Super Summary Search

I returned to school with plans to become a chemistry teacher. Because I am entering into the classroom arena shortly, I am specifically interested in the use of cooperative strategies in the chemistry classroom in particular. Thus, my question becomes "In what ways can cooperative learning strategies be utilized in the chemistry classroom to make it more interesting and/or more effective?"

I performed an ERIC search using the descriptors SCIENCE INSTRUCTION, CHEMISTRY, and COOPERATIVE LEARNING. The ERIC database provided me with articles of various perspectives which seemed applicable to my question; the ten articles studied are referenced at the end of this paper. For my learning purposes, the articles seemed to be divided into two main categories. The first category is the "study" category and includes the articles by Basili & Sanford, Moje, and Tlusty et al. These articles describe actual experimental studies designed to evaluate the use of cooperative strategies in chemistry classrooms. While each had a different focus, research was the primary purpose underlying each of these studies. The second category could be labeled the "strategy" category. The articles by Allen, Crowe, Fife, Lockie & VanLanen, Maloney, O'Brien & Chalif, and Sumrall each outline particular cooperative activities which can be utilized in the chemistry classroom. While other, more general information (i.e. goals for collaboration, rationale for using cooperative learning, etc.) is also found in these articles and is very important, the key learning points for me were the practical implementation methods. I found the detailed ideas extremely helpful as they tell me how to actually do some cooperative learning, and I can directly and easily apply them next year in my own classroom setting.

The next page contains a table giving the main topic of each of the ten articles. Following that are summaries of a subset of these articles. I summarized 5 articles, two from the "study" category and three from the "strategy" category, and discussed some of my resulting thoughts. A complete list of references then concludes this "Super Summary Search".

The article "Conceptual Change Strategies and Cooperative Group Work in Chemistry" by Patricia Basili and Julie Sanford examines their study to assess the potential of using small cooperative learning groups to address and change student misconceptions. Given that current conceptual change theory suggests the need for both active, direct instruction by a knowledgeable and skillful teacher and active participation and cognitive struggle by students, small group work seems to support conceptual change efforts. The study utilized a pretest-posttest control group experimental design for quantitative analysis and audio taping of student interaction for qualitative comparisons. The three main research questions investigated were: 1) Will there be a lower proportion of misconceptions among students who have engaged in conceptual change tasks within small cooperative groups than among students in the control groups?, 2) In the treatment groups, how are patterns of verbal behavior during the small group sessions related to conceptual change?, and 3) What qualitative assessment can be made of the factors operating in small groups as they relate to the process of conceptual change? Results for question 1 indicated that treatment group students had a significantly lower proportion of misconceptions on the posttest. Results for question number 2 indicated that the group tasks encouraged student to interact in ways that were supportive of conceptual change. In evaluating question 3, three factors were found to affect the group process and conceptual change. First was flawed understanding and use of scientific terminology by the students. This misuse and subsequent misunderstanding impeded fruitful discussion and correct attainment of concepts. Second was the students' view of schoolwork. Finishing the assignment seemed to be the primary task; arriving at reasonable or personally satisfying answers was apparently unimportant. And third, roles played by students within the group influenced the conditions for conceptual change. Many groups had leaders emerge who ran the group with little concern for other members; thus, little conceptual change was allowed to occur. And so, the study provides evidence that cooperative group work can aid in overcoming learner misconceptions, but it also indicates potential problem areas that should be considered and addressed.

The article "Cooperative Learning in a College Chemistry Course" by Roger Tlusty et al. also describes an experimental study designed to evaluate the use of cooperative learning in the classroom. This study focuses on gender differences in attitude and achievement as a result of using cooperative laboratory techniques. Group A used independent learning techniques for most of the semester, then cooperative techniques for the final few weeks. Group B utilized cooperative techniques for the entire semester. Attitudinal data was obtained via pre and post surveys, and student exam scores were used to assess achievement. Additionally, lab observations, student journals, teacher journals, and interviews were used as data sources for qualitative analysis. Results indicated that there were no significant differences in achievement either across study groups or across gender. There were, however, differences across gender in terms of attitudes toward cooperative learning. The preference for this style of learning was heightened among females, although this preference did not appear to have negative consequences for males in the class. Additionally, cooperative learning seemed to reduce the negative self perception of ability, interest, and effort among females. However, females still disproportionately express concern about how their individual performance might have negative effects on the others in the group. Tlusty suggests that this dimension be further evaluated in future cooperative learning studies.

The "study" articles provided me with additional information on the use of cooperative strategies in the chemistry classroom in particular. A point that struck me in reviewing these articles was the use of both qualitative and quantitative methodology to evaluate the use of collaborative learning in the classroom. I was very pleased with this, because I don't feel you can get a complete assessment of a technique's effectiveness in the educational realm by solely relying on quantitative measures. The qualitative descriptions and analyses in these articles provided a greater depth of information and insight into the use of cooperative learning in the classroom as well as student reactions to it, all of which is very helpful feedback for a teacher to receive. Overcoming student misconceptions is a big issue in science education and while Basili & Sanford don't suggest collaboration as a "cure-all" to this problem, the knowledge that cooperative learning may be helpful in this process is important to know. The gender issue investigated by Tlusty et al seems somewhat controversial. Based on this and on other studies I've seen, it does not appear that the gender effect is perfectly clear. I do however think these various studies indicate the importance and advantages of incorporating cooperative learning along with the more typical individual/competitive strategies.

William Sumrall's "Silver Science" outlined a specific cooperative learning activity for chemistry. He uses spot metal prices quoted in the newspaper to integrate economics and chemistry and to provide practice with stoichiometric problems. Sumrall states that the assignment is meant to be a cooperative and investigative approach to learning where students gather and synthesize the information, analyze the results, and draw conclusions. In the article he provides three problems involving silver metal which are relevant to the "real world" and which require students to use various resources (i.e. newspaper, encyclopedia, scientific supply catalog) to solve. For each problem he provides example solutions to the problem, a list of supplementary questions, and potential answers to those questions. He declares the lesson interesting to students and also concludes that because students have to research, speculate on price settings, work together, and use their chemistry knowledge to solve the problems, this lesson is a very practical and relevant learning experience. I really like the relevancy of the activity - it relates stoichiometry to a "real-world" application and provides a more concrete example of stoichiometric problem solving than the usual theoretical mole, molecule, and atom conversions. I also like the fact that it requires students to use outside resources (newspapers, encyclopedias, scientific supply catalog, etc.) to solve the problem, again making it much more like a real life activity. And it is specific enough that I can just pick it up and use it "as is" next year when I get to the stoichiometry chapter in my class. For a beginning teacher whose preparation time will be limited, this is an extremely beneficial resource.

The "Collaborative Learning in Large Lectures" article was a synopsis of a panel discussion moderated by James Crowe at the Collaborative Learning in Higher Education Teaching Conference. The panel consisted of five members, including several science professors. Nelson, a biology professor, asserts that collaborative learning requires two essential factors for success. First, that teachers need to provide structure and help the students learn how to collaborate, not just assume that they are able to do this without any preparation. Second, the collaboration should be used to help students do things they couldn't do by themselves and ask questions they couldn't ask by themselves. He suggests stopping every 15-20 minutes during lecture to have students write down the most important point and/or a question related to the point, and then share those with other students. I thoroughly agree that learning good cooperative techniques is a developmental process and that teachers need to recognize it as such and provide appropriate scaffolding and structuring along the way. I really like Nelson's suggestion of stopping every 15-20 minutes for quick small group discussions and would plan to do this in my own classroom. I think there are several advantages to this strategy. First, it breaks up the monotony and allows students some active participation. This can be especially useful in block scheduling situations where periods are often 85-90 minutes long. Second, it allows for quick clarification of points not understood. This is helpful feedback for the teacher to see where students just aren't "getting" something and it prevents a snowball effect where student misunderstanding just gets progressively worse.

Another suggestion I liked in this panel discussion was that before actually beginning a new topic, one of the professors asks students to write down everything they know about that topic and talk to other students nearby about it. Again, it gets students involved and energized. And perhaps more importantly in science, it allows for some early identification of misconceptions that may need to be addressed and altered. Similarly, at the end of a topic, the professor would ask students to construct examination questions. I could foresee using these in several ways then. In a collaborative sense, students could form small groups and discuss the questions each member devised. Or all the questions could be typed up and either discussed in class or passed out to students for use as a review guide. And then, I could also actually use one or more of the questions on the test. (Which provides me a great defense if students complain the question is unfair ... "Well, I didn't write it, Jane did!")

Margaret O'Brien and David Chalif discuss their integrated chemistry and math instruction in "CHEMATH: A Learning Community in Science and Math". The emphasis of the course is on problem solving techniques and it relies on active learning with the use of structured group techniques. The authors state that the focus on small-group problem-solving skills allows students to learn to use each other as resources, to communicate and describe problems, to learn to take responsibility for their own learning, and to build support systems. Student feedback on the course was very positive and included comments such as "I found out even the 'A' students make mistakes" and "I had a great time - if I'd have had this Wind of class earlier it would have made my life very different". Participating faculty also provided similar positive feedback. The article included examples of various group activities, including a sample group problem worksheet, a sample lab exercise, and rules for the CHEMATH Bowl Tournament (a competitive, team oriented problem solving activity).

Because I feel very strongly that my role as a chemistry teacher is not just to transmit facts and figures but also to encourage critical thinking skills and because problem solving is such an integral part of chemistry, these examples of varied techniques to aid students in the process and to maintain interest is beneficial. Students working individually on problems at their desks and then having the teacher give the answer is a usual, non-cooperative technique. The collaborative examples above have students work in groups to solve a problem with one student at the blackboard to record the process and results. Or the team of students works together at the blackboard to solve a problem and then explains it to the class. Another method the authors use is to have students work problems individually within the group, then explain and discuss their solutions with others in the group. An advantage I see to these group strategies is that students can talk through their processes and learn "helpful hints" from each other. Also, students are much less threatened about making a mistake in a small group environment and often feel much more comfortable saying "I don't understand." I also really liked O'Brien and Chalif's example of a competitive, cooperative problem solving method with their "Bowl Tournament". Unlike arranging a "Jeopardy"-type activity, the preparation time requirements would be minimal for a teacher. And again, it provides students with something different and enjoyable, while still encouraging the learning and problemsolving processes.

Finally, as mentioned several times previously, I found all these articles in the "strategy'' category very profitable. I've had mainly theory at this point in my education and since I'm going to be entering the classroom very shortly, it is very helpful to have some specific implementation tools and techniques available. By utilizing these methods, I may even look like a "creative" teacher if someone walks into my classroom ... when in actuality I'm just a scavenger of others' ideas!

Basili, Patricia A. and Sanford, Julie P. (1991) Conceptual Change Strategies and Cooperative Group Work in Chemistry. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 28 (4), 293-304.

Moje, Elizabeth. (1992) Literacy in the Chemistry Classroom: An Ethnographic Study of Effective Teaching. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Reading Conference. San Antonio, TX, Dec. 2-5, 1992.

Tlusty, Roger et al. (1993) Cooperative Learning in a College Chemistry Course. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Education Research Association, Atlanta, GA, April 12-16,1993.

Allen, Sheilah. (1993) The World accord Ong to Gene Rode nberu, University of Victoria. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED358491).

Crowe, James. (1991) Collaborative Learning in Large Lectures. In Edmund Hansen, Collaborative Learning in Higher Education. Proceedings of the Teaching Conference. (Bloomington, IN, October 1-12, 1990.) Panel Discussions and Selected Presentations. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED335984).

Fife, Wilmer. (1991) The Chemistry Laboratory: A Site for Collaborative Learning. In Edmund Hansen, Collaborative Learning in Higher Education. Proceedings of the Teaching Conference. (Bloomington, IN, October 1-12,1990.) Panel Discussions and Selected Presentations. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED335984).

Lockie, Nancy M. and VanLanen, Robert J. (1994) Supplemental Instruction for College Chemistry Courses. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 60, 63-74.

Maloney, David (1991) Using Collaborative Learning to Help Promote Conceptual Change in Science. In Edmund Hansen, Collaborative Learning in Higher Education. Proceedings of the Teaching Conference. (Bloomington, IN, October 1 12, 1990.) Panel Discussions and Selected Presentations. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED335984).

O'Brien, Mary and Chalif, David. (1991). CHEMATH: A Learning Community in Science and Math. Edmonds Community College, Lynnwood, WA. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED336157).

Sumrall, William. (1991) Silver Science. Science Teacher, 58 (9), 36-39.