1. Use of Technology in General Chemistry Course Redesign David V. Dearden Brigham Young University 1

2. General Chemistry Course Structure Conceptual, “atoms first” approach No concurrent lab Mixed application for mixed clientele: 1-semester, stand-alone course for engineers first of a 2-semester series in general chemistry for many others 2

3. General Chemistry Students Pre-professional (30%), engineering (40%), science majors (15%), others (15%) ~85% have had high school chemistry, but course is taught with no prerequisites Typical enrollment 2500 students/year 250 students/lecture (3x/week) 25 students/recitation section (2x/week) Dropout/withdraw/fail typically < 10% 3

4. Challenges Large sections little personal interaction inability to give adequate, personal feedback diversity of student preparation/background Course content (volume!) 4

5. Goals in Using Technology Engage students during lecture Give individual feedback Do this without sacrificing content increasing instructor load I use technology primarily for pedagogical reasons; assessment is a distant secondary purpose this avoids potential concerns about security /cheating “I love technology” 5

6. Redesign Strategies We Have Used Use of recitation sections Use of Blackboard / “Micro Exams” Use of Chem Tutor Use of iClicker quizzes Use of online homework (Mastering Chemistry) 6

7. In-Class Interactive Quiz Systems Keep students engaged Easy way to track attendance Allow instructor to monitor learning and adapt teaching Costs to students Requires change in teaching methods 7

8. iClicker Adoption (all voluntary) HITT at BYU was first used in Physics (adopted in Chemistry soon thereafter) Requires IR receiver installation and line-of-sight; nice recording/grading package Turning Point adopted university-wide Requires PowerPoint; Windows-centric; relatively expensive; grading unwieldy Transition to iClicker about 2 years ago Good combination of low cost, small tech footprint, features; grading package weak 8

9. iClicker “Best Practices” Spread questions through lecture Mix “participation” questions with “right answer” questions Get students to teach each other Re-poll to assess learning Adjust lecture based on student understanding Allow ample “drops” Transmitter registration 9

10. iClicker Outcomes Students generally liked using the system Attendance improved markedly (from about 60% at end of term before using iClickers to ~90% after using them) My teaching style has changed as a result of using the immediate feedback 10

11. Online Homework Use provided problems or write your own (or use a mixture) Gives graded feedback can be in form of “hints” or answer-based instruction Instructor can monitor Computer does the grading Learning curve for students and instructor 11

12. MasteringChemistry Implementation Faculty participation was voluntary in Fall ’07 By Winter ’08, all sections had adopted Ranged from 1st time teachers to a retired faculty member who returned to teach “Easier than I thought it would be” Use has since spread to the follow-on course (Chem 106) and to 2 courses in the GOB series 12

13. MasteringChemistry “Best Practices” Use the publisher-provided best practices Have students do introductory exercises Allow ample retries with small penalties for looking at hints points are like candy! give most of the credit for completing Allow ample “drops” Be flexible with due dates early on Leave problems available for review Work problems yourself before allowing student access 13

14. Student Perceptions 3.74 ± 0.90 3.97 ± 1.04 2.32 ± 1.23 4.35 ± 0.95 4.10 ± 1.09 3.38 ± 1.07 14

15. Exam Scores 54.5 ± 24.5% 60.6 ± 21.7% 15

16. Acknowledgments BYU Department of Chemistry & Biochemistry Chem 105 instructors BYU Physical Science 100 program and instructors National Science Foundation 16