1 Teaching Teams Program at ASU Pam Marks – Chemistry and Biochemistry Sonya Curry – Coordinator & Doctoral Student, Learning Support Services August 1, 2006

2 Problems Leading to Poor Retention Variation in preparation for general chemistry Students get frustrated doing problems Poor study skills Some students are bored and see the class as a repeat of their second year of high school chemistry. Some students don’t want to study, or they can’t find the time…

3 Improving Retention Providing a variety of resources and alternate ways for students to learn should help retain the students that are motivated to learn. Lecture

4 Structured In-Class Activities Chemistry Department Faculty Lectures Interactive Group activities woven throughout the lecture Opportunities for students to ask questions Graduate Teaching Assistants Discussion sessions 1 day per week  Cooperative activities  Question/Answer sessions

5 Student Resources Outside of Class Chemistry Department Faculty Website Resources such as optional worksheets Office hours and Graduate Teaching Assistants Office hours two hours per week (LRC) Review sessions for exams Director of the Chemistry LRC Directs LRC activities / Resource for TAs Runs large-scale review sessions for CHM 113/115/116 (High Attendance)

6 What is Lacking? Many students need more small-group interactions where they are able to express their thinking processes. Students find it hard to form groups to work in outside of class. Many “top-end” students are not motivated so they do minimal work.

7 Teaching Teams Pilot Program The Teaching Teams Program takes advantage of a resource usually under-utilized at most campuses: Highly motivated undergraduates with good high school backgrounds who are interested in sharpening their leadership skills who would likely not be challenged to their full potential in a normal student role

8 Program Models: Teaching Teams The Teaching Teams Program began at the University of Arizona in Department of Planetary Sciences Grew into the Teaching Teams Program with 230 student leaders in 30 courses, who influence the learning environments of more than 4500 students The Program Model is in use at the University of Texas Austin, and University of Wisconsin at Milwaukee.

9 Case Study: Genetics Course at UT- Austin 9 preceptors led study groups in which 95 students participated (52% of the class) Preceptors performed one letter grade higher on average than the rest of the class: 3.6 vs. 2.6 Study group participants performed a half-letter grade higher than non-participants: 2.9 vs. 2.4

10 The Beginning of a Partnership Spring 2005 ─ I was asked by Sonya Curry and Jeanne Hanrahan of the University LRC to participate in a teaching teams pilot program in CHM 113 (2 sections of 192 students each). Reluctant – How would their program fit into my current course structure? Didn’t think my class needed it Afraid of time / extra workload

11 I worked with Sonya last summer to tailor the program to the needs of my course: Undergraduate “leaders” would be trained 2-credit “leadership” course taught by Sonya Leaders would be responsible staying ahead of lecture material and would hold a study session once a week. I would assign take-home quizzes on a regular basis. Sonya would take care of all the administrative aspects. Teaching Teams Implementation

12 Day 1: Sonya came to class and introduced the program. Team leader and participant applications were distributed, along with contact info. Day 2: Applications due (overwhelming interest!!) Sonya identifies Teams Leaders and informs them of how to register for the leadership class. Teaching Teams Implementation

13 Leadership Class (LIA 194) Aspects of the leadership class: How to facilitate study groups Time management Test anxiety Presenting/talking about difficult concepts Leadership skills Assignments that forced leaders to learn material ahead of time Interaction with other leaders

14 Study Sessions Weekly study sessions were scheduled by team leaders. A schedule was distributed in lecture and posted online. Leaders helped students with homework, studying for exams, and reflection after exams.

15 Study Sessions

16 Fall Highlights Team Leaders (29) averaged a 3.07 (B) grade from the course. (30% were minorities) The class average was a 2.19 (C). Participants (61) averaged 5% higher on their Final Exam This is significant because the participants and non-participants had similar averages on the first exam. D, E, and W’s 23% Participants / 28% Non- participants

17 Spring Semester The Teaching Teams Program was expanded for the Spring semester of 2006: 4 participating faculty members 8 sections of Chemistry CHM 101 (Introductory Chemistry) CHM113 (1 st Semester General Chemistry) CHM115 & CHM 116 (2 nd Semester Gen. Chem.) Total Enrollment: Over 1100 students

18 Spring Semester Changes / Additions Experienced leaders helped to train/ mentor new team leaders. More advertising

19 Spring Highlights – Participants (P)/ Non-Participants (NP) /116 P / NPP / NPP / NP Enrollment47 / / / 418 %Participants15%15% 6% Percent on Final64%/65%67%/69%67%/67% Course GPA2.5 / / / 2.4 D, E, W’s 9% / 32%18% / 22%19% / 27%

20 Spring Highlights – Team Leaders (TL) /116 TL/ NPTL/ NP TL/ NP # of Team Leaders 5/ 275 7/ 319 9/ 572 Course GPA3.6/ / / 2.4 Mean Final Ex 83%/65%86%/69% 88%/67%

21 Qualitative Data: Participant Feedback Participants reported that study groups: Helped them learn to work with others Gave them someone they could relate to Allowed more one on one interactions Provided a setting for sharing ideas Helped clarify concepts / increase understanding Eased test anxiety Boosted their confidence in their knowledge Helped them pass the class

22 Qualitative Data: Participant Feedback Reasons for not participating: Many had time conflicts Some formed their own study groups Some said they worked better on their own

23 Qualitative Data: Team Leader Feedback Team Leaders reported that the program helped: Develop better study skills Reduce procrastination Promote group-thinking and problem solving skills Develop patience, cooperation, and discipline Strengthen understanding of course material Self-esteem Personal growth Define their goal of being a teacher

24 Qualitative Data: Team Leader Feedback Many Team Leaders signed up for the position for “honors” credit or for the “leadership class” to be on their transcript and resume. All have stated that the experience was much more personally rewarding than expected.

25 Qualitative Data: Team Leader Feedback “Although I have generally made “A’s” through most of my education, I often do not put in the time and effort needed to fully absorb information. By becoming a team leader, I have had no choice but to keep up not only with the lessons but ahead of them.” …… “I liked having the added moral obligation to the students I teach…”

26 Qualitative Data: Team Leader Feedback “I learned that what I might quickly understand, other people may not comprehend. Thus, it is really important that I have patience and pay attention to what people need help with.” “Being a leader, doesn't mean that you will always come up with the most creative ideas.” “It is important to understand how the major themes of chemistry fit together.”

27 Trends Observed High percentage of female team leaders (68%) Program was most successful / popular in the first semester courses (Intro and 1 st semester general chemistry)

28 Changes for Fall 2006 More leadership classes (more availability) More leaders per lecture section  More study sessions  Greater participation More problem-solving activities Integration of Chemistry LRC with University LRC. More involvement of Chemistry staff Website:

29 Acknowledgments Learning Support Services Jeanne Hanrahan, Director Chemistry Faculty Ron Briggs, CHM 113 Janet Bond-Robinson, CHM 116 Jack Fuchs, CHM 115/116 Rich Bauer, Coordinator of General Chemistry Jim Birk, Emeritus Faculty ASU CLAS Deans Office