I came to the FACETS seminars filled with anticipation. I had thought about aspects of student learning for a number of years, and was eager to apply any lessons learned in my chemistry courses. I found the seminar topics, intergenerational differences, learning theory, and curriculum development fascinating and useful. The topics have had a profound effect on the way I think about my courses – challenging me to bring about important and fundamental improvements in the way I present concepts and try to help students learn.
The Search for Critical Thinking—A Data Driven Approach
Over ten years ago, my friend and colleague, Steve Bondeson and I lamented over our general chemistry courses. In an attempt to find a natural organizational progression of topics covered, it became clear to us that we were observing the same educational dilemma chronicled across the country: the way in which students learn chemistry was diverging from the way we teach, and the way we teach in no way reflected the way science is done. We realized, however, that it was difficult to place blame for these problems. UWSP students’ academic qualifications were (and are) solid. Innovative instructors everywhere used a variety of cutting-edge techniques to infuse excitement into their classroom. Textbooks and supporting materials took advantage of the most sophisticated technology and the latest theories of learning to present topics in the most effective manner. What, then, was the problem?
While attending a UW-System Faculty College in the early 1990’s, Bondeson was introduced to the constructs of critical thinking as offered by Joanne Kurfiss, noted author and expert on teaching critical thinking through discipline-based instruction. While there are many definitions of critical thinking, it was Kurfiss’ description that helped us focus on what we thought would be the answer to the apparent problems associated with our general chemistry courses. Kurfiss defines critical thinking, in part, as investigating phenomenon to reach a conclusion that integrates all available information, and is therefore convincingly justified.
. . .this carefully packaged approach might give students the impression that chemistry is a known collection of facts. Learn the facts, and chemistry is mastered. Unfortunately, this robs students of the excitement and passion of discovery that is the essence of chemistry.
Our Chemistry Department colleague, Jim Brummer, soon joined the discussions, and the three of us, prompted by seminars and conferences on curricular reform, found ourselves questioning the fundamental precepts of the general chemistry curriculum. Through critical self-evaluation and review of textbooks, we began to realize that general chemistry courses were moving away from a discovery-based mode, where students analyze data to reach conclusions, and going toward a curriculum where the “final deductive result” is carefully packaged, presented and emphasized. We thought this carefully packaged approach might give students the impression that chemistry is a known collection of facts. Learn the facts, and chemistry is mastered. Unfortunately, this robs students of the excitement and passion of discovery that is the essence of chemistry.
We realized that teaching techniques in themselves could not serve as a foundation around which a course can be organized. Techniques must be a natural outgrowth of a consistent paradigm that organizes the course. We hoped this paradigm would also provide a method by which critical thinking skills could be developed in parallel with chemistry concepts. We believed this missing fundamental paradigm would bring methods, technologies, and techniques together under a consistent philosophy.
The classic work of Thomas Kuhn (The Structure of Scientific Revolutions) helped us find this philosophy. Kuhn describes science as experimental design for the collection of data, construction of an hypothesis as an attempt to explain the data, testing the hypothesis in various ways, and revising and formalizing it as a theory. This simple description of science seemed to be the key. It helped us develop what we now call the data-driven approach, a classroom paradigm that uses Kuhn’s construct as the foundation for our general chemistry courses.
In the data-driven approach, students are first presented with data and then asked to format and scrutinize that data. Students then use the data to develop explanations of how nature behaves. Once students have been developed consistent explanations of nature, they apply that knowledge. Ultimately, students are presented with more data that will nudge them toward the next level of understanding. In this way, students develop their skills of critical analysis and the scientific method because they continually employ these processes while developing their understanding of chemistry.
Lessons Learned
While there have been several positive results using the data-driven approach, there have also been several “lessons learned”. For example, students seem to have a difficult time developing their own explanations based on the chemical data we provided. Student frustration was high, and significant instructor guidance became an important part of student progress. This contrasted sharply to our expectation, and unfortunately, diminished the emphasis we hoped to place on students developing their ability to critically analyze observations and data.
With this issue (and others) in mind, I began to develop the next generation of the data-driven approach. Rather than asking students to develop difficult concepts of chemistry independently, I gave them more guidance in developing these concepts, attempting a more “guided inquiry” approach. Upon mastery of the concept, I would ask students to, as Bill Cerbin describes it, display a deep understanding of the topic.
Cerbin defines deep understanding as “thinking with” the subject matter instead of “thinking about” the subject matter. Cerbin states that understanding involves making sense out of new concepts and ideas by comparing new ideas to what is already known. Cerbin also states that understanding involves using subject matter flexibly – applying understanding to new and appropriate situations. This became an important aspect of my new (and hopefully improved) data-driven approach. I began giving students chemistry related societal issues to consider. I hoped students would use data and/or theoretical constructs learned in the course to practice their critical analysis. I also hoped that they would “think with” chemistry concepts to make informed decisions about societal issues. I envisioned students developing their critical thinking skills while considering these issues. About this time, I applied for the FACETS seminars with great expectation – optimistic that I could take new perspectives on teaching and learning and apply them to my developing data-driven approach. What I got was that, and much more.
FACETS’ Insights
. . . I still sometimes hear myself bash students by asking the question; “why can’t our students be more like we were?” The answer is, of course, obvious: our students cannot be like we were because they grew up in a culture different from ours.
First, I leaned that today’s students have a different perspective on life than students of my generation. While a statement like this should be blatantly obvious, I still sometimes hear myself bash students by asking the question; “why can’t our students be more like we were?” The answer is, of course, obvious: our students cannot be like we were because they grew up in a culture different from ours. We grew up in a culture of slide rules; theirs is a world of personal computers. We grew up playing gin rummy; they play Super Mario Brothers. Societal and cultural forces have led students to expect a different university education than the one I received. For example, this very pragmatic Millennial generation places a much higher value on career development and exploration than those of us from the baby-boomer generation. These changes in values and expectations have a marked impact on student learning, and therefore, compel us to consider a different classroom dynamic. Students of the Millennial generation are adept at multitasking and abhor wasting time – including class time. Students of my generation were perfectly happy to spend class time simply taking notes on a well-presented lecture - content to do their real learning after class. My students view simple note taking as a poor use of time and prefer to use class time to take notes for subsequent review, while learning course content. This dictates that I approach my classroom methods differently. “Sage on the Stage” lecture is an ineffective method for today’s multitasking students. Students prefer to be actively involved in learning during class.
Second, FACETS helped me to build an awareness of different students’ learning styles. While I still have much to learn about this interesting topic, I was intrigued that the choices I make about classroom presentation are geared to connect with one particular set of students more than another, and in order to meet the needs of all students I must attack a concept using a multi-pronged approach. This shed new light on what I considered to be an odd observation. At the beginning of each semester, I videotape my students to learn their names. I ask them to tell me their name, major, and something special about themselves. It’s striking that nearly half of my students give some form of activity - a sport, dance, or outdoor hobby, as their special trait. While I try very hard to actively engage my students mentally, I wondered if I also needed to engage these self-described physically active people more kinesthetically during class. I ran a small classroom experiment attempting to do this. I asked my students to choreograph a dance/skit that would communicate to an audience the molecular differences between mixtures and pure substances. A few “lucky” groups were chosen to perform. On an ensuing quiz, two-thirds of my students gave good or excellent answers (4 or 5 out of 5 points) on a question relating to the subject. While this kind of evidence is very preliminary, very sketchy, and not very well controlled, it does indicate an area worth further exploration – will utilizing teaching strategies that account for different learning styles help students better understand concepts of chemistry.
I learned that recall is enhanced through emotion. Even connecting a concept to a simple, endearing story about human interaction can help students remember a concept.
Third, the FACETS seminars helped me understand a bit about learning and recall, and nudged me to use teaching strategies that take advantage of what I learned. For example, I learned that recall is enhanced through emotion. Even connecting a concept to a simple, endearing story about human interaction can help students remember a concept. One can easily imagine that a lecture presenting aspects of the scientific method may be dry and forgettable, while students role playing a debate between religious zealots evangelizing their understanding of creation science and atheist scientists eroding the morals of our youth using the pagan theory of evolution will evoke a strong emotion that will enable students to recall important aspects of science, theory, and data.
Fourth, FACETS helped me to understand and play the curricular endgame. In the curricular endgame, fundamental concepts that must be learned in the course are identified first. Only after these must-know concepts and the means to assess them have been identified are classroom strategies developed. With some reflection, a few of these fundamental topics of chemistry can be identified. They might include: 1. Students must know that the world is composed of tiny particles that are fundamentally quite similar, but which, in combination, display an incredible variety of properties; 2. Students must be able to use the methods of science, and analyze data and observations critically. With these fundamental concepts and their assessment in mind, teaching strategies can be developed that will emphasize them.
Future Challenges and Questions
They have affirmed my belief that effective teaching is not measured by what the instructor covers, rather, effective teaching is measured by what students learn.
The FACETS seminars have given me new ways to think about ideas I find interesting. They have affirmed my belief that effective teaching is not measured by what the instructor covers, rather, effective teaching is measured by what students learn. This, of course, forces me to critically evaluate my assessment strategies, making sure that I’m evaluating the important fundamental concepts of the course. I’ve found this to be a very tricky issue – especially as it relates to critical analysis and the scientific method.
I have renewed interest in the questions; whom do we teach and why do we teach them? The expectations our students have for their university education has evolved into ideas that are very different from mine. And, their perspective seems to have a profound effect on their methods of learning. I wonder, for example, whether the changing values of our students and society will impact the future of liberal arts education. Will a liberal arts education, as we currently know it, be lost? What will become the fundamental bases of liberal arts in the twenty-first century, and what teaching strategies can best help students develop and appreciate those fundamentals? Wow, FACETS has given me a lot to think about.
Afterthoughts—Looking Backward
There was a time when subject matter dictated my teaching strategies, . . .and I was happy in my ignorance about students’ learning. With opportunities like FACETS, I’ve come to realize that student learning must determine teaching strategies and assessments must attempt to measure the effectiveness of those strategies.
I’ve enjoyed looking back at the lessons learned from FACETS, and especially reflecting about the evolution of my general chemistry courses. There was a time when subject matter dictated my teaching strategies, tests were used only to assign grades, and I was happy in my ignorance about students’ learning. With opportunities like FACETS, I’ve come to realize that student learning must determine teaching strategies and assessments must attempt to measure the effectiveness of those strategies. Over the years, classroom discussion and interaction have become a bit messier, and I’m beginning to get a better picture of my effectiveness. It is, at times, a bit depressing to realize how ineffective I’ve been, but I’d never want to return to my old habits. My new depression is much better than my old ignorance.
Contact Steve at: swright@uwsp.edu