1. Redesigning a Preparatory Chemistry Course Rebecca A. Krystyniak Mike Dvorak Saint Cloud State University March 17, 2008

2. Our Project Redesigning Chemistry 140 –Preparatory chemistry course Annual enrollment of ~750 students Currently in the Pilot phase (double section = 50 students) with a full implementation planned for Fall 2008 (150 students)

3. Traditional Course Issues Increase in class size has decreased student- instructor contact time Difficulties utilizing active learning/small group activities in the course 26.1% of students are receiving Ds, Fs and Withdrawls –Students need a C or better to enroll in 141 or 210 Catering to different populations of students with a large range of background chemistry knowledge Large number of faculty teaching course, including fixed term faculty (7 instructors teach CHEM 140 per year)

4. Redesign Project Plan Supplemental Model of Redesign 2 instructors per semester - an auditorium model –Each with 200 students –Teach collaboratively –Utilize audience-response system if desired Web-based tutorial program (ALEKS) Incorporate active learning into lecture –Combine lecture and group work during class time

5. Incorporate undergraduate Learning Assistants (LAs) into course - both lab and lecture –Use Learning Assistant model from University of Colorado-Boulder Develop a 1 cr. pedagogy course for LAs –Each LA will have 10 student groups of 4 –LAs lead outside of class active learning assignments

6. Current Implementation Spring 2008 pilot –50 students in redesigned course (a 100 ss traditional course also being offered) 1 instructor –7 Learning Assistants Facilitating in class active-learning Leading out-of-class activities Enrolled in pedagogy course –ALEKS web-based tutorial Fall 2008 Full-pilot –150 students in redesigned course –4 learning assistants –2 instructors co-teaching course (to train faculty)

7. Cost Savings Cost savings have not yet been realized Intent is to decrease number of faculty teaching the course, while including Learning Assistants in the course

8. Obstacles Mini-pilot study –Redesign faculty not teaching the course –Technology implementation issues –Student buy-in Faculty buy-in –Large lecture course shy –Department in state of change Outside of class time Scheduling of LAs

9. Successes Final exam average score –mini-pilot (75 ss) 60.5% –traditional section (154 ss) 55.7% First exam score in pilot (50 ss) –5 points higher than in previous semesters with a median score of 90.4% Positive informal feedback from students in pilot –ALEKS, active learning, and LAs Learning Assistants in mini-pilot –Believed that they learned teaching strategies and provided opportunities for students to gain a deeper understanding of the content.

10. Future Directions Collect focus group data from students and Learning Assistants Learning Assistants as an impetus for change in our department and other departments Utilize faculty mentoring model for teaching redesigned courses Investigate use of audience-response system in lecture Investigate use of a laboratory coordinator with redesigned courses