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 email

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 1997. 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

Effect of study group participation on course grade.

2.4

2.72.9

3.1

2.00

2.25

2.50

2.75

3.00

3.25

none once 2 to 4 times 5 or moretimes

Mea

n c

ou

rse

gra

de

9 preceptors led studygroups 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 (1st Semester General Chemistry) CHM115 & CHM 116 (2nd 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)

101 113115/116

P / NP P / NP P / NP

Enrollment 47 / 275 57 / 319 37 / 418

%Participants 15% 15% 6%

Percent on Final 64%/65% 67%/69% 67%/67%

Course GPA 2.5 / 2.2 2.6 / 2.6 2.3 / 2.4

D, E, W’s 9% / 32% 18% / 22% 19% / 27%

20

Spring Highlights – Team Leaders (TL)

101 113115/116

TL/ NP TL/ NP TL/ NP

# of Team Leaders 5/ 275 7/ 319 9/ 572

Course GPA 3.6/ 2.2 3.9/ 2.6 3.8/ 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 1st 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: www.asu.edu/lrc/teachingteams.htm

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