Teaching-as-Research (TAR) Project

Motivation & TAR Question

How can the inclusion of "real-world" activities in the chemical nomenclature unit of general chemistry enhance student motivation and learning? A challenge in teaching general chemistry is that often students are not aspiring chemists, but are required to take chemistry as a pre-requisite for their intended majors. Because of this, student interest and motivation is low. We address this issue in the Madison College classroom, which includes a diverse range of learners from multiple backgrounds and intended careers.

The goal of this work was to develop inquiry-based activities for the chemical nomenclature unit. Our hypothesis was that by targeting student interest and motivation, student learning would also be enhanced. We designed an individualized research project for each student, where they reported on an assigned chemical with relevance to their interests or intended careers as identified in a pre-semester survey. To assess how student attitudes towards the subject evolved over the course of the semester, we used questions from validated surveys and administered the surveys at the beginning and end of the semester. Though there was no clear impact of the activities on attitudes towards science nor exam performance, the newly implemented activities were well received by students. This work provides a framework for incorporating student interests and career trajectories into general chemistry coursework, helping students find relevance to their lives and futures.

Reflective Statement

My teaching-as-research project was designed to address the lack of interest, and lower performance, in the chemical nomenclature unit of general chemistry in the Madison College classroom. I hypothesized that if I were to design activities to target student motivation, through enhancing interest in the topic, learning and performance in this unit would also be enhanced. To assess how student attitudes about chemistry evolved over the semester, I used a pre- and post- survey that was adapted from CLASS and SALG surveys, with approximately ten Likert-response questions from each. For my pre vs post analysis, I grouped questions together that had the common theme of “motivation and interest” and “utility and relevance” to see how the scores were impacted over time. For the cognitive learning outcomes, I compared scores on a standard final exam question pertaining to chemical nomenclature from this semester to other semesters. I found that there isn’t a significant difference in the exam performance following my intervention, however, this doesn’t mean that the activities were unsuccessful. Open-ended post-survey questions showed positive responses from almost all responders regarding the final project, sorting activity, and product labels activity. Overall I think that the activities and implementation of activities was largely successful. I think that the assessment could be improved. I believe more frequent formative assessment that addresses both attitudes towards the subject and also performance would be helpful metacognitive check-ins for the students, and also provide more time-course information about which activities are being well received. One issue with this iteration was the lack of participation in the post-survey, making it difficult to make comparisons in the responses.

One way that I tried to develop a learning community within my classroom was by asking students in the pre-survey what they were interested in and excited about learning in the class. This information guided how I designed the activities that I employed throughout my internship, including case studies that I gave as part of my guest lecture. I hope that this was an effective way to show students that their voices were valued and taken into consideration in the curriculum design. I learned a lot about learning communities and learning through diversity from my fellow interns. In a conversation during early internship planning workshops, one of my fellow interns told me about how having white backgrounds on powerpoints in classes is difficult for her to focus on, as she is prone to migraines. I then incorporated this concept both in my feedback presentation given in the internship seminar, and also in my guest lectures throughout my internship project. Working with my faculty partner was a really enriching experience. It meant a lot to me to develop a relationship with someone who could act as a mentor for me when it came to teaching-focused careers. This isn’t a type of mentorship that I had access to in the day-to-day of my graduate program, and it has been invaluable.

The students who were my participants were very diverse, as is common in the Madison College classroom. There was a lot of diversity in age, life stage, employment status, as well as gender and race. The significant range of backgrounds that students brought to this classroom was one motivating factor for me to get information on their interests and intended careers, to try to cater the activities towards their interests and how they may learn best. Whenever possible, I tried to show a range of examples of the relevance of the material I taught. I adjusted the pace of lecture as necessary, and gave plenty of time for discussion and review. Through the DELTA program I learned a lot about inclusive teaching, and tried to employ as many of these strategies as I could. To foster equitable discussion, I used think-pair-share throughout my lectures. The review activities were done in groups, and I was shocked to see what positive feedback I got about this activity. Students seemed thrilled about the opportunity to work in groups in a college setting, which seemingly they haven’t gotten to have a lot of experience with. This was an unexpected benefit of the activity, but one that I am very happy about.