi o-physical chemistry involving photo-acoustics and photo-thermal beam deflection. In 2002, she joined Dr. Jennifer Lewis at the University of South Florida to pursue a Ph.D. in the emerging field of Chemical Education. She was hired ABD by the Univ ersity of Alaska, Anchorage in August, 2005 where she is presently employed as a tenure track Assi stant Professor.


Download Options

Choose Size
Choose file type
Cite this item close


Cras ut cursus ante, a fringilla nunc. Mauris lorem nunc, cursus sit amet enim ac, vehicula vestibulum mi. Mauris viverra nisl vel enim faucibus porta. Praesent sit amet ornare diam, non finibus nulla.


Cras efficitur magna et sapien varius, luctus ullamcorper dolor convallis. Orci varius natoque penatibus et magnis dis parturient montes, nascetur ridiculus mus. Fusce sit amet justo ut erat laoreet congue sed a ante.


Phasellus ornare in augue eu imperdiet. Donec malesuada sapien ante, at vehicula orci tempor molestie. Proin vitae urna elit. Pellentesque vitae nisi et diam euismod malesuada aliquet non erat.


Nunc fringilla dolor ut dictum placerat. Proin ac neque rutrum, consectetur ligula id, laoreet ligula. Nulla lorem massa, consectetur vitae consequat in, lobortis at dolor. Nunc sed leo odio.