12/18/14  

1  

International  Conference  on  Education  in  Chemistry  Homi  Bhabha  Centre  for  Science  Education  

December  12,  2014  

Introduction to POGIL: Process Oriented

Guided Inquiry Learning

The POGIL Project

•  Launched  by  sequential  NSF  (2003-‐2011)  and  other  grants  •  Based  on  curricular  work  done  by  a  variety  of  like-‐minded  people  in  the  mid-‐90’s  

•  Became  a  not-‐for-‐profit  organization  in  2010  •  The  mission  of  The  POGIL  Project  is  to  connect  and  support  educators  from  all  

disciplines  interested  in  implementing,  improving,  and  studying  student-‐centered  pedagogies  and  learning  environments.  

•  The  POGIL  Project  is  run  by  •  A  6-‐member  Board  of  Directors    •  Executive  Director  (Rick  Moog,  Franklin  &  Marshall  College)    •  Steering  Committee  of  9  experienced  practitioners  (college  and  high  school  faculty)  •  8  part-‐time  and  full-‐time  staff  in  POGIL  National  Office,  Lancaster,  PA  

The POGIL Project

•  Offers  faculty  development    

•  Twenty  to  thirty  workshops  each  year  for  high  school  and  university  faculty  

•  Institutes  for  workshop  facilitators  

•  Actively  involves  over  1000  individuals  each  year    

•  Workshop  attendees  

•  Workshop  facilitators  

•  Curriculum  developers  

•  Has  touched  1000’s  of  people  

•  More  than  1000  people  are  implementing  POGIL  pedagogy  across  multiple  disciplines  

•  In  Hyderabad:  International  Institute  for  Information  Technology,  VNR  Vignana  Jyothi  Institute  of  Engineering  and  Technology:  Sandhya  Kode,  Director,  EnhanceEdu  

 

A POGIL Classroom Experience

Periodic Table

1

Hhydrogen

[1.007, 1.009]

1 18

3

Lilithium

[6.938, 6.997]

4

Beberyllium

9.012

11

Nasodium

22.99

12

Mgmagnesium[24.30, 24.31]

19

Kpotassium

39.10

20

Cacalcium

40.08

37

Rbrubidium

85.47

38

Srstrontium

87.62

38

Srstrontium

87.62

55

Cscaesium

132.9

55

Cscaesium

132.9

56

Babarium

137.3

87

Frfrancium

88

Raradium

5

Bboron

[10.80, 10.83]

13

Alaluminium

26.98

31

Gagallium

69.72

49

Inindium114.8

81

Tlthallium

[204.3, 204.4]

6

Ccarbon

[12.00, 12.02]

14

Sisilicon

[28.08, 28.09]

32

Gegermanium

72.63

50

Sntin

118.7

82

Pblead207.2

7

Nnitrogen

[14.00, 14.01]

15

Pphosphorus

30.97

33

Asarsenic

74.92

51

Sbantimony

121.8

83

Bibismuth

209.0

8

Ooxygen

[15.99, 16.00]

16

Ssulfur

[32.05, 32.08]

34

Seselenium78.96(3)

52

Tetellurium

127.6

84

Popolonium

9

Ffluorine

19.00

17

Clchlorine

[35.44, 35.46]

35

Brbromine

[79.90, 79.91]

53

Iiodine126.9

85

Atastatine

10

Neneon20.18

2

Hehelium4.003

18

Arargon39.95

36

Krkrypton

83.80

54

Xexenon131.3

86

Rnradon

22

Tititanium

47.87

22

Tititanium

47.87

40

Zrzirconium

91.22

72

Hfhafnium

178.5

104

Rfrutherfordium

23

Vvanadium

50.94

41

Nbniobium

92.91

73

Tatantalum

180.9

105

Dbdubnium

24

Crchromium

52.00

24

Crchromium

52.00

42

Momolybdenum

95.96(2)

74

Wtungsten

183.8

106

Sgseaborgium

25

Mnmanganese

54.94

43

Tctechnetium

75

Rerhenium

186.2

107

Bhbohrium

26

Feiron55.85

44

Ruruthenium

101.1

76

Ososmium

190.2

108

Hshassium

27

Cocobalt58.93

45

Rhrhodium

102.9

77

Iriridium192.2

109

Mtmeitnerium

28

Ninickel58.69

46

Pdpalladium

106.4

78

Ptplatinum

195.1

110

Dsdarmstadtium

29

Cucopper

63.55

47

Agsilver107.9

79

Augold197.0

30

Znzinc

65.38(2)

48

Cdcadmium

112.4

80

Hgmercury

200.6

111

Rgroentgenium

112

Cncopernicium

114

Flflerovium

116

Lvlivermorium

57

Lalanthanum

138.9

89

Acactinium

58

Cecerium140.1

90

Ththorium

232.0

59

Prpraseodymium

140.9

91

Paprotactinium

231.0

60

Ndneodymium

144.2

92

Uuranium

238.0

61

Pmpromethium

93

Npneptunium

62

Smsamarium

150.4

94

Puplutonium

63

Eueuropium

152.0

95

Amamericium

64

Gdgadolinium

157.3

96

Cmcurium

65

Tbterbium

158.9

97

Bkberkelium

66

Dydysprosium

162.5

98

Cfcalifornium

67

Hoholmium

164.9

99

Eseinsteinium

68

Ererbium

167.3

100

Fmfermium

69

Tmthulium

168.9

101

Mdmendelevium

70

Ybytterbium

173.1

102

Nonobelium

71

Lulutetium

175.0

103

Lrlawrencium

21

Scscandium

44.96

39

Yyttrium88.91

57-71

lanthanoids

89-103

actinoids

atomic number Symbol

standard atomic weight

2 13 14 15 16 17 Key:

3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

name

Notes- IUPAC 2011 Standard atomic weights abridged to four significant digits (Table 4 published in Pure Appl. Chem. 85, 1047-1078 (2013); http://dx.doi.org/10.1351/PAC-REP-13-03-02. The uncertainty in the last digit of the standard atomic weight value is listed in parentheses following the value. In the absence of parentheses, the uncertainty is one in that last digit. An interval in square brackets provides the lower and upper bounds of the standard atomic weight for that element. No values are listed for elements which lack isotopes with a characteristic isotopic abundance in natural terrestrial samples. See PAC for more details.

- “Aluminum” and “cesium” are commonly used alternative spellings for “aluminium” and “caesium.”

- Claims for the discovery of all the remaining elements in the last row of the Table, namely elements with atomic numbers 113, 115, 117 and 118, and for which no assignments have yet been made, are being considered by a IUPAC and IUPAP Joint Working Party.

For updates to this table, see iupac.org/reports/periodic_table/. This version is dated 1 May 2013. Copyright © 2013 IUPAC, the International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry.

IUPAC Periodic Table of the Elements

INTERNATIONAL UNION OF PURE AND APPLIED CHEMISTRY

Student Outcomes

Other  than  content  knowledge,  what  might  your  students  gain  from  this  type  of  learning  environment?  

•  Individually: 1 minute •  Group: 3 minutes •  Discussion

12/18/14  

2  

What is POGIL? What is POGIL?

Process Skills

•  Information  Processing  •  Critical  Thinking  •  Problem  Solving  •  Communication  •  Teamwork  •  Management  •  Assessment  

What is POGIL?

Learning Cycle Activities

Learning Cycle

•  Parallels  the  “scientific  method”  •  Provides  context  for  introduction  of  new  terms  •  Explicitly  provides  opportunities  for  critical  thinking  

Karplus,  K.  &  Thier.,  H.D.  (1967).  A  New  Look  at  Elementary  School  Science.  Chicago:  Rand  McNally  and  Co.  

Piaget,  J.  (1964).  Part  I:  Cognitive  development  in  children:  Piaget  development  and  learning.    J.  Res.  Sci.  Teach.,  2,  176–186.  

12/18/14  

3  

What is POGIL? Information

Processing Model

Johnstone, A.H. (1997). Chemistry Teaching- Science or Alchemy? J. Chem. Educ., 74, 262–268.

Gazzaniga, M. S., Ivry, R. B., & Mangun, G. R. (2008). Cognitive Neuroscience: The Biology of the Mind (3rd ed.). New York: W. W. Norton & Company.

New Paradigm

•  Knowledge  results  only  through  active  participation  in  its  construction.  

•  Students  teach  each  other  and  they  teach  the  instructor  by  revealing  their  understanding  of  the  subject.  

•  Teachers  learn  by  this  process…by  steadily  accumulating  a  body  of  knowledge  about  the  practice  of  teaching.  

 Teaching  is  enabling.  

Knowledge  is  understanding.  Learning  is  active  construction  of  subject  matter.  

 Elmore,  R.  F.  (1991).  Foreword.  In  C.R.  Christensen,  D.A.  Garvin,  &  A.Sweet  (Eds.),  

Education  for  Judgment  (pp.  ix–ixi).  Boston,  MA:  Harvard  Business  School  Press.  

Guided Inquiry Approach

•  Students  work  in  groups  •  Students  construct  knowledge  •  Activities  use  Learning  Cycle  paradigm  •  Students  teach,  discuss,  and  learn  from  other  

students  

•  Instructors  facilitate  learning  

Analysis of Student Outcomes

Data  on  the  use  of  POGIL  in  a  variety  of  academic  settings  

General Chemistry

at Franklin & Marshall College

•  “Lecture”:  F1990–S1994:  n  =  420  •   POGIL:  F1994–S1998:  n  =  485  •  Sections  of  ~24  students  •  Same  instructors  

•  Students  randomly  placed  Fall  semester  &  designate  preference  Spring  semester  (but  not  guaranteed  to  get  their  choice)  

•  Compare  course  grades  (ABC’s  vs.  DFW’s)  

12/18/14  

4  

General Chemistry

at Franklin & Marshall College

Data from classrooms of Moog, Farrell, and Spencer

Farrell, J.J., Moog, R.S., & Spencer, J.N. (1999). A Guided Inquiry Chemistry Course. J. Chem. Educ., 76, 570–574.

Organic 1 at a

Large Public University

•  Two  sections:  one  lecture,  one  POGIL;  taught  at  the  same  time  

•  Students  randomly  placed    in  sections  •  Compare  withdrawal  rate  and  common  exam  scores  

•  Final  exam  created  solely  by  lecture  instructor  and  administered  to  both  groups  

Organic 1

at a Large Public University

Withdrawals  &  Common  Final  Exam  Scores,  Fall  2000  

Assessment Pre-Quiz for Organic 2

•  Large  public  university  •  Classes  of  about  250  •  Unannounced  quiz  given  on  first  day  of  Organic  2  (written  by  non-‐POGIL  instructor)  

•  Students  had  taken  Organic  1  •  With  lecture  (two  different  instructors)  

•  With  POGIL  

Retention of Learning

Organic  2  Pre-‐quiz  Results    (Lecture  vs.  POGIL  Organic  1)  

Ruder, S.M., & Hunnicutt, S.S. (2008). POGIL in Chemistry Courses at a Large Urban University: A Case Study. In R.S. Moog, & J.N. Spencer (Eds.), Process-Oriented Guided Inquiry Learning: ACS Symposium Series 994 (pp. 133–147). Washington, D.C.: American Chemical Society.