Discovery Learning: Development of a Unique Active Learning Environment for Introductory Chemistry

Article Sidebar

cover image
PDF
Published: Dec 10, 2018
DOI: https://doi.org/10.14434/josotl.v18i4.23112
Keywords:
active learning, chemistry, recitation, technology, Process-Oriented Guided Inquiry Learning (POGIL), Student-Centered Active Learning Environment with Upside-Down Pedagogies (SCALE-UP)

Main Article Content

Laura E Ott
University of Maryland, Baltimore County
Tara S. Carpenter
University of Maryland, Baltimore County
Diana S Hamilton
University of Maryland, Baltimore County
William R. LaCourse
University of Maryland, Baltimore County

Abstract

It is well established that active learning results in greater gains in student conceptual knowledge and retention compared to traditional modes of learning.  However, active learning can be very difficult to implement in a large-enrollment course due to various course and institutional barriers.  Herein, we describe the development and implementation of Discovery Learning, a novel active learning discussion/recitation for a large enrollment general chemistry course.  Drawing on the very successful cooperative learning pedagogies Process-Oriented Guided Inquiry Learning (POGIL) and Student-Centered Active Learning Environment with Upside-down Pedagogies (SCALE_UP), Discovery Learning involves students working in self-managed teams on inquiry problems in a unique learning environment, the Chemistry Discovery Center.  In this case study, we will describe the design and implementation of Discovery Learning and report data on its successes, which include increased student performance and retention.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Article Details

How to Cite
Ott, L. E., Carpenter, T. S., Hamilton, D. S., & LaCourse, W. R. (2018). Discovery Learning: Development of a Unique Active Learning Environment for Introductory Chemistry. Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 18(4). https://doi.org/10.14434/josotl.v18i4.23112
Issue
Vol. 18 No. 4 (2018): Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning
Section
Case Studies
  1. Authors retain copyright and grant the Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning (JoSoTL) right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License, (CC-BY) 4.0 International, allowing others to share the work with proper acknowledgement and citation of the work's authorship and initial publication in the Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning.
     
  2. Authors are able to enter separate, additional contractual agreements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in the Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning.

  3. In pursuit of manuscripts of the highest quality, multiple opportunities for mentoring, and greater reach and citation of JoSoTL publications, JoSoTL encourages authors to share their drafts to seek feedback from relevant communities unless the manuscript is already under review or in the publication queue after being accepted. In other words, to be eligible for publication in JoSoTL, manuscripts should not be shared publicly (e.g., online), while under review (after being initially submitted, or after being revised and resubmitted for reconsideration), or upon notice of acceptance and before publication. Once published, authors are strongly encouraged to share the published version widely, with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in the Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning.

References

Abraham, M. R. (2005). Inquiry and the learning cycle approach. In N. J. Pienta, M. M. Cooper, & T. J. Greenbowe (Eds.), Chemists’ guide to effective teaching. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

American Chemical Society. (2005). Report on the CPT Survey of 2001-2004 Enrollments in Selected Chemistry Courses. Washington, DC: American Chemical Society.

Astin, A. (1993). What matters in college: Four critical years revisited. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Beichner, R. J. (2008). The SCALE-UP Project: A student-centered, active learning environment for undergraduate programs. In National Academies of Sciences. Washington, DC. Retrieved from https://www.ncsu.edu/per/byAuthorPubs/beichnerpub.html

Beichner, R. J. (2014). History and evolution of active learning spaces. In Active Learning Spaces: New Directions for Teaching and Learning. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Beichner, R. J., Saul, J. M., Abbott, D. S., Morse, J. J., Deardorff, D. L., Allain, R. J., … Risley, J. S. (2007). The student-centered activities for large enrollment undergraduate programs (SCALE-UP) project. In E. Redish & P. J. Cooney (Eds.), Research-Based Reform of University Physics. Retrieved from http://www.per-central.org/items/detail.cfm?ID=4517 Bodner, G., Klobuchar, M., & Geelan, D. (2001). The many forms of constructivism. Journal of Chemical Education, 78, 1107. doi: 10.1021/ed078p1107.4

Bodner, G. M. (1986). Constructivism: A theory of knowledge. Journal of Chemical Education, 63, 873. doi: 10.1021/ed063p873

Bowen, C. W. (2000). A quantitative literature review of cooperative learning effects on high school and college chemistry achievement. Journal of Chemical Education 77, 116. doi: 10.1021/ed077p116

Brown, P. (2015). Anatomy & physiology: A guided inquiry. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

Brooker, R, Matthes, D., Wright, R., Wassenberg, D., Wick, S., & Couch, B. (2012). SCALEUP in a large introductory biology course. In T. Ferrett, J. Stewart & W. Schlegel (Eds.) Connected Science: Strategies for Integrative Learning in College. Indiana University Press.

Bullard, L., Felder, R., & Raubenheimer, D. (2008). Effects of active learning on student performance and retention. In Proceedings of the Annual Conference of the American Society for Engineering Education. Pittsburgh, PA. Retrieved from http://www4.ncsu.edu/unity/lockers/users/f/felder/public/Papers/ASEE08(ActiveLearning ).pdf.

Cooper, M. M. (1995). Cooperative learning: An approach for large enrollment courses. Journal of Chemical Education, 72, 162. doi: 10.1021/ed072p162

Cotner, S., Loper, J., Walker, J. D., & Brooks, D. C. (2013). Research and teaching: “It’s not you, it’s the room”--Are the high-tech, active learning classrooms worth it?. Journal of College Science Teaching, 42(6), 82–88.

Cracolice, M. S. (2009). Guided inquiry and the learning cycle. In N. J. Pienta, M. M. Cooper, & T. J. Greenbowe (Eds.), Chemists’ Guide to Effective Teaching (Vol. II). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.

Douglas, E. (2014). Introduction to materials ccience and engineering: A guided inquiry. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.

Eberlein, T., Kampmeier, J., Minderhout, V., Moog, R. S., Platt, T., Varma‐Nelson, P., & White, H. B. (2008). Pedagogies of engagement in science. Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Education, 36(4), 262–273. doi: 10.1002/bmb.20204

Eddy, S. L., & Hogan, K. A. (2014). Getting under the hood: How and for whom does Increasing course structure work? CBE-Life Sciences Education, 13(3), 453–468. doi: 10.1187/cbe.14-03-0050

Farrell, J. J., Moog, R. S., & James N. Spencer. (1999). A guided-inquiry general chemistry course. Journal of Chemical Education, 76, 570–574. doi: 10.1021/ed076p570

Finkelstein, N. D., & Pollock, S. J. (2005). Replicating and understanding successful innovations: Implementing tutorials in introductory physics. Physical Review Special Topics - Physics Education Research, 1(1), 010101. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevSTPER.1.010101

Freeman, S., Eddy, S. L., McDonough, M., Smith, M. K., Okoroafor, N., Jordt, H., & Wenderoth, M. P. (2014). Active learning increases student performance in science, engineering, and mathematics. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111(23), 8410–8415. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1319030111

Gaffney, J. D. H., Richards, E., Kustusch, M. B., L. Ding, & Beichner, R. J. (2008). Scaling up education reform. Journal of College Science Teaching, 37, 48–53.

Garoutte, M. P., & Mahoney, A. B. (2015). Chemistry: A guided inquiry. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. Retrieved from http://www.wiley.com/WileyCDA/WileyTitle/productCd1119046831.html

Haak, D. C., HilleRisLambers, J., Pitre, E., & Freeman, S. (2011). Increased structure and active learning reduce the achievement gap in introductory biology. Science, 332(6034), 1213– 1216. doi: 10.1126/science.1204820

Hanson, D. M. (2006a). Foundations of chemistry: Applying POGIL principles (2nd ed.). Lisle, IL: Pacific Crest.

Hanson, D. M. (2006b). Instructor’s guide to Process-Oriented Guided-Inquiry Learning. Lisle, IL: Pacific Crest. Retrieved from https://pogil.org/uploads/media_items/pogil-instructor-sguide-1.original.pdf

Hanson, D., & Wolfskill, T. (2000). Process workshops - A new model for instruction. Journal of Chemical Education, 77, 120–130. doi: 10.1021/ed077p120

Hinde, R. J., & Kovac, J. (2001). Student active learning methods in physical chemistry. Journal of Chemical Education, 78, 98–99. doi: 10.1021/ed078p93

Hodges, L. C. (2015). Teaching undergraduate science: A guide to overcoming obstacles to student learning. Sterling, VA: Stylus Publishing.

Hoellwarth, C., Moelter, M., & Knight, R. (2005). A direct comparison of conceptual learning and problem solving ability in traditoinal and studio style classrooms. American Journal of Physics, 74, 459. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1119/1.1862633

Hunnicutt, S. S., Grushow, A., & Whitnell, R. (2015). Guided-inquiry experiments for physical chemistry: The POGIL-PCL model. Journal of Chemical Education, 92, 262–268. doi: 10.1021/ed5003916

Jensen, M. (2014). POGIL activities for introductory anatomy and physiology courses. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

Johnson, D., Johnson, R., & Smith, K. (1991). Cooperative learning: Increasing college faculty instructional productivity (School of Education and Human Development, ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report No. 4). Washington, DC: The George Washington University. Retrieved from http://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED343465

Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. (1989). Cooperation and competition: Theory and research. Edina, MN: Interaction Book Company.

Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T., & Smith, K. A. (1991). Active learning: Cooperation in the college classroom. Edina, MN: Interaction Book Company.

Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T., & Smith, K. A. (2010). Cooperative learning returns to college What evidence is there that it works? Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 30(4), 26-35. doi: 10.1080/00091389809602629

Knaub, A. V., Foote, K. T., Henderson, C., Dancy, M., & Beichner, R. J. (2016). Get a room: the role of classroom space in sustained implementation of studio style instruction. International Journal of STEM Education, 3, 1–22. doi: 10.1186/s40594-016-0042-3

Lantz, J., & Cole, R. (2014a). Analytical chemistry: A guided inquiry approach instrumental analysis collection. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

Lantz, J., & Cole, R. (2014b). Analytical chemistry: A guided inquiry approach quantitative analysis collection. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

Lawson, A. E. (1995). Science teaching and the development of thinking. Boston, MA: Wadsworth Publishing.

Lawson, A. E. (1999). What should students learn about the nature of science and how should we teach it? Journal of College Science Teaching, 28, 401.

Lewis, S. E., & Lewis, J. E. (2005). Departing from lectures: An evaluation of a peer-led Guided inquiry alternative. Journal of Chemical Education, 82, 135–139. doi: 10.1021/ed082p135

Loertscher, J., & Minderhout, V. (2011). Foundations of biochemistry (3rd ed.). Lisle, IL: Pacific Crest.

Mahalingam, M., Schaefer, F., & Morlino, E. (2008). Promoting student learning through group problem solving in general chemistry recitations. Journal of Chemical Education, 85, 1577. doi: 10.1021/ed085p1577

Mears, S. (2015). Comparison of a traditional teaching model to the SCALE-UP teaching model in undergraduate biology: A mixed method study (Master’s Thesis). East Carolina University.

Minderhout, V., & Loertscher, J. (2007). Lecture-free biochemistry: A Process Oriented Guided Inquiry Approach. Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Education, 35(3), 172–180. doi: 10.1002/bmb.39.

Moog, R. S., Creegan, F. J., Hanson, D. M., Spencer, J. N., & Straumanis, A. (2009). Process oriented guided inquiry learning. In N. J. Pienta, M. M. Cooper, & T. J. Greenbowe (Eds.), Chemists’ guide to effective teaching (Vol. 2). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Moog, R. S., & Farrell, J. J. (2002). Chemistry: A guided inquiry (2nd ed.). John Wiley & Sons, Inc.: Hoboken, NJ.

Moog, R. S., Spencer, J. N., & Straumanis, A. R. (2015). Process-Oriented Guided Inquiry Learning: POGIL and the POGIL project. Metropolitan Universities, 17(4), 41–52.

National Research Council. (2015). Reaching students: What research says about effective instruction in undergraduate science and engineering. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

National Science Teachers Association. (2002). Innovative techniques for large-group instruction. Arlington, VA: NSTA Press.

Oliver-Hoyo, M. T., Allen, D., Hunt, W. F., Hutson, J., & Pitts, A. (2004). Effects of an active learning environment: Teaching innovations at a research I institution. Journal of Chemical Education, 81, 441–448. doi: 10.1021/ed081p441

Pollock, S. J., & Finkelstein, N. D. (2008). Sustaining educational reforms in introductory physics. Physical Review Special Topics - Physics Education Research, 4(1), 010110. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevSTPER.4.010110

President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology. (2012). Engage to Excel: Producing one million additional college graduates with degrees in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. Washington, DC: Executive Office of the President.

Ruder, S. M. (2015). Organic chemistry: A guided inquiry. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

Spencer, J. N., Moog, R. S., & Farrell, J. J. (2012). Physical chemistry: A guided inquiry Thermodynamics. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

Straumanis, A., Beneteau, C., Guadarrama, Z., Guerra, J., & Lenz, L. (2013). Calculus I: A guided inquiry. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

Trout, L. (2012a). POGIL activities for AP biology. Batavia, IL: Flinn Scientific.

Trout, L. (2012b). POGIL activities for high school biology. Batavia, IL: Flinn Scientific.

Watt, J. X., Feldhaus, C. R., Sorge, B. H., Fore, G. A., Gavrin, A. D., & Marrs, K. A. (2014). The effects of implementing recitation activities on success rates in a college calculus course. Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 14(4), 1–17. doi: 10.14434/josotl.v14i4.12823

Weaver, G. C., & Sturtevant, H. G. (2015). Design, implementation, and evaluation of a flipped format general chemistry course. Journal of Chemical Education, 92, 1437–1448. doi: 10.1021/acs.jchemed.5b00316

Whiteside, A. L., Brooks, D. C., & Walker, J. D. (2010). Making the case for space: Three years of empirical research on learning environments. EDUCAUSE Quarterly, 33(3).

Wilson, J. (1994). The CUPLE physics studio. The Physics Teacher, 32, 518. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1119/1.2344100