Peer-Led Team Learning and Success in Freshman Level Chemistry Courses

1. Peer-Led Team Learning and Success in Freshman Level Chemistry Courses by Subhash C. Bhatia & Lance W. Shipman Chemistry Department Morehouse College Atlanta, Georgia

2. Purpose To increase the success rate in the general chemistry courses by implementing PLTL workshops

3. Background • General Chemistry • Historic success rate is 50-55%. • No pre-requisites. • Same book has been used for the last 5 years. • Three (3) sections taught by three different instructors. • One(1) instructor changed in 2006 and one in 2008. • Same instructors for 111 and 112. • Same syllabus but different examinations. Sequence of topics is different. Macroscopic to microscopic approach. • Laboratory is co-requisite. • Separate grades for lecture and lab. • Assessment test is administered during first week of classes. • Student can withdraw from the course two weeks before the final

4. Profile of Students in Chemistry 111 • African-American Males. • Average SAT-M and SAT-V score of 1085. • SAT-M score of 400-700. • All STEM majors. • 95% students had one or more semesters of high school chemistry. • Three (3) to ten (10) students had AP chemistry. • Eight (8) to ten (10) student had O, A, or IB chemistry courses. • 85 % of the students are enrolled in Calculus I or higher level mathematics courses. • 10% of the students are working more than 5 hours/week. • 5-10 students from other institutions.

5. Implementation • Piloted in 2004 • Expanded to all sections in 2005 • Students can register for any section of PLTL • Eight (8) to ten (10) students per group • Each session lasts for 80 minutes • PLTL workshop material was adapted from PLTL website material • Modified to be consistent with macroscopic to microscopic approach • Peer Leaders were trained • Two faculty members met with Peer Leaders every week. Peer Leaders go through the workshop material • Attendance is taken • 5% of the grade is for attending the workshops • PLTL workshop – assessment instrument was administered • PLTL focus group survey was done • In house attitudinal survey was administered

6. Chemistry 111TABLE 1: Retention and Passing Rates

7. CHEMISTRY 111Table 2: A comparison of actual vs prediction † MoCAT( Morehouse Chemistry Assessment Test, Bhatia andHylton,2004)

8. Grade Distribution for Chemistry 111* YEAR GRADE200620072008 A 6.2 4.7 12.7 A- 5.5 11.7 6.2 10.97.6 20.3 B+ 6.8 8.5 8.3 B 6.2 9.3 7.0 B- 10.3 23.3 18.5 26.3 10.2 25.5 C+ 8.9 13.2 7.0 C 16.4 25.3 15.5 28.7 14.0 21.0 C- 4.1 4.7 3.8 D 5.5 3.9 7.6 F 11.0 20.6 14.0 22.6 8.9 20.3 W 15.8 10.9 9.6 * by percent

9. Chemistry 112

10. PLTL CHEMISTRY – All Course Sections* * Prepared by Dr. J . Porterfield for the HBCU-UP Program

11. PLTL – Assessment Survey*

12. Observations from Peer Leaders Focus Group* • Helps Peer Leaders to review the material • Helps students to learn • Forces students to think • Helps the “borderline” student the most • Encourages students to form study groups • Better coordination between lecture and PLTL material is needed • More faculty involvement in PLTL activities is needed • Make students aware of the PLTL workshops • Some students have not read the material and/or are not prepared to contribute in the group activity • PLTL material should have more conceptual questions *Taken from the report prepared by Dr. Monty Whitney for the MBRS-RISE Program

13. General Chemistry Labs GOALS • Improve Laboratory Skills • Demonstrate Scientific Process • Improve Data Analysis Skills • Improve Scientific Writing

14. Implementation • Guided Inquiry Labs ( Bhatia & Ravi ) • Computer Assisted • Answer Questions in the Lab • Rewrite of the First Four (4) Laboratory Reports • Laboratory Practicum (Final Exam)

15. Sample Labs Sample Lab 1 • Students take 20ml of water using graduated cylinder, pipette, and burette • Student determine the mass of each sample using analytical balance • Students are asked a question. Are these masses same or different? • Students are asked to provide an explanation

16. Sample Labs Sample Lab 2 • Students are asked to prepare a buffer with pH of 2 • Students add colas to the buffer • Student add antacid to the buffer • Students explain their observations

17. Observations • Students are engaged • Students say that they are made to think. • Some students use inappropriate equipment • Some students don’t understand the difference between observations, results and discussion • Very labor intensive • Students perform better on final exam than on mid-term exam (written)

18. Conclusions • PLTL has impact on gatekeeper courses • MoCAT is reasonably good at predicting the students who are not at risk • Better coordination and involvement of other instructors in implementation and development of material is needed • Perception of students about PLTL has changed overtime • Perception of Labs has changed

19. Acknowledgements MSEIP Department of Education WPA National Science Foundation HBCU-UP National Science Foundation MBRS-RISE National Institutes of Health NNSA Department of Energy Drs. J.K. Haynes (Morehouse), Ravi (Spelman College), Chemistry Faculty, and PLTL Leaders