1. Who Benefits from Innovations in Science Teaching? Reaching the Less Well Prepared Lucille B. Garmon University of West Georgia Presented at the 19 th Biennial Conference on Chemical Education Purdue University July 30, 2006

2. Initiatives Used in Science Courses at the University of West Georgia, 2005-2006 n All introductory chemistry sections (except honors section) included PLTL- model workshops. n One section of introductory biology included PLTL-model workshop. n Two sections of pre-calculus class were accompanied by a workshop. n All introductory physics courses included supplementary instruction (SI).

3. But was all that effort making a difference? n Overall grades for biology section with workshop didn’t seem much different from section without workshop. n Harder to tell in chemistry because there were no non-workshop sections for comparison. n Idea: look at students’ previous back- ground AND at how motivated they are to do well.

4. “Academic Index” = 500 x high school GPA + SAT (or equiv ACT) Maximum possible = 3600. Average for this group of students = 2557

5. Preparation and Motivation n How well prepared a student is for a college-level science or math course depends on previous instruction as well as native ability. Can be judged by “freshman index,” aka “academic index.” n Regular attendance at class is an indicator of how motivated a student is to succeed. Difficulty with this indicator: Most instructors do not track attendance.

6. Methodology for Study: Biology n Complete data on class attendance, high school GPA and SAT (or ACT) scores were available for 170 students (79 in workshop section, 91 in other). n Data were combined for the two sections. 85 students had F.I. of 2532 or above. 85 students attended class 91% or more of the time. n Four groups were identified: high preparation and high motivation, high preparation and low motivation, low preparation and high motivation, low preparation and low motivation.

7. Methodology (continued) n Each section included students in each of the four quadrants. n For each quadrant in each section, an average grade for the course was computed based on A=4, B=3, etc. Note: Attendance data were not available for students who dropped the course. Thus no W’s are included in this study. n Average grade in each quadrant was compared between the two sections.

8. Biology Results for Section with no Workshop

9. Biology Results for Section with Workshop

10. Biology Results:WS vs No WS for Students in Each Quadrant, F05 N = 15 (19%) ACG = 3.20 WS Dif: 0.55 N = 21 (27%) ACG = 2.19 WS Dif: 0.69 N = 31 (34%) ACG = 2.65 N = 18 (20%) ACG = 1.50 N = 17 (22%) ACG = 2.12 WS Dif: 0.30 N = 26 (33%) ACG = 1.27 WS Dif: 0.02 N = 22 (24%) ACG = 1.82 N = 20 (22%) ACG = 1.25 M o t I v a t I o n Upper half Lower half Upper half Lower half Prepa- ration Upper half Lower half

12. Another Interesting Finding n WS section started with 98 students. 8 withdrew. 11 not used in study b/c data not available. n Non-WS section started with 119 students. 19 withdrew. 9 not used in study b/c data not available. n Only 8% of WS students withdrew vs. 16% of students in other section. n Both sections taught by same instructor.

13. Methodology for Study: Math n Similar to biology, except that math SAT alone was used as measure of preparation. 88 students were included (49 in sections with workshop, 39 in matched sections without workshop.) n Data w/ and w/o WS were combined. 44 students had Math SAT of 550 or above. 46 students attended class 95% or more of the time. n The same four groups were identified: high preparation and high motivation, high preparation and low motivation, low preparation and high motivation, low preparation and low motivation.

14. Math Results for Sections with No Workshop

15. Math Results for Section with Workshop

16. Pre-Calculus Results:WS vs No WS for Students in Each Quadrant, F05 N = 15 (31%) ACG = 3.07 WS Dif: 0.07 N = 12 (24%) ACG = 1.75 WS Dif: -0.36 N = 8 (21%) ACG = 3.00 N = 9 (23%) ACG = 2.11 N = 12 (24%) ACG = 2.25 WS Dif: 0.25 N = 10 (20%) ACG = 1.60 WS Dif: 0.96 N = 11 (28%) ACG = 2.00 N = 11 (28%) ACG = 0.64 M o t I v a t I o n Upper half Lower half Upper half Lower half Prepa- ration Upper half Lower half

18. More Interesting Findings n WS sections started with 53 students. 3 withdrew; 1 had incomplete data. n Matched non-WS sections started with 43 students. 3 withdrew; 1 had incomplete data. n Counting ALL sections of pre-calculus in Fall 2005 (N = 274), 6% of WS students withdrew vs. 27% of students in other sections.

19. Methodology for Study: Chemistry n Went back to Fall 2000 to when workshops were optional (available but not required for students in general chemistry. 80 students were included (50 who chose workshop, 30 who did not.) n Data were combined for the two sets. 40 students had F.I. of 2495 or higher. 41 students attended class 96% or the time or more. n The same four quadrants were identified. high preparation and high motivation, high preparation and low motivation, low preparation and high motivation, low preparation and low motivation.

20. Chemistry Results:WS vs No WS for Students in Each Quadrant, F00 N = 16 (32%) ACG = 3.25 WS Dif: -0.08 N = 10 (20%) ACG = 3.00 WS Dif: 0.75 N = 6 (34%) ACG = 3.33 N = 8 (27%) ACG = 2.25 N = 15 (30%) ACG = 2.80 WS Dif: 1.55 N = 9 (18%) ACG = 1.89 WS Dif: 1.14 N = 4 (13%) ACG = 1.25 N = 12 (40%) ACG = 0.75 M o t I v a t I o n Upper half Lower half Upper half Lower half Prepa- ration Upper half Lower half

22. Methodology for Study: Chemistry (Update) n In Fall 2005 one instructor kept attendance records. This involved 50 students. Of these, 32 attended WS regularly and 18 did not. n Data were combined for the two sets. 25 students had F.I. of 2690 or higher. 32 students attended class 93% or the time or more. n The same four quadrants were identified. high preparation and high motivation, high preparation and low motivation, low preparation and high motivation, low preparation and low motivation.

23. Chemistry Results: Full WS vs. Not for Students in Each Quadrant, F05 N = 15 (47%) ACG = 3.87 WS Dif: -0.13 N = 2 (6%) ACG = 3.00 WS Dif: 2.00 N = 3 (17%) ACG = 4.00 N = 5 (28%) ACG = 1.00 N = 10 (31%) ACG = 2.90 WS Dif: 1.15 N = 5 (16%) ACG = 1.00 WS Dif: 0.17 N = 4 (22%) ACG = 1.75 N = 6 (33%) ACG = 0.83 M o t I v a t I o n Upper half Lower half Upper half Lower half Prepa- ration Upper half Lower half

25. Physics Results n Physics data available did not lend themselves to this methodology. n SI was adopted for all sections. n Attendance records not kept. n There were some conclusions, to be presented by V. Geisler at another session of this conference (S23, 4:15 Monday, STEW 314).

26. Conclusions n Looking at all four sets of comparisons (biology, math, two chemistries) overall the students in each quadrant did better, as measured by course grade, with workshop than without. n Overall, the greatest improvement was for students in the low preparation-high motivation category. High preparation-low motivation were close behind. n The smallest degree of improvement was for the high preparation-high motivation category. Good students will succeed whatever we do. n Workshop students are less likely to withdraw. n The answer to “who benefits?” can be “everyone.”

27. Acknowledgements n National Science Foundation Grant 9950575, which got chemistry workshops started, n NSF STEP Grant # DUE-0336571, which funded similar innovations in other math/science disciplines, n Colleagues Sharmistha Basu-Dutt (chemistry), Andrew Leavitt (chemistry), Nancy Pencoe (biology), Karen Smith (mathematics), and Gloria Kittel (mathematics), who shared grade and attendance data for their sections

29. Results for CHEM 1211 F05

31. Chemistry Results for Students Not Electing Workshop

32. Chemistry Results for Students Who Did Participate in Workshop

33. Chemistry Results for Students Not Utilizing Workshop

34. Chemistry Results for Students Fully Participating in Workshop

35. Peer-Led Team Learning Workshops: The PLTL Model n In the Workshop model, the class is divided into groups of six to eight students meet regularly outside of class work together throughout the term under the guidance of an undergraduate peer leader n Leader is a student with good com- munication and people skills who has done well in the course previously.

36. Workshop Chemistry at UWG

39. n “Workgroups” had been used for several years. n “Pilot” project with workshops during 1998-99. n Grant and full-fledged program in 1999- 2000. n Grant continued through 2000-2001; workshops have been a part of intro chemistry at UWG ever since.

40. Comparing Students in Fall 2000 with Similar “Academic Index” n Academic Index determined from (Combined SAT) + (500*GPA) n Group 1 has Academic Index = 2800 or more n Group 2 has Academic Index = 2600-2799 n Group 3 has Academic Index = 2400-2599 n Group 4 has Academic Index = 2200-2399 n Group 5 has Academic Index = 2000-2199 n Group 6 has Academic Index = 1800-1999 n Group 7 has Academic Index = below 1800

41. Comparing 2005 Entering Freshmen with Similar “Freshman Index” n Freshman Index determined from (Combined SAT) + (500*high school GPA) n Group 1 has Freshman Index = 3000 or more n Group 2 has Freshman Index = 2800-2999 n Group 3 has Freshman Index = 2600-2799 n Group 4 has Freshman Index = 2400-2599 n Group 5 has Freshman Index = below 2400

45. Workshops and Retention n Participation in workshop was optional in Fall 2000. n 194 of 279 students chose to participate. n 223 students completed the course. 165 (74%) had been to workshop. n 56 students withdrew. Only 29 (52%) had been to workshop. Of these, only 12 (21%) had been to three or more workshops.

52. Those attending WS Do Better on In-Class Exams WS absencesAvg Score on In-Class Exams Number of occurrences 076.3537 170.8188 266.852 354.26