1. Using Problems in Spectroscopy to Develop Enquiring Minds Natalie Rowley, School of Chemistry July 2012, PBL Summer School, Leicester

2. Overview  Traditional Approach  E/PBL Approach  Assessment and Evaluation  Useful Resources

3. First Year Spectroscopy

4. Traditional Teaching Approach  6 x 1 hour lectures (how techniques work and introduction to interpretation of their spectra)  6 x 2 hour workshops in parallel (practice interpreting spectra – whole class, ca. 4 PG demonstrators)  Assessed worksheet  End of year examination

5. E/PBL Approach  Groups of ~ 6 students (selected by us)  Ice breaker  4 scenarios – online and PG / staff facilitation  5 lectures - explaining how theory underpins interpretation of spectra  End of year examination

6. Learning Outcomes  By the end of this course students should be able to: –Interpret simple mass, infrared, 13 C and 1 H NMR spectra –Understand how the spectroscopic techniques work –Be independent learners –Work as a team member in a group

7. Facilitation and Location  141 students (24 groups)  Use 2 adjacent rooms with tables and movable seating  5 PG demonstrators, each assigned 4/5 groups (fixed facilitators)  Member of staff is floating facilitator during sessions and online facilitator between sessions (each group has own discussion area in VLE)

8. EBL Ice Breaker  General Science quiz  Group Rules  Establish levels of prior knowledge  Action plan for introductory task

9. Waste Disposal Scenario  In role as team of graduate chemists in fictional analytical department  Unlabelled chemical waste found in disused laboratories  Identify 6 compounds from spectra to enable safe disposal

10. Down The Drain Scenario  Dead fish found in nearby river due to unknown chemical waste  Identify 8 compounds from spectra to determine the pollutants

11. Carbonyl Conundrum Scenario  Report discovered containing identity of compounds recently analysed and their spectra, but accidentally mixed up paperwork  Assign 24 spectra to 6 compounds

12. Reaction Dilemma Scenario  Email from fictional PG student (with authentic spectra)  Carried out reaction but not sure if obtained correct product …  Wrong compound sent by supplier (different groups have different compounds, but all consistent with PG results)

13. Assessment Procedures:  12.5% Continual Assessment: Down the Drain scenario 5% (Group report 4.5%, Group contribution 0.5%) Carbonyl Conundrum 2.5% (Online group assessment) Reaction Dilemma 5% (Group report 4.5%, Group contribution 0.5%)

14. Evaluation (for pedagogic research)  Questionnaires –Likert scale questions –Short answer questions  Focus group with undergraduates  Interview with PG demonstrator  (Exam question results)

15. Feedback  “It gives you freedom to think for yourself and gives you the opportunity to find the answers yourself”  “Helped build my confidence when working in groups. Other people help me on things I haven’t learned before”  “It introduced a new way of attacking problems and ‘learning on job’ style was nice”  “I like the idea of doing our own research to solve the identity of the compound”

16. Acknowledgements  Tim Lucas (Chemistry, Birmingham)  Liam Cox (Chemistry, Birmingham)  Mike McLinden (Education, Birmingham)  Tina Overton (Hull)  Norman Reid (Glasgow, Emeritus)  Derek Raine and Sarah Symons (Leicester)  University of Birmingham for funding

17. Related links  “Enquiry-based learning: experiences of first year chemistry students learning spectroscopy” T. Lucas and N.M. Rowley, Chem. Educ. Res. Pract. 2011, 12, 478-486 http://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlepdf/2011/rp/c0rp90016h

18.  C/PBL Resources http://www.rsc.org/Education/HESTEM/CPBL /index.asp  Centre for Excellence in Enquiry-Based Learning http://www.ceebl.manchester.ac.uk/