Fighting the Good Fight: Implementing POGIL in an AP ...wwalsh/WalshAPRFinal.pdf · conceptual understanding. Nakhleh (1992) cites student failure to develop accurate models and understandings

1

Fighting the Good Fight: Implementing

POGIL in an AP Chemistry Course

by Kate Walsh

University of Pennsylvania, MCEP Cohort 6

April 24, 2006

Abstract

This study examines the effectiveness of the Process Oriented Guided Inquiry

Learning (POGIL) model at improving the conceptual understanding of Advanced

Placement Chemistry students. The study compares the POGIL method to a traditional

lecture style of instruction by testing both a kinetics and an equilibrium unit conceptually.

The unit on kinetics was taught in the traditional lecture format and the one on

equilibrium using POGIL. The study sample size was quite small, only twelve.

Although statistically insignificant, an improvement in mean, median, and standard

deviation is seen from the lectured unit to the POGIL unit. Student attitudes toward the

POGIL method were also investigated. In general, the attitudes proved to be positive

with some interesting hesitations and contradictions along the way. The results suggest

that for the sample group POGIL did improve their conceptual understanding.

2

Introduction

Are students in an Advanced Placement (AP) Chemistry course more successful

at answering conceptual questions1 with instruction which is limited to the use of POGIL

(Process Oriented Guided Inquiry Learning) activities as opposed to instruction in a

traditional lecture format? Are these same Advanced Placement Chemistry students

more aware of their own level of conceptual understanding when the POGIL method of

instruction replaces the more familiar lecture style format? This study addresses these

two questions.

The AP Chemistry exam requires students to demonstrate strong conceptual

understanding of a wide range of topics. This presents a challenge as many students

struggle when it comes to understanding concepts. Bodner (1986), Nakhleh (1992), and

Hanson and Wolfskill (1998) all address this idea in their research. Bodner (1986) says

“teaching and (student) learning are not synonyms.” (Bodner 1999, pg 873) He makes

the argument for a shift towards constructivism as a conduit to improving student

conceptual understanding. Nakhleh (1992) cites student failure to develop accurate

models and understandings of fundamentals as the predecessor to students’ poor

conceptual understanding. In light of these findings and the similar ones of many others,

Hanson and Wolfskill (1998) present the idea that “process is the missing element”

students’ formulations of their understandings. (Hanson and Wolfskill, 1998, pg 143)

1 Conceptual questions were taken from two sources: 1) Journal of Chemistry Education, Conceptual

Question Bank,

http://www.jce.divched.org/JCEDLib/QBank/collection/genchem/WebCTQuestions/index.html, 2)

ConcepTests from Chemistry Dept., UW-Madison,

http://www.jce.divched.org/JCEDLib/QBank/collection/ConcepTests/

3

They focus on providing students with a set of tools to “scaffold” their learning from

basic concepts to more complex ones. POGIL is one such method.

My experience teaching AP chemistry has presented many similar challenges in

terms of students’ misconceptions of basic concepts and of students’ inabilities to

scaffold one concept up to the next. As a result, this study was undertaken to test the idea

of using process oriented pedagogy, specifically POGIL, to produce improved conceptual

understanding.

Literature Review

A large body of work has been done on the shift within the chemistry education

community from a content focused curriculum to one which focuses on conceptual

understanding. This is the theoretical underpinning of the shift from behaviorism to

constructivism. Literature with regards to this shift and the basis of it is discussed below.

The next logical step in the discussion is a look at the various methods which

might lead to the conceptual understandings desired by the constructivist approach. One

such approach is the Process Oriented Guided Inquiry Learning (POGIL) method which

is the main focus of this study. A thorough discussion of the literature on the POGIL

method and of constructivist methodologies in general is included here.

Another important aspect of the discussion on the shift toward constructivism is

the need for a way to assess the success of any particular strategy. This study uses

conceptual testing to evaluate the success of the implementation of the POGIL method.

Literature regarding the constituencies discussed in the study, specifically a single-sex

male classroom and a high achieving population, are intentionally omitted as an

4

evaluation of the effect of either characteristic was not undertaken. There was no single-

sex female counter example nor was there a low achieving population with which to

compare.

Behaviorism can be compared to the idea of training a dog. The teacher puts the

answers into the students head and if this happens enough times the student will just

know it. It subscribes to the idea that information is a thing to be gotten. The focus is on

the correct answer or outcome. (Herron & Nurrenbern, 1999) Spencer (1999) comments

on behaviorism saying:

“What have we learned about teaching chemistry? That having students solve

exercises at the board, that teacher demonstrations of how to use algorithms, that

having students solve countless homework exercises do not improve students

critical thinking skills.” ( Spencer, 1999, p. 567)

On the other hand, constructivism holds that one cannot obtain true knowledge simply by

being told. In, order for one to truly understand a concept they must construct the

knowledge for themselves. (Herron & Nurrenbern, 1999)

The hypothesis of Bodner’s (1986) paper states, “Teaching and learning are not

synonymous; we can teach and teach well, without having the students learn.”

Considerable research has investigated the roots of this phenomenon. The consensus

seems to be that prior student knowledge, generally misconceptions is to blame. (Herron

& Nurrenbern, 1999) This issue of misconception seems to stretch across all ability

levels. Nicoll (2003) finds that undergraduate chemistry majors of varying abilities and

across all four years showed drastic misconceptions of the most basic of concepts. In the

study, students were asked to make models of formaldehyde using modeling clay. Major

5

misconceptions which presented themselves included, an inability to draw accurate Lewis

structures, a lack of understanding of periodic trends in size, and a failure to differentiate

the strength and thus the length of single versus double bonds. The study also notes that

the frequency of misconceptions and the number of incorrect models was no less for

fourth year students than for first. Studies have also shown that addressing

misconceptions improves problem solving ability. (Mulford & Robinson, 2002) Herron

stated, “If students are having trouble solving problems, the first thing to check is their

understanding of the concepts in the problem.” (as cited by, Mulford & Robinson, 2002)

Clearly, the next important discussion is what causes or creates these

misconceptions. Gabel (1999) builds off of the research of Johnstone (1991) stating that

for misconceptions to be overcome students must learn to integrate the three levels of

scientific representation: macroscopic, symbolic, and sub-microscopic. She highlights

the fact that most of what we teach in chemistry is presented symbolically and that little

is done to connect the symbolic to the macro- and sub-microscopic. This concern is also

seen in Nakhleh. (1992) Another issue addressed both by Nakhleh (1992) and Gabel

(1999) is the dual meanings of chemical terminology. Some words have a certain

colloquial meaning and a very different chemical meaning. For example, Wolfer and

Lederman (2000) also emphasize the importance of conceptual understanding, “Greater

emphasis on “why” will help students develop the skills to solve what King and Kitchner

(1994) referred to as ill-structured problems, essentially the real-world problems that

educators want their students to be able to solve.”

Once we accept the idea that students bring misconceptions to chemistry class, we

must attempt to answer the question, “what then shall we do?” Two significant methods

6

of addressing the misconceptions from a psychological perspective are addressed here,

the cognitive and information processing models. The information processing model

suggests that when a piece of information is absorbed into the short term memory it looks

for things in the long term memory with which to relate this new information. If such

information exists it groups it with the new information and it is much more likely to be

stored for a longer time (Cowley & Underwood, 1998). Nakhleh (1992) cites Whittrock

& Osborne’s definition of the cognitive model as one in which students will develop their

own understandings of the things in their world from their point of view and based on

their previous understandings.

In light of these psychological theories and an understanding that misconceptions

need to be addressed, several methodologies for dealing with misconceptions have been

developed. Common threads of these methodologies involve emphasis on process,

collaboration, student-centeredness, and a more moderative type of role for instructors.

Bodner (1986) states, “the only way to replace a misconception is by constructing a new

concept that more appropriately explains our experiences.” This requires teaching

students a process. The 1997 Stony Brook General Chemistry Teaching Workshop

defined process education as, “an educational philosophy that focuses on improving the

performance skills needed for success in college and a career, for lifelong learning, and

for continued growth through ongoing self-assessment.” (Hanson & Wolfskill, 1998).

Many programs and methods of process learning have been established with many

similarities. Most of these methods suggest that essential components of a successful

process guided learning strategy involve, cooperative learning, discovery learning,

7

simultaneous reporting, and a bystander type role for the instructor. (Hanson & Wolfskill,

2000, 2001; Hanson & Apple, 2004)

The Hanson and Wolfskill studies addressed both the LUCID (Learning and

Understanding through Computer-based Interactive Discovery) method and what is now

known as the POGIL method. Herron and Nuremburg (1999) reinforce the value of

cooperative learning citing that it requires students to hash out misconceptions using

“high order reasoning” and “meta-cognitive reasoning strategies.” Another benefit of

cooperative learning is that it produces students who are desirable to industry in that they

are effective communicators and team players. (Gosser & Roth, 1998) Cooperative

learning has also be cited as being beneficial in that it can bring students with varying

levels of prior knowledge together in an attempt to equilibrate student potential for

success. Evidence shows that prior knowledge is one of the greatest predictors of

success. In a study by Johnstone (1997), an introductory chemistry course which was

generally taught in an exclusively lecture format was modified to include some

prelectionary and postlectionary blocks. These blocks were used to group students

according to prior knowledge on a topic by topic basis. Overtime, the difference in

performance between students with a great deal of prior knowledge and that of those with

little prior knowledge was virtually indistinguishable. This is in contrast to a previously

very significant difference between these two groups. Lewis and Lewis (2005) found that

replacing one of three fifty minute classroom sessions in an introductory chemistry

course with a “Peer-led Team Learning” (PTL) session produced consistently better

scores on exams then those take by a control group of students who were not

participating in the PTL sessions. This study produced an interesting result however,

8

many students were not overly enthusiastic about the PTL sessions even with improved

scores.

This phenomenon is not unique to the PTL case. Students also tended to show

disdain for the purposeful standoffishness of the instructors.(Hanson & Wolfskill, 2001)

However, this bystander role for the instructor is essential to the success of the method.

The instructor’s bystander role can manifest in a variety of ways for example, as leader,

monitor, facilitator, and evaluator (Hanson & Apple, 2004).The instructors simply cannot

take on the behaviorist role of information source. Information needs to be developed

from within the students and within the groups.

Another essential component to the success of any process oriented, collaborative

instructional method is that assessments need to reflect the goals of the practice. These

methods tend to encourage collaboration and deeper conceptual understanding and then

not evaluate these things. If this is the case, students will not accept the method. Wolfer

and Lederman (2000) state, “if conceptual understanding is the goal then assessment

practices must emphasize as such.” Assessments which test for misconceptions and

conceptual understanding are beneficial for two reasons, “they give instructors a better

sense of the cognitive structure of students and students gain a vested interest in

understanding concepts.” (Nakhleh, 1992)

For these reasons, this study used assessments that required conceptual

understanding by the students. “Questions were considered conceptual if they required

the student to do one of the following: justify a choice, predict what happens next,

explain why something happens, explain how something happens, link two or more areas

or topics, recognize questions phrased in a novel way, or extract useful data from an

9

excess of information.” (Division of Chemical Education, Inc., The American Chemical

Society)The questions were taken from the Journal of Chemical Education Conceptual

Question Bank

(http://jchemed.chem.wisc.edu/JCEDLib/QBank/collection/genchem/WebCTQuestions/

Kinetics/) and from the University Wisconsin – Madison, ConcepTests

(http://jchemed.chem.wisc.edu/JCEDLib/QBank/collection/ConcepTests/index.html).

Methods

Some important limitations of this study should be discussed at the outset. The

group of students tested was relatively small, 12 students. They are all male and from a

very affluent school. They are probably best compared to a group of first year students at

a top-tier university. This being said, as an instructor, I have repeatedly experienced a

frustrating contradiction amongst this group of students. Although their grades, SAT

scores, and college acceptances place them amongst the brightest of the bright students,

their conceptual understanding is grotesquely lacking. This is particularly challenging in

an AP class because the AP exam requires students to give frequent explanations for their

answers and thus demands a firm conceptual understanding. My students typically do

well on the AP examination regardless of their lacking conceptual understanding because

the exam has a large curve. Students generally do not need to achieve 50% of the points

to achieve a passing score.2 One might be able to effectively argue that the size of the AP

exam curve results from a general lack of conceptual understanding by AP chemistry

students nationwide. This is beyond the scope of this paper.

2 AP exams are graded on a 5 point scale; a score of 3 or better is passing.

10

I am a student in the Master’s of Chemistry Education Program (MCEP) at the

University of Pennsylvania. The degree program consists of 8 chemistry content courses

and 2 chemistry education courses. This might seem to indicate that the primary focus of

the program is content. In fact, the opposite is true. Even in the content courses,

methods of instruction are modeled and implemented as a means of demonstrating

effective instructional methods to the teacher participants. This past summer I was

enrolled in the first content course of the program, a graduate level organic chemistry

course. As an undergraduate, I was a pre-medical studies student and I took two

semesters of intensive organic chemistry. I studied hard and received good marks.

When, I entered the organic course this past summer I felt I would be well prepared. The

course was taught almost exclusively by the POGIL method. We worked in groups on

POGIL activities with little to no assistance from the instructor. We had to work out the

answers as a group using the given information and the prior knowledge of the group

members. It was not long into these sessions that I realized how little organic chemistry I

actually understood from my undergraduate days. I also recognized how effective the

POGIL method was at increasing my long range conceptual understanding. I now feel as

if most of what I learned last summer I truly understand and will keep with me in the long

term. This revelation was particularly striking. Thus, when attempting to address the

lack of conceptual understanding amongst my AP students, I hypothesized that

implementing the POGIL method might improve their conceptual understanding. The

study which follows tests this hypothesis. I also wanted to see if my students, like

myself, would be aware of an increased conceptual understanding, if one was seen.

11

Georgetown Preparatory School is an all boys, Jesuit, Catholic, day and boarding

school located in North Bethesda, Maryland. The school seeks to form men of

competence, conscience, courage, and compassion. Very loosely these 4 C’s are

addressed as follows: competence through academics, conscience through theology,

courage through athletics, and compassion through service. The motto of all Jesuit

educational institutions is “Men (and/or Women) for Others,” which explains Prep’s

emphasis on service and social responsibility.

North Bethesda, Maryland is an affluent suburb of Washington, D.C. and thus the

majority of Prep’s students come from affluent backgrounds in which most have been

educated privately over the entire course of their education. One might assume that these

location issues would result in little diversity among Prep’s student population. On the

contrary, the school’s close proximity to Washington, D.C. provides the school with a

fair amount of ethnic diversity. Many of our students are foreign nationals who find

themselves in the DC metro area as the result of family jobs in diplomacy or in

international political organizations such as the Organization of American States or the

World Bank.

Prep is particularly attractive to these families as our school has a boarding

component. The boarding option allows these students to reside at the school which is

often more convenient for their parents who must frequently travel abroad for work or to

return to their country of origin. The boarding aspect of the school also provides an

opportunity for foreign families to send their sons to the United States for high school.

Our students from abroad come predominantly from Seoul, South Korea and Mexico

City, Mexico. These factors all contribute to the diversity of the student population at

12

Georgetown Prep. In terms of specific demographics, about 15% of our student body

comes from over seas. In terms of race, our population is about 75% Caucasian, 12%

African-American, 6% Latino, 6% Asian, and 1% Middle Eastern. About 25% of our

students receive need based financial aid, although we don’t collect free/reduced lunch

data. All of our students receive lunch as a part of tuition.

Average class size at Georgetown Prep is about fifteen students however, the

sciences tend to be a bit larger as a result of lab space constraints. My three sections of

honors chemistry have eighteen to twenty students per class. I also teach one section of

AP chemistry which has only twelve students. Our science department is made up of six

teachers, three female and three male. The experience level within our department varies

widely from myself, currently in my fourth year of teaching, to our most senior member

who has taught for over twenty-five years. Our department offers college prep, honors

and AP level courses in Biology, Chemistry, and Physics.

In terms of faculty demographics, Georgetown Prep does not exhibit a very

diverse faculty. We are nearly 100% Caucasian and about two-thirds male. Nearly half

our faculty has over twenty years of teaching experience and the other half less than five

years teaching experience. We have very few teachers in the five to fifteen years of

experience range.

This year’s Advanced Placement chemistry section is comprised of twelve boys,

nine seniors and three juniors. They are a very talented bunch as nineteen boys qualified

for the course and only the top twelve were accepted. To qualify, students must have

received a score of eighty-two or above in Honors Chemistry, Honors Biology and be

13

enrolled in at least Algebra II/Trigonometry. The lowest score in Honors Chemistry for

any student in this year’s group was a final average of ninety-two.

In the past, I have taught the course in an exclusively lecture format. Beginning

in the fall, I began to introduce students to POGIL activities by using one or two

activities per unit. In early February, a unit of kinetics was presented in a typical lecture

format. About two and a half weeks was spent working on the unit. The AP course

meets for between sixty and seventy minutes per day. An average class period in which I

use a lecture style presentation is divided in half with the first thirty minutes spent on

lecture and the second thirty minutes spent with the presentation of problems. On

occasion the first ten or so minutes are spent reviewing a problem from the previous

night’s homework. Following this presentation of kinetics, a sixteen question conceptual

exam was administered. The Journal of Chemical Education Conceptual Question Bank

(http://jchemed.chem.wisc.edu/JCEDLib/QBank/collection/genchem/WebCTQuestions/

Kinetics/) and the University Wisconsin – Madison, ConcepTests

(http://jchemed.chem.wisc.edu/JCEDLib/QBank/collection/ConcepTests/index.html)

were the sources of the conceptual questions used. (see Appendix D)

Following the February break, a unit of equilibrium was presented using solely

the POGIL method. The POGIL activities were obtained from Chemistry: A Guided

Inquiry, 3/e. by Rick Moog and John Farrell (Moog & Farrell, 2006) as well as from the

POGIL website (www.pogil.org.) Groups were drawn at random before beginning each

POGIL. The first name drawn became the group leader. Again, approximately two and a

half weeks was required to complete the unit. Typically, it took one to two periods to

complete each activity. The unit was concluded with a conceptual exam similar to that of

14

the kinetics unit. (See Appendix D) Each exam was scored in a similar fashion. In

general, one point was awarded for each correct answer and three points were awarded

for the correct explanation. In cases where only a multiple choice answer was required

all the points were assigned to the correct answer. These questions incorporated the

concept into the correct multiple choice. For example, question number one on the

kinetics exam (see below) required a firm understanding of the concepts of kinetics in

order to

Consider the following reaction:

CO(g) + NO2(g) CO2(g) + NO(g)

If the rate law for the reaction is Rate = k[NO2]2, which of the following will have

no effect on the rate of the reaction?

a. Decreasing the pressure of NO2

b. Increasing the concentration of CO

c. Increasing the temperature

d. Adding a catalyst

e. All of these will affect the rate.

correctly choose letter b. It was constructed in such a way as to test common

misconceptions of students with regards to kinetics. Namely, the ideas that pressure can

effect concentration and thus the rate, that temperature effects rate, and that catalysts will

affect rate, while concentration of a particular reactant must be part of the rate law in

order to affect the rate. Thus, the question was assigned four all or nothing points.

Results and Discussion

The results of the two exams were compared and are summarized in the results

15

table below. (See Appendix A for more detailed tables.) A roughly ten point

Kinetics Equilibrium

Mean 66.7 77.9

median 69.5 79

std. dev. 15.4 10.0

improvement was seen in both the mean and median. There was also less discrepancy in

the range of scores as demonstrated by the lower standard deviation. The results will

clearly not produce statistical significance due to the low value of n (n=12). These

improvements agree with those of Lewis and Lewis (2005), Hanson and Wolfskill

(2000), Farrell, Moog, and Spencer (1999), and Wolfskill and Hanson (2001). These four

studies all showed an increase in test scores with the implementation of collaborative

pedagogical strategies. Farrell et al. (1999) is the only of the aforementioned examples

which implemented POGIL specifically. They saw a greater than ten percentage point

decrease in the number of students earning grades of D, F, or withdrawing from the

course.

What follows are several tables comparing specific questions from each exam

which test similar concepts. The tables show the points possible on each question along

with mean and median for the respective question. (See Appendix C for student by

student detail of this data)

16

Kinetics Exam #12 vs. Equilibrium Exam #1 – Obtaining Information from Diagrams

Kinetics Exam #12

For the reaction:

The dependence of the concentration of H2 on time is shown below.

Is the reaction rate faster at point A or point B? Justify your answer.

Correct Answer: Point A (1 pt.) because the magnitude of the slope of the tangent line to

the curve at A is greater than at point B and the magnitude of the slope of the tangent

represents the rate. (3 pts.)

Equilibrium Exam #1

The figure represents a portion of an equilibrium mixture of two compounds related by

the reaction 2A = B.

Which of the following must be true of this equilibrium? Justify your answer.

(a) K > 1

(b) K = 1

(c) K < 1

(d) K = 0

(e) K < 0

Correct Answer: C, K<1 (1 pt.) because #A=75 and #B=16 and K=[B]/[A]2, thus 16/75

2

is less than one.

17

Kinetics Exam #12 Equilibrium Exam #1 Student Improvement

Mean Median Mean Median Improved Worse

72.9% 100% 75% 75% 25% 42%

The marginal improvement in the mean coupled with a greater percentage of students

doing worse on the equilibrium question in this case demonstrates the contradiction this

question presents. Apparently, for the study’s sample of students POGIL did not improve

their ability to obtain information from diagrams. This certainly does not allow a wider

conclusion about POGIL and student misconceptions with regards to diagrams. It simply

provides data for this particular data.

Kinetics Exam #13 vs. Equilibrium Exam #4 – Comparing Graphical Data to Chemical

Equations

Kinetics Exam #13

For the reaction:

Each of the following curves corresponds to one of the species in the reaction shown

above. Which curve represents the time dependence of the concentration of O2? Justify

your answer.

Correct answer: B (1 pt), the concentrations which increase with time, A and B,

represent products, as products are forming during a reaction. Since the coefficient of

NO is 2 and of O2 is one, two molecules of NO form for every one molecule of O2 which

forms, thus the higher of the two product lines, A, represents NO and the lower, B,

represents O2.

18

Equilibrium Exam #4

Use the following graph to write a balanced chemical equation for the reaction portrayed.

Also label the kinetic and equilibrium regions of the graph.

Correct answer: kinetic region = first 10 units, equilibrium region = beyond the first ten

units (2 pts) and 7C ⇔ 3B + 1A (3 pts)

Kinetics Exam #13 Equilibrium Exam #4 Student Improvement


70.8% 100% 88.3% 100% 33% 17%

The improvement in mean combined with a greater proportion of students improving on

this type of question provides evidence that POGIL improved the ability of the sample

students to answer this type of conceptual question.

19

Kinetics Exam #6 (rate law) vs. Equilibrium Exam #6 – Rate Law and Equilibrium

Expressions

Kinetics Exam #6 (rate law)

Use the experimental data below to determine the rate law and constant for

the following reaction. Justify your answers.

rate=_____________________

Correct answer: Rate= k[A][B]2(1 pt.) because when [A] is constant (trial 1 vs. trial 3)

[B] doubles and rate quadruples where as when [B] is constant (trial 1 vs. trial 2) [A]

doubles as does the rate. (3 pts.)

Equilibrium Exam #6

What is the correct equilibrium constant expression for the balanced reaction shown

below?

C3H8(g) + 5O2(g) 3CO2(g) + 4H2O(l)

Correct Answer: [CO2]3/[O2]

5[C3H8] (2 pts.)

Kinetics Exam #6(rate law) Equilibrium Exam #6 Student Improvement


85.4% 100% 91.7% 100% 17% 17%

An improvement in mean is observed while no more students improve than those

who do worse. At best, no conclusion can be drawn from this data. It may be true that a

modest improvement in score was seen, but because the same number of students did

worse as did better it cannot be concluded that POGIL was responsible for said

improvement.

The student attitude surveys were designed to measure the degree to which

students liked the POGIL method and the degree to which they perceived any

20

improvement which might have been seen. The results of the attitudes survey are

detailed in Appendix B. They are presented both in terms of frequency of response and

percentage. The most prevalent attitude which surfaced both in the classroom and on the

survey itself was the student opinion that doing POGILs was “teaching new material to

myself (the student.)” What follows is a discussion of some of the more interesting

“patterns and contradictions” (Sewell, 1999) which presented themselves in the surveys’

results.

Several questions were asked to obtain student opinions on group work. Some of

the more interesting questions and results can be seen here.

Question Percent Agree or

Strongly Agree

Percent Disagree or

Strongly Disagree

In general, I enjoy working in groups. 67 8.3

I learn best in a group. 42 25

I will learn more if I do not work with

my friends.

42 25.3

I am less comfortable learning difficult

material in a group.

25 17

Although, 67% of students answered that they agree or strongly agree with the statement

“I enjoy working in groups”, only 42% indicated agree or strongly agree with the

statement “I learn best in a group.” This would seem to suggest that although the

students enjoyed working in groups, they are aware that working in groups may not be

the best for their learning. Generally, this result would seem to suggest that they feel they

would not learn as much in a group because of being distracted and getting off topic,

especially with their friends. And the data did seem to agree with this assumption, as

42% agreed with the statement “I will learn more if I do not work with my friends.”

However, another less apparent reason for students reporting the feeling that they will not

21

learn as much in a group might be explained by the response of agree by 25% of the

students with the statement “I am less comfortable learning difficult material in a group.”

Some questions investigated student attitudes toward content (non-conceptual)

questions. The survey defined these questions as those with only one answer. Other

questions were posed which investigated student attitudes towards conceptual questions.

The survey defined these questions as those which required students to explain their

answer. Some of the results are shown below. Some interesting contradictions appeared.


Strongly Agree

Percent Disagree or

Strongly Disagree

I am more comfortable with questions

which have only one correct answer.

66 8.3

I prefer test or quiz questions which

require me to explain my answer.

42 33.3

Although 66% of the students surveyed responded agree or strongly agree with the

statement, “I am more comfortable with questions which have only one correct answer,”

only 33.3% responded disagree or strongly disagree with the statement “I prefer test or

quiz questions which require me to explain my answer.” On the surface, this seems

contradictory, however, any number of explanations might explain this phenomenon.

Some students may prefer conceptual questions as they offer more opportunity for partial

credit even though they are more comfortable with the content questions. Some of the

students who expressed being more comfortable with content questions may not

necessarily be opposed to the conceptual questions may simply have responded a neutral

feeling toward these questions. Also, studies such as those of Hanson and Wolfskill

(2000) and Nakheleh (1992) demonstrate that students will only take the collaborative

and process oriented pedagogies seriously if the conceptual understandings they

22

emphasize if they are also part of the assessments. Wolfer and Lederman (2000) contend

if conceptual understanding is the goal, the assessment practices must emphasizes as

much.

Student responses to questions regarding the methodologies which best prepare

them for each type of question (see below) seem to flow with the prior research and with

the hypothesis of this study.


Strongly Agree

Percent Disagree or

Strongly Disagree

Lecture style classes prepare me better

to answer these types of objective

questions.

67 16.6

Learning concepts in a group helps me

to explain my reasoning on these types

(conceptual) of questions.

50.3 25

A majority of students agreed or strongly agreed that lecture is more effective preparation

for content focused assessments and that collaborative work is more effective preparation

for conceptual assessments.

The most notable contradiction was demonstrated when students were probed

about the types of questions which allowed them to remember concepts longer. (see

below)


Strongly Agree

Percent Disagree or

Strongly Disagree

I remember chemistry concepts longer

when I memorized them.

75.3 15.6

I remember chemistry concepts longer

when I was required to explain them on

tests and quizzes.

67 17

75.3% of students responded agree or strongly agree to the statement, “I remember

chemistry concepts longer when I memorized them.” Whereas, 67% of students

23

responded agree or strongly agree to the statement, “I remember chemistry concepts

longer when I was required to explain them on tests and quizzes.” This result contradicts

the hypothesis that students would become more aware of their conceptual understanding

when instructed using the POGIL method.

The final set of student attitudes investigated were those on the bystander role of

the instructor in the POGIL method. The results of these questions are summarized

below.


Strongly Agree

Percent Disagree or

Strongly Disagree

I prefer when my teacher answers my

questions directly.

84 8.3

I feel frustrated when my teacher makes

me ask questions to come to my own

conclusions.

25.3 25

I learn better when are required to

discover the answers to our questions in

groups.

50 25

These results demonstrate the frustration of students with the instructor’s hands-off role

in POGIL scenarios. However, it is interesting to note that more students agreed or

strongly agreed that they “learned better when they had to discover the answer to their

questions in groups” than those who disagreed or strongly disagreed. These results are

similar to those of Lewis and Lewis (2005) who found that many students are not overly

positive about collaborative style pedagogies even though their scores improved.

Conclusion

The primary finding of this study was that for this particular, twelve student

sample of male AP Chemistry students, a benefit to the students’ conceptual

24

understandings was seen when the POGIL method of instruction replaced that of a

traditional lecture format. Of course, these results are not statistically significant as the

sample size is twelve (n=12). At best the evidence on students’ perceptions of the

benefits of the POGIL method to their conceptual understandings were inconclusive.

In my opinion, this study demonstrated that POGIL was a decidedly better

method of instruction in my AP course. I will transition more and more in the direction

of POGIL going forward with my AP students. I take away from the study and my work

on POGIL with this group of students, the understanding that students are most resistant

in the beginning to the idea of POGIL and that consistency and persistency are key

elements to a successful implementation. I was particularly impressed with the degree

with which participation and legitimization by students improved the longer we worked

with POGILs and the with the consistent variation of the groups. A notable change in

students’ classroom attitudes was observed when students saw that groups were truly

chosen at random and rotated on a consistent schedule.

The obvious extension of this study requires repeating the study with a larger,

more heterogeneous population. Another possible extension would be an investigation of

student attitudes towards the choosing of groups for collaborative activities. In terms of

student perceptions, other forms of data might improve the conclusiveness of results. For

example, interviews, journaling exercises, or requiring students to keep progress logs

might improve student abilities to perceive their conceptual understandings.

25

References

Bodner, G. M. (1986). Constructivism: a theory of knowledge, Journal of

Chemistry Education, 63, 873-878.

Crowley, G., Underwood, A., (1998). Memory, Newsweek, 49-52.

Farrell, J.J., Moog, R.S., Spencer, J.N. (1999). A guided inquiry chemistry course.

Journal of Chemistry Education, 76, 570-574.

Gabel, D. (1999). Improving teaching and learning through chemistry education

research: a look into the future. Journal of Chemistry Education, 76, 548-554.

Gosser, D. K., Roth, V. (1998). The workshop chemistry project: peer-led team tutoring,


Hanson, D., Wolfskill, T., (1998). Improving the teaching/learning process in general

chemistry. Journal of Chemistry Education, 75, 143-147.

Hanson, D., Wolfskill, T., (2000). Process Workshops - A new model for instruction.


Hanson, D., Wolfskill, T., (2001). LUCID- A new model for computer assisted learning.


26

Hanson, D., Apple, D., (2004). Process - The Missing Element, Project Kaleidoscope –

Volume IV: what works, what matters, what lasts.

Herron, J. D., Nurrenbern, S., (1999). Chemical education research: improving chemistry

learning (viewpoints: chemists on chemistry), Journal of Chemistry Education,

76, 1353-1361.

Johnstone, A. H., (1991). “Why is science difficult to learn? Things are seldom what

they seem.” Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 7, 701-703.

Johnstone, A. H., (1997). Chemistry: science or alchemy?- The 1996 Brasted lecture.


Lewis, S. E., Lewis, J. E., (2005). Departing from lectures: an evaluation of a peer-led

guided inquiry alternative. Journal of Chemistry Education, 82, 135.

Mulford, D.R., Robinson, W. R., (2002). An inventory for alternate conceptions among

first-semester general chemistry students. Journal of Chemistry Education, 79,

739-744.

Nakhleh, M. B. (1992). Why some students don’t learn chemistry. Journal of Chemistry

Education, 69, 191-196.

27

Nicoll, G. (2003). A qualitative investigation of undergraduate chemistry students’

macroscopic interpretations of the submicroscopic structures of molecules,

Journal of Chemistry Education.

Oliver-Hoyo, M., (2003). Designing a written assignment to promote the use of critical

thinking skills in an introductory chemistry course, Journal of Chemistry

Education, 80, 899-903.

Spencer, J.N. (1999). New directions in teaching chemistry, Journal of Chemistry

Education, 76, 566-569.

Wolfer, A. J., Lederman, N. G. (2000). Introductory college chemistry students’

understanding of stoichiometry: connections between conceptual and

computational understandings and instruction. Paper presented at the annual

meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, New

Orleans, LA.

Wolfskill, T., Hanson, D., (2001). LUCID - A new model for computer assisted learning,


28

Appendix A

Results of Kinetics Exam: Traditional Lecture

Student Score

1 83

2 80

3 60

4 64

5 81

6 43

7 76

8 40

9 84

10 56

11 58

12 75

mean 66.7

median 69.5

std. dev. 15.4

Results of Equilibrium Exam: POGIL

Student Score

1 87

2 89

3 70

4 72

5 88

6 79

7 87

8 57

9 79

10 84

11 66

12 77

mean 77.9

median 79

std. dev. 10.0

29

Appendix B

Student Attitudes Surveys

By response frequency:

30

By response percentage:

31

Appendix C

Question by Question Student Data

Kinetics Exam Equilibrium Exam

Student

Number Question

Number

Points

Poss.

Points

Earned

Percent Question

Number

Points

Poss.

Points

Earned

Percent

Number

Improved

Number

Worse

1 12 4 4 100 1 4 3 75 3 5

2 4 100 4 100

3 4 100 4 100

Percent

Improved

Percent

Worse

4 4 100 2 50 25 42

5 4 100 3 75

6 4 100 3 75

7 1 25 2 50

8 4 100 4 100

9 2 50 2 50

10 4 100 4 100

11 0 0 1 25

12 0 0 4 100

mean 2.97 72.9 mean 3 75

median 4 100 median 3 75


Student

Number Question

Number

Points

Poss.

Points

Earned

Percent Question

Number

Points

Poss.

Points

Earned

Percent

Number

Improved

Number

Worse

1 13 4 4 100 4 5 5 100 4 2

2 4 100 3 60

3 0 0 3 60

Percent

Improved

Percent

Worse

4 4 100 4 80 33 17

5 4 100 5 100

6 1 25 5 100

7 4 100 5 100

8 4 100 5 100

9 4 100 5 100

10 0 0 4 80

11 1 25 4 80

12 4 100 5 100

mean 2.833333 70.83333 mean 4.416667 88.33333



Student

Number Question

Number

Points

Poss.

Points

Earned

Percent Question

Number

Points

Poss.

Points

Earned

Percent

Number

Improved

Number

Worse

1 6 4 4 100 6 2 1 50 2 2

2 1 25 2 100

3 4 100 2 100

Percent

Improved

Percent

Worse

4 4 100 2 100 17 17

5 4 100 2 100

6 4 100 2 100

7 4 100 2 100

8 0 0 2 100

9 4 100 2 100

10 4 100 2 100

11 4 100 1 50

12 4 100 2 100

mean 3.416667 85.41667 mean 1.833333 91.66667


32

Appendix D

Conceptual Exams

Kinetics Exam

Name____________________________________________Date___________________

1. Consider the following reaction:

CO(g) + NO2(g) CO2(g) + NO(g)

If the rate law for the reaction is Rate = k[NO2]2, which of the following will have no

effect on the rate of the reaction?

f. Decreasing the pressure of NO2

g. Increasing the concentration of CO

h. Increasing the temperature

i. Adding a catalyst

j. All of these will effect the rate.

2. Experiments show that the reaction of nitrogen dioxide and carbon monoxide

NO2 + CO NO + CO2

has the following rate expression at high temperatures:

Rate=k[NO2][CO]

Is the following mechanism compatible with the experimental information? Justify your

answer.

(1) NO2 + CO O-N-O-C-O (slow)

(2) O-N-O-C-O NO + CO2 (fast)

33

3. CH3CH2NO2 C2H2 + HNO2

Using the graph below, calculate the rate constant for this reaction at 40.0ºC.

a. 3.1 x 10-18 sec

-1

b. 9.6 x 10-15 sec

-1

c. 0 sec-1

d. -8.3 x 105 sec

-1

e. -6.5 x 106 sec

-1

4. The activation energy for the isomerization of cyclopropane to propene is 274 kJ/mol.

By what factor does the rate of reaction increase as the temperature rises from 500oC to

550oC, assuming all else remains constant? (R = 8.314 J/mol K)

a. 1.0

b. 13

c. 2.6

d. 4.0 x 102

5. Which of the following changes would NOT affect the rate of the reaction of cisplatin

with water?

Pt(NH3)2Cl2(aq) + H2O(l) [Pt(NH3)2(H2O)Cl]+(aq) + Cl

-(aq)

a. Using a 500 mL Erlynmeyer flask instead of a 250 mL Erlynmeyer to

perform the reaction.

b. Using 0.20 M cisplatin instead of 0.10 M cisplatin.

c. Performing the reaction at 200°C instead of 25°C.

d. Adding a catalyst to the reaction system.

34

6. Use the experimental data below to determine the rate law and constant for the

following reaction. Justify your answers.

Rate = __________________

k=_____________________

Label the y-axis on the following graph with respect to [A] in a. and [B] in b. Justify

your answer.

a. b.

7. Assume that the equation below represents an elementary reaction. Predict the rate

expression (rate law) for this reaction.

CO(g) + Cl2(g) COCl2(g)

35

8. Propose a plausible mechanism for the reaction of nitrogen dioxide and carbon

monoxide if the rate law is know to be second order with respect to nitrogen dioxide and

first order with respect to carbon monoxide. Justify your answer.

NO2 + CO NO + CO2

36

9. Consider two separate reactions that take place at the same temperature and begin with

the same molar concentrations. Their energy profiles are presented below:

a. Which reaction is endothermic? Justify your answer.

b. Which reaction has higher activation energy? Justify your answer.

c. Assuming equal A (frequency factor), which reaction is faster? Justify

your answer.

d. Which reaction has a larger rate constant? Justify your answer.

10. What would the units of the rate constant for a reaction which has an overall order of

4 be? Justify your answer.

37

11. Which curve illustrates the effect of a catalyst on the reaction diagram, given that

speeds up the rate of a reaction? Justify your answer.

12. For the reaction:

The dependence of the concentration of H2 on time is shown below.

Is the reaction rate faster at point A or point B? Justify your answer.

38


Each of the following curves corresponds to one of the species in the reaction shown

above. Which curve represents the time dependence of the concentration of O2? Justify

your answer.

39


The following initial rate data were obtained:

What is the correct rate law?

Show the proof of the integrated rate law with respect to [H+]

40

15. The diagram below shows Arrhenius plots for two chemical reactions. Which

reaction has the larger activation energy? Justify your answer.

16. The empirical rate law for the reaction

is Rate = k[NO2][F2].

Which of the following mechanisms is consistent with this rate law? Justify your answer.

a. NO2 (g) + F2 (g) <==> NO2F(g) + F(g) fast

NO2(g) + F(g) --->NO2F(g) slow

b. NO2 (g) + F2(g) <==> NO2F(g) + F(g) slow

NO2(g) + F(g) ---> NO2F(g) fast

c. F2(g) <==> F(g) + F(g) slow

2NO2(g) + 2F(g) ---> 2NO2F(g) fast

41

Equilibrium Exam

Name __________________________________________ Date____________________

1. The figure represents a portion of an equilibrium mixture of two compounds related by

the reaction 2A = B.

Which of the following must be true of this equilibrium? Justify your answer.

(a) K > 1

(b) K = 1

(c) K < 1

(d) K = 0

(e) K < 0

42

2. (i) Methanol can be prepared from carbon monoxide gas and additional hydrogen at

high temperature and pressure in the presence of a suitable catalyst. Write the expression

for the equilibrium constant for the reversible reaction.

2 H2(g) + CO(g) CH3OH(g) H = -90.2 kJ

(ii) If a mixture of H2, CO, and CH3OH is at equilibrium, how will the concentrations of

H2, CO, and CH3OH at a new equilibrium differ from their original concentrations when

a. more H2 is added?

b. CO is removed?

c. CH3OH is added?

d. the pressure on the system is increased?

e. the temperature of the system is increased?

f. more catalyst is added?

3. A container initially has 0.0297 M ammonia at a certain temperature. When the system

reaches equilibrium the concentration of ammonia is 0.0064 M. Calculate Kc for the

following reaction as written.

43

4. Use the following graph to write a balanced chemical equation for the reaction

portrayed. Also label the kinetic and equilibrium regions of the graph.

5. The equilibrium constant for the reaction of hydrogen gas and ethene to produce

ethane under certain conditions is 9.8 x 1018.

H2(g) + C2H4(g) C2H6(g) K = 9.8 x 1018

What is the equilibrium constant for the following reaction under the same conditions?

Justify your answer.

C2H6(g) H2(g) + C2H4(g) K = ?

What is the equilibrium constant for the following reaction under the same condidions?

2C2H6(g) 2H2(g) + 2C2H4(g) K = ?

44

6. What is the correct equilibrium constant expression for the balanced reaction shown

below?

C3H8(g) + 5O2(g) 3CO2(g) + 4H2O(l)

8. The following reaction has an equilibrium constant of 1.2x1018 at 25ºC.

CH4(g) + Cl2(g) CH3Cl(g) + HCl(g)

Which of the following statements is true? Justify your answer.

a. The system consists almost entirely of reactant molecules at equilibrium.

b. The system consists almost entirely of product molecules at equilibrium.

c. The system has a higher concentration of reactant molecules than product

molecules at equilibrium, but there are significant quantities of both.

d. The system has higher concentrations of product molecules than reactant

molecules at equilibrium, but there are significant quantities of both.

e. The system has approximately equal concentrations of product and reactant

molecules at equilibrium

45

9. Consider the following equilibrium, established in a 2.0 L flask at 30ºC.

CO(g) + H2O(g) CO2(g) + H2(g) Ho= -41.2 kJ

What will happen to the concentration of CO2 if the temperature is increased? Justify

your answer.

10. 2 SO2(g) + O2(g) 2 SO3(g)

The reaction above has an equilibrium constant of 0.25 at 830°C, and

∆H°rxn = -197.78 kJ/mol under standard conditions. Under which conditions

will this reaction produce the most sulfur trioxide? (Hint: Think about all the

things that could impose a stress on this system.)

46

11. 2NH3 (g) N2 (g) + 3H2 (g)

At equilibrium, if we know that kforward > kreverse , what do we know about the

concentrations of the reactants and products? Justify your answer.

47

12. If A + B C + D + heat, is at equilibrium, and more B is added,

a. Which reaction should be faster, the forward or backward? Justify your answer.

b. Immediately after the addition of the stress, will the new, non-equilibrium

fraction, [C][D]/[A][B] , be greater, equal to, or less than the equilibrium

constant? Justify your answer.

c. In which direction will the equilibrium be driven; to the left or to the right?

Justify your answer.

d. Will the new equilibrium concentrations of A, B, C, and D, be greater or smaller

than the original equilibrium concentrations? Justify your answer.

e. Will the new equilibrium concentrations give a new equilibrium constant which is

greater, equal to, or smaller than the original equilibrium constant? Justify your

answer.

Documents

Fighting the Good Fight: Implementing POGIL in an AP ...wwalsh/WalshAPRFinal.pdf · conceptual understanding. Nakhleh (1992) cites student failure to develop accurate models and understandings