Untitled

Project-organised learning in Chemistry for a quality graduate

T van Ree

ICCE16

Budapest, August 2000

The decision in 1999 by the academic management of the University of Venda to change its teaching paradigm to one of problem-oriented, project-organised, group-based learning, has placed the Chemistry department before several challenges. Our approach to some of these
challenges in the first year will be discussed.

1 Introduction

The new paradigm, here called the ‘Aalborg model' (Kjersdam and Enemark, 1994), seems to have certain advantages over the traditional approach, such as the emphasis on problem solving, interdisciplinarity, team work and management aspects. These are aspects which we would also like to foster in our own approach. However, several problems with application in a fundamental discipline such as Chemistry have been identified:

After 20 years, few major Universities have introduced project-organized studies as a general delivery mode. Stanford University is investigating the introduction of this approach in two Engineering programmes, but there is clearly skepticism and a problem with portability.
The approach may be successful with an interdisciplinary programme such as engineering, probably because a professional engineer is mostly a manager and organiser, skills that are emphasised in the programme. Because of the large gaps in his or her theoretical foundations, the product of this approach needs to be supported by more conventionally-educated engineers. The Aalborg programme ‘was assessed to be complementary to the traditional engineering programmes'. The low enthusiasm shown by employers may suggest this shortcoming (a 37% response to a questionnaire by employers is still statistically acceptable, so that there was no reason to exclude their opinions from the report; one must conclude that their reaction to the programme was less favourable).
The emphasis on the group culture generates a more adaptable ‘team player', but graduates of a more traditional programme are better grounded in fundamentals and more capable of working independently.
Natural Science courses form part of the engineering curriculum. In Aalborg (Esbjerg) no pure chemistry or physics programmes are run.
The first three years of the Aalborg programme deal mostly with ‘know-how problems which can be solved by theories and knowledge they have acquired in their lectures'. The first year entails Basic Studies. During the next two years the necessary disciplines are taught through courses and the professional functions through project work. At this stage the project work consists of ‘prescribed exercises, which are used repetitively and thus are not really problem-organized...'. This is therefore not much different from our approach in the undergraduate BSc years. In engineering terms, the project work is design-oriented. Only the 4th and 5th years are mainly problem-oriented, also supported by relevant lectures.
A high degree of supervision and office space for students are required, as group sizes are typically four students, each with a supervisor and office. This is impossible to attain, at least in the typical African university.
Students choose Aalborg specifically because of the approach. They are therefore already highly motivated and know what to expect from the programme. An important minority of these students, however, found the demands of the curriculum too diffuse, and the majority assessed the technical coherence as average. Add to this the finding that many supervisors were not able to provide precise and clear explanations, and there were obviously far too many cognitive deficiencies.
Freshmen's involvement in project work was not effective since these students did not have the technical knowledge or tools to benefit from the experience. Due to this lack the students did not appreciate the first semesters.
The students' activities were distributed as follows: 38% project work, 36% taught courses, 26% individual studies for a 52-hour (!) working week. Our BSc curriculum, based on a 40-hour working week, averages about 36% practical and 31% taught courses, which is not significantly different.
The report finds that ‘the time allowed for ... traditional lectures did not seem sufficient for an education well founded on scientific principles'.
The low contents of taught courses raised doubts whether professional engineering guidelines were being met, to have the curriculum accepted by international institutions (i.e. doubts about portability).

The most significant drawback is the superficial nature of much of the ‘academic' training in favour of the overarching skills of teamship, management, etc. This poses serious challenges to an academic department such as Chemistry that has to give learners all the basic experimentation skills besides doing the project work.

2 The paradigm shift

Negative perceptions and attitudes regarding science and tertiary education overall have been documented in the general population and among students in several studies. Some capable students are being alienated by several aspects of traditional courses. Many undergraduates respond poorly to the lack of human interaction and exchange of ideas in the typical lecture format common to most university courses, and do not see the relevance of what they are learning. Students feel that their success in examinations depends mainly on what they understand and can remember from textbooks, lectures and homework assignments, whereas their success on the job depends on analysing new situations and applying knowledge in new contexts. Reports from industry confirm that desirable employees are not necessarily the strong, academically and experimentally skilled workers, but rather quick learners, critical and creative thinkers, problem solvers, communicators and team players.

Therefore, a paradigm shift has taken place worldwide:

From: A university is an institution that exists to provide instruction.
To: A university is an institution that exists to produce learning.

This is the "Learning Paradigm". The learning is learner-centred and learner-driven. This means that the focus has shifted to the learner, but also that the learner must take greater responsibility for his or her own learning.

3 The learner

The learner changes from being a "customer/consumer" to "active participant in learning".

How do we encourage active participation? Whether the groups solve problems, do open-ended practicals, give presentations or prepare for tests and exams, discussing information in a group requires learners to be more active in their learning. They build a feeling of community and interdependence in the classroom. They form mutual commitments and goals, and facilitate each other's learning by using effective interpersonal and communication skills. They teach each other by sharing different approaches to problem-solving and asking questions.

Human individuality ensures that the learning process is not the same for all learners. Each learner has a preferential learning style which has to be taken into account. Using small-group learning activities is one way to acknowledge different learning styles. It is well documented that small-group learning activities lead to positive outcomes such as higher achievement, increased positive attitudes towards the subject area, higher self-esteem, greater acceptance of differences among peers, greater persistence, greater retention and enhanced conceptual development across content areas and in a wide range of educational settings (Towns et al., 2000). Therefore, we decided to emphasise small-group tutorials.

For our purposes, a tutorial may be broadly defined as an occasion for students to receive responses about their own constructions of meaning.

This brings us to the underlying paradigm shift in the theory of knowledge: from Behaviourism to Constructivism.

4 The Constructivist model of knowledge

Two major schools of thought on learning theories that have evolved throughout history have made a broad impact on education in the 20th century. They have evolved around the question: is learning a copying process, by which education is given to learners, or is it a discovery process, by which learners use specific intellectual skills that guide their learning? The latter view sees learners involved in a design process, creating a world in their minds. Thorndike's classic theory of learning (Byrnes, J.P., 1996:8) describes knowledge through associations between situations and responses. Knowledge grows according to the laws of cause and effect. Repetition is used to build up associations between situations and responses, and reward and punishment play an important role in learning.

Skinner's behavioural theories similarly assume that learning is a systematic process of acquiring information through reinforcement by repetition. A limitation of behaviourism is that it describes observable human activities while many aspects of human life are unobservable. Activities are described in terms of a stimulus-response mechanism, virtually ignoring the linking mechanisms between stimulus and response. Behaviourism makes us think of knowledge as having an existence of its own - it is "out there" and it is the teacher's job to get it inside the students' heads (Herron and Nurrenbern, 1999).

With research revealing that students could be trained to provide acceptable responses without understanding, behaviourism gave way to information processing and constructivist theories of learning. The constructivist model of knowledge attempts to answer the epistemological question: "How do we come to know what we know?"...This model can be summarized as: Knowledge is constructed in the mind of the learner...Learners do not simply mirror and reflect what they are told or what they read. Learners look for meaning and will try to find regularity and order in the events of the world even without full or complete information (Bodner, 1986).

In the constructivist model, knowledge is assumed to fit rather than match reality. The consequences of these two assumptions differ widely: If we assume that knowledge corresponds to or matches reality, two or more individuals with the same knowledge must have similar copies or replicas of reality in their minds. If we assume that knowledge fits reality, we find that each of us builds our own view of reality by trying to find order in the chaos of signals:

There is no need for these hypotheses to be true, or even to be at all like the truth; rather, one thing is sufficient for them - that they yield calculations that agree with the observations (Osiander, in his preface to Copernicus' De Revolutionibus).

Finally, instead of seeing learners as ‘blank tablets' upon which teachers should inscribe Knowledge and Truth, learners are now viewed as active learners with various stages of intellectual, emotional and ethical maturity. This realization should dramatically impact on the methods we use to teach and environments we create for learning (Finster, 1989).

5 The small group-based tutorial

Group-based tutorials and projects therefore aim to increase learners' participation in their own learning. In our approach problem solving tutorial classes, the project and practicals are presented in an integrated fashion. It is important for learners to understand the programme on which we have embarked. Therefore, tutorials include metalearning, addressing topics such as ‘Quality learning and your own involvement in learning', ‘Surface versus deep-level learning', ‘Know your expressive skills', ‘Project management' and ‘Learning styles'. These tutorials are interleaved with problem-solving tutorials covering the taught modules (Middlecamp and Kean, 1987).

In our small-group tutorials, which are run partly as "process workshop" (Hanson and Wolfskill, 2000), students are actively engaged in learning a discipline and developing essential skills by working on activities that involve guided discovery, critical thinking and problem solving and include reflection on learning. Students are required to process information, verbalize and share their perceptions and understanding with each other, and to make inferences and conclusions, i.e., to construct knowledge.

Constructing meaning consists of two distinct processes - forming mental images and checking these images for consistencies. A well-designed tutorial should give one the opportunity to engage in both these processes. This means that four definite characteristics should be present in a tutorial:

Stimulus material: Something to look at, read, touch, listen to, experience, that in some way has to be interpreted.
An interpretation task: An instruction to make sense of the stimulus material in a particular way: "Interpret...", "Form an image of...", "Propose a hypothesis...", "Describe what you think is happening..."
Airing and sharing: An opportunity for students to talk about their own constructions of meaning or interpretations made in the preceding step.
Feedback: Through discussion each participant receives information about the way in which others respond to his or her constructions of meaning.

In short,    Information is provided through print.
                 Motivation is provided through lectures.
                 Learning is provided through tutorials.

So, our aim is to produce
Deep-level learning

"Meaning" rather than "reproduction";
"Knowledge-transforming" rather than "knowledge-telling";
Comprehension or application rather than knowledge;
Construction rather than intake of knowledge.

Why then
Active student involvement?

Learning is more effective when it is an active rather than a passive process.
Problem-centred learning is more enduring than theory-based learning.
Participants will learn more when they share control over and responsibility for the learning process.

Therefore, in the first Activity of the module, students are asked to provide a "wish list" of what they expect to learn:

Activity 1:

Write a short paper about "What I expect to learn from my first module in Chemistry".
In groups of 6, read to each other what you have written. As a group, reach consensus about what you want to learn.
Present the group's summaries and questions to the class.

The results of this Activity are interesting and indicative of the students' understanding of what Chemistry is about:

Results: Expectations from CHE1540

To work with chemicals
To solve problems
To do reactions
To interpret symbols
To develop character
To follow instructions
To measure chemicals accurately
To know how chemicals help in society
To know job opportunities
To work independently
To prepare medicines
To apply knowledge in practice

6 Student activities

As the semester progresses, more Activities are used to focus the students' involvement in their own learning and the project. The deliverables from many of the Activities are usually brief written reports. Communication is one of the Core Outcomes of our present programme, but teaching of good writing is best left to teachers of writing. However, Chemistry instructors do not have to teach good writing but only to recognize and not accept poor writing (Meislich, 1987). A report is given two marks, for instance 60(75). This would mean that the content of the report was acceptable (60%) but that a much better mark can be obtained (75%) by rewriting in an acceptable form.

More examples of student Activities follow:

Activity 2:
Complete and hand in the questionnaire about your expectations from tutorials in Chemistry.

The following Activity aims to set the scene for the actual project work:

Activity 5:
1 Write a short paper about "Chemistry for the sustainable use of natural resources".

Activity 6:
Certain overarching skills have been identified as desired university-wide outcomes. To be able to assess their progress in mastering these skills, students are asked to complete the ‘Expressive Skills Checklist'. The results of this simple questionnaire will enable tutors to place them in a suitable group for the planned group work.

During the execution of this and other projects we aim to improve certain critical skills, such as:

Problem solving: Identifying and solving problems in which your responses display that responsible decisions using critical and creative thinking have been made.
Teamship: Working effectively with others as a member of a team or group.
Research skills: Collecting, analysing, organizing and critically evaluating information.
Communication skills: Communicating effectively using various modes.

On completion of the questionnaire, students are broadly categorized as Experimentalists, Artists, Problem solvers, Managers and Communicators.

Results

Experimentalists:     16
Artists:                    12
Communicators:      18
Managers:               19
Problem solvers:      18

Activity 7:
1 In groups of four, discuss the advantages and disadvantages of project work as a mode of learning.

Activity 8:
1 Based on the results of the Expressive Skills Checklist, students are divided in groups of 5-6 persons each. Within each group, they decide who will play the following roles (they do not need to be permanent roles):

Listener: Ensures that group members listen to the contributions of other group members without interruptions. Ensures that the essence of someone's contribution is conveyed clearly and that the other members have understood it, by paraphrasing, summarising, feedback.
Questioner: Asks short, to the point questions at critical points during the discussion. Constantly thinks of important questions to direct the discussion towards desired learning outcomes.
Responder: Summarizes different responses and directs them to get the best response from the group as a whole. Ensures that all group members get ample time to make contributions, also the ‘quiet' ones.
Objectives facilitator: Keeps focused on the group assignment and ensures that the group remains on track. Guides the discussion by means of well-directed remarks or questions.
Time controller: Ensures that the group completes the learning task in the allotted time.
Summarizer/scribe: Summarizes the conclusions, findings or result of the discussion concisely and presents it as accurately as possible. Of course, the whole group is responsible for the final product and should support the scribe during and after the discussion.

2 In their project groups, students deliberate around the theme "Chemistry for the sustainable use of natural resources". They choose a possible topic which would be in line with the theory module content and the practical skills learned so far.

The approach to the students' projects is totally free-form and procedureless (Warren and Pickering, 1987). They have to decide on a specific problem within their chosen problem area which they can solve with their present state of knowledge and skills. The following topics were proposed:

Proposed topics

Group                               Topic
M1, Tu1, 3, 4, 5, W2,
3, Th1,4, F1, 2, 3, 5:        Use and purification of water
M2:                                    Disinfectants and cleaners
M3, Tu2:                           Manufacture of fertilisers and explosives
M4:                                    Manufacture of new medicines
M5:                                    Manufacturing other chemicals (from available ones)
W1, F4:                              Use of plants and animals for medicinal purposes
W4:                                    Micronutrients in agriculture
W5, Th2:                            A cure for viral diseases
Th3:                                    Recyclable materials
Th5:                                    Chemistry and the conservation of natural resources

The choice of investigation is critical to the outcome of its assessment. Once the project groups have decided on a topic and have written their first proposal, they discuss ideas with their tutors. These ideas are usually quite vague and impractical, but interpretation by skilled tutors will usually enable the group to come to a sensible problem formulation. While students are encouraged to take ownership of, and be committed to the project, the tutor must strike a balance between ensuring that the groups have the opportunity to show what they can do with minimum risk of failure, and not intervening to the point that the spark of discovery and exploration is snuffed out (Denby, 1998).

Activity 9:
Students are provided with a questionnaire containing 12 sentences with a choice of four endings each. They rank the endings for each sentence according to how well they think each fits with how they would go about learning something.

The question that is asked in twelve different forms, is:

I learn by:

a)   feeling
b)   watching
c)   thinking
d)   doing

The results are then graphed along the Thinking-Feeling and Doing-Watching axes, thus categorizing the respondents as:

Accomodators - "Feelers/doers" who learn from "hands-on" experience, are good leaders and get things done.
Divergers - "Feelers/watchers" who are imaginative, see concrete situations from many different points of view.
Assimilators - "Thinkers/watchers" who understand information and can plan, theorise, put things logically.
Convergers - "Thinkers/doers" who find practical uses for ideas and theories, are good at problem solving and decision making.

Results

Accommodator:                   6
Accommodator/Diverger:     1
Diverger:                            22
Assimilator:                        16
Assimilator/Converger:         1
Converger:                         28

The low number of Accommodators is noteworthy as this seems to mitigate against the use of practicals to "demonstrate theory". On the other hand, strengthening the "Feeling" and "Doing" modes of learning is important to produce a more balanced learning outcome.

7 Collaborative and cooperative learning

In the traditional programmes, we often encourage students to perform tasks in a competitive individualistic environment. Reward structures are set up that discourage cooperation among students, emphasise technical competence to the exclusion of all else, and promote or pass students who produce little acceptable work. This does not faithfully represent the world in which they will be asked to work and interact.

In the cooperative learning approach students work together in small groups to complete assignments (Bowen, 2000; Cooper, 1995; Dougherty, 1997; Kogut, 1997; Smith et al., 1991; Towns, 1998). However, they have to submit individual products of their cooperation. It seems that low achievers especially benefit from this approach when used judiciously and thoughtfully.

Cooperative groups share the expertise of all members and teach interaction skills. Stronger participants model behaviours for their weaker team mates (Burke, 1998). Learners, especially the weaker ones, acquire more self-esteem as they evolve personally.

In industry there is broad agreement that in addition to technical skills, one of the key experiences expected in new employees is team problem-solving. Modern science increasingly requires multidisciplinary teams across departments and between companies to collaborate. The interpersonal and communication skills developed while working in groups may be the set of skills most important to a scientist's employability, productivity, and career success. During cooperative and collaborative learning activities a group of students creates an environment where they actively engage in the material by sharing insights and ideas, providing feedback, and teaching each other.

With "small-group learning" one can distinguish between cooperative and collaborative learning environments, but groups may work collaboratively or cooperatively depending upon the type of task and how it is constructed by the teacher. In our courses, students are introduced to both ways of working together by way of their project work

The nature of collaborative work is demonstrated by means of the following Activity.

Activity 10:
Your group has just been informed that a local plant, Dilocomotum nautilum, used for many years by herbalists to treat malaria, contains a compound, Dinautilactone, which is highly effective against malaria. The potential for earning a substantial income from the exploitation of this plant seems obvious.

Given that everyone in your group makes a contribution (collaborates), your task is to:
1   Identify the types of information you will need for planning in order to utilise this opportunity.
2   Identify the potential sources of information.
3   Draft a plan of action.
4   Report to the class.

This is the type of task that is best completed using the ‘Jigsaw technique'. The following Activities deal with the group's actual project:

Activity 11:
1 In your project group, formulate the specific problem with which you want to deal. Define the problem, the objective of the project and the methods you will follow. If there are any unknown factors, describe them and explain (through subproblems) how you will solve them.

Activity 12:
1 In your project group, do the practical planning for your chosen project - responsibilities for the different tasks in the project, identifying the types of information you will need, identifying the potential sources of information, etc.

Activity 13:
The members of the group execute their allocated tasks - literature study, doing the actual chemical work, data processing, conclusions, preparation for the report.

Activity 14:
1 As a group, finalize the contents of the final report which should contain the problem formulation and objective of the project, plan, execution, data processing and conclusion.
2 Appoint one person to prepare the report for submission and evaluation.

Activity 15:
1 Every individual writes a one page report on the value and consequences of the project - what have you learned?
2 As a group, consider the evaluation of your report. Award each group member marks such that the average for the group agrees with the marks awarded to the final report.

An example of cooperative learning:

Activity 16:
1   You will be given a map to study. Without looking at the map, draw the map on the blank piece of paper provided, using any aids you may have available (except tracing).
2   Compare your effort with the map provided. Note any gross errors and try to find ways to improve your drawing.
3   In the group, discuss techniques to complete the task successfully. If you wish to, apply any new technique when studying the given map.
4   Without looking at the given map or your first attempt, draw the map on the blank piece of paper provided.
5   Complete the questionnaire.

The following activities deal with a cooperative mini-project, ‘The Chemistry of Wine'

Activity 17:
1 In your project group, discuss this problem. Define the problem, the objective of the project and the methods you will follow. If there are any unknown factors, describe them to the group and explain (through subproblems) how you will solve them.
2 Write a one to two page report on your problem formulation.

Activity 18:
1 With your project group, do the practical planning for the project - the different tasks in the project, identifying the types of information you will need, identifying the potential sources of information, etc.
2 Submit a written report on your research plan.

Activity 19:
Execute the project - literature study, doing the actual chemical work, data processing, conclusions, preparation for the report. All these aspects are discussed in the group, but you are wholly responsible for the execution of the project.

Activity 20:
1 With your group, finalize the contents of the final report which should contain the problem formulation and objective of the project, plan, execution, data processing and conclusion.
2 Within the group, discuss each member's report critically before finalizing and submitting for evaluation.

Activity 21:
Every individual writes a one page report on the value and consequences of the project - what have you learned?

8 Conclusion

Our experience with project-organised learning over the past seven months may be a bit short, but it has already become clear that the present running of projects as part of each module tends to multiplicate a great deal of effort dealing with the planning and management of projects, and also defeats the important objective of interdisciplinarity. Letting students from all natural sciences disciplines collaborate on a single interdisciplinary project will save valuable resources by streamlining supervision and sharing valuable time.

One of the recommendations of ICCE15 (Cairo, August 1998) was that

Curriculum developers in chemistry should enhance the skills of students to access information, as opposed to learning an ever-expanding body of knowledge.

There is no doubt that group-based learning as embodied in our small-group tutorials offers a highly successful additional learning instrument and contributes to the above objective. If this is accompanied with a shift in emphasis from ‘Knowledge is precious' (our present motto) to ‘Learning is precious', we will have come a long way.

References

Bodner, G.M. 1986. "Constructivism: A theory of knowledge", J Chem Educ, 63(10), 873-878.
Bowen, C.W. 2000. "A quantitative literature review of cooperative learning effects on high school and college Chemistry achievement", J Chem Educ, 77(1), 116-119.
Burke, K.A. and Greenbowe, T.J. 1998. "Collaborative distance education: The Iowa Chemistry Education Alliance", J Chem Educ, 75(10), 1308-1312.
Byrnes, J.P. 1996. Cognitive development and learning in instructional contexts. Needham Heights, Mass: Allyn&Bacon.
Cooper, M.M. 1995. "Cooperative learning: An approach for large enrollment classes", J Chem Educ, 72(2), 162-164.
Denby, D. 1998. "What makes a good investigation?", Education in Chemistry, (Jan), 17-18.
Dougherty, R.C. 1997. "Grade/study performance contracts, enhanced communication, cooperative learning, and student performance in undergraduate Organic Chemistry", J Chem Educ, 74(6), 722-726.
Finster, D.C. 1989. "Developmental instruction. Part I. Perry's model of intellectual development", J Chem Educ, 66(8), 659-661.
Hanson, D. and Wolfskill, T. 2000. "Process workshops - A new model for instruction", J Chem Educ, 77(1), 120-130.
Herron, J.D. and Nurrenbern, S. 1999. "Chemical education research: Improving Chemistry learning", J Chem Educ, 76(10), 1353-1361.
Kjersdam, F. and Enemark, S. 1994. The Aalborg Experiment: Project Innovation in University Education. Aalborg University Press: Aalborg. URL: http://www.teknat.auc.dk/teknat_home/experiment/
Kogut, L.S. 1997. "Using cooperative learning to enhance performance in General Chemistry", J Chem Educ, 74(6), 720-722.
Meislich. E.K. 1987. "Requiring good writing in Chemistry courses", J Chem Educ, 64(6), 505-506.
Middlecamp, C. and Kean, E. 1987. "Generic and harder problems: Teaching problem solving", J Chem Educ, 64(6), 516-517.
Smith, M.E., Hinckley, C.C., and Volk, G.L. 1991. "Cooperative learning in the undergraduate laboratory", J Chem Educ, 68(5), 413-415.
Towns, M.H. 1998. "How do I get my students to work together? Getting cooperative learning started", J Chem Educ, 75(1), 67-69.
Towns, M.H., Kreke, K., and Fields, A. 2000. "An action research project: Student perspectives on small-group learning in Chemistry", J Chem Educ, 77(1), 111-115.
Warren, W.S. and Pickering, M. 1987. "Student strategies in a junior-level procedureless laboratory", J Chem Educ, 64(1), 68-69.