CSU General Chemistry Course Redesign Project

1. Preface - Why do we want to Redesign our General Chemistry Courses?

2.Defining the Problem - Characteristics of Unsuccessful Students in General Chemistry

3.Directing Students into the Appropriate Courses - Placement Exams

4. Meeting the Needs of Unprepared Students in a Preparatory Chemistry Course

5.Improving the Student Learning Experience in General Chemistry

Lectures that engage more student learning

Increasing the efficiency and effectiveness of Laboratory time

Online tools to make student homework more effective

Supplemental instruction to address student challenges

6. Team Members’ Course Redesign Plans to Enhance Student Learning

7. Efficiency Improvements and Cost Savings

1. Preface - Why do we want to Redesign our General Chemistry Courses?

Because of the high D/F/W rates in General Chemistry and its critical role in many science and technology programs, CSU provosts suggested General Chemistry for a multi-campus project in Course Redesign.In terms of cost savings, General Chemistry is an appealing target because of the large enrolments. However, we also note that these courses are often the most efficient courses in terms of cost per FTE within Chemistry.

Adding emphasis to the need for improvements in General Chemistry success is the role of this course in the preparation of professionals in science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) fields.General Chemistryis a requirement for biology, chemistry, physics, and earth science majors and for most engineering majors. Technology majors also require this course or a similarly-structured course. The need for trained professionals in these fields has been well documented [e.g., in the Nation at Risk website]

The fact that General Chemistry is a required course for all Single-Subject credentials in math and all of the sciences is also significant[e.g, see this website on Science Teaching and California's Future]. Students who are frustrated by their experience in General Chemistry are not likely to build enthusiasm for the content and the applications of the sciences in general and are thus less willing to consider a career in teaching in these critical fields. In contrast, a General Chemistry course which models good pedagogy along with passion for the topics or applications is likely to increase the numbers of students who might enter these fields of consider teaching as a career choice.

The Redesign Team included the following CSU faculty:

  • Karno Ng (San Marcos), Richard A. Paselk (Humboldt), James Postma (Chico), Herbert Silber (SJSU) and Ray Trautman (SFSU)
  • Simone Aloisio (Channel Islands), Susan Crawford (Sacramento), Danika LeDuc (EastBay), Taebohm Oh (Northridge), Lihung (Angel) Pu (Dominguez Hills).

The team engaged in individual research and design work, collaboration in a web-based project workspace, weekly phone conferences, and two on-site meetings. We decided upon the following principles for redesigning courses in General Chemistry:

  • A placement test (or equivalent) should be used to select students into the appropriate course based upon student background and capabilities.
  • A Chemistry Preparatory course should be designed for those students with no or weak backgrounds in chemistry and/or “chemistry skills”.
  • Chemistry is different from many other introductory courses in that each section is not a separate entity, but rather subsequent sections are built up from the concepts already learned. The following approaches were identified as offering the most promise for enhancing student learning and optimizing resources:
  • Lecture time should be used to engage students in the course content, to emphasize key points and complex concepts, and to challenge student misconceptions.
  • For course concepts which are difficult for students to visualize (atomic structure, etc), there is evidence that appropriate computer animation programs and other tools can enhance students’ understanding.
  • Courses which include online homework assignments (there are multiple choices available) can provide cost-effective feedback on student understanding. The assignments must count for some course credit (5-10% suggested) to encourage students make a serious effort on the homework.
  • Team members concluded that significant hands-on lab time is required for students to succeed in applying general chemistry concepts. However, some pre-lab work can be carried out via computer-aided instruction to optimize resource usage and student time in lab facilities.
  • The use of supplemental instruction (Academic Enhancement Workshops) is strongly encouraged as it has been shown to increase student grades and improve retention in chemistry and in science programs more generally.

We will also study the benefits of these course redesigns for potential cost savings, via larger class sections with more interactive learning, more efficient use of lab facilities, and reducing section offerings by decreasing the need for students to repeat the courses.

As our individual course redesign plansillustrate, each school and/or faculty member can combine these recommendations to enhancestudent performance in the introductory chemistry courses (and improve retention and success in subsequent chemistry courses.

2. Defining the Problem:Challenges Students Encounter in General Chemistry

The redesign team did not consider a revision of the lower-division chemistry curriculum or changes in the contents of the general chemistry courses. Instructors should be aware that the American Chemical Society’s (ACS) guidelines for professional development[1]define the purpose of the introductory or general chemistry course work for those students pursuing a degree in chemistry as preparation for the foundation course work. The ACS divides the chemistry curriculum for the certified major into three categories: the introductory chemistry experience, foundation course work that provides breadth and rigorous in-depth course work that builds on the foundation. The introduction ensures that students know basic concepts such as stoichiometry, states of matter, atomic structure, molecular structure and bonding, thermodynamics, equilibria, and kinetics.

The challenge of improving the success rate in General Chemistry is significant because there are a wide range of reasons for failure and a large number of students that are described by these traits, in some cases with multiple entries. There is also some diversity in the organizational structure of the lower division Chemistry courses across campuses (more information on this webpage with summary of different structures). Given the diverse nature of the CSU student population, a broad-spectrum approach to reaching this audience is essential. And since many of the root causes of these traits lie in the students’ K-12 training or environmental factors, the “fixes” for these problems will not eliminate the problem for future students. A listing of the key challenges follows, categorized by theme. Then we describe some typical Student Personas, which show how multiple learner challenges can interact to present obstacles to student success.

Student Preparation – Chemistry

A number of our incoming students do not have the prerequisite knowledge expected from studying chemistry in high school. In some cases, they did not take chemistry in high school, or a long time has passed since their high school chemistry courses; other students had low course grades in high school chemistry. All of these students should not expect to do well in university-level chemistry courses without extra work.Other students may not realize that their preparation for university-level chemistry is inadequate. Some did not take the right High School course (UC Area (d) Course), e.g., they may have taken an Integrated Science course which was weak in chemistry content. We also regularly encounter students who received good grades in high school chemistry but still have gaps in their knowledge – for a highly sequential subject such as Chemistry, gaps in the foundation must be filled in with extra work before students can succeed.

Student Preparation – Math

Mathematics knowledge and skills are critical for success in university-level chemistry. In addition to challenges similar to all those cited above for prerequisite chemistry knowledge, students frequently lack specific mathematics skills such as the ability to translate chemistry “story problems” into practical mathematics or a lack of capability for multi-step mathematics manipulations. This underlying mathematics knowledge is seldom included in the content of introductory chemistry courses, and it can be difficult to determine students’ readiness in the necessary mathematics beforehand.

Specific Challenges of the Material

General Chemistry is very often the first course which requires a high degree of intellectual integration and analytical ability. While there is still some raw memorization required – and students may have gotten through their high school chemistry based on ability to memorize – it is also critical that students engage with abstractions and systematically think through multi-step processes. Many students are unprepared for the demands of a precise vocabulary (“whatever”) or are challenged by the need to think in visual and geometric/space-related ways.

The cumulative nature of the chemistry course content requires that students master material and build on it throughout the course, in contrast to some of their other introductory courses structured around relatively independent topics. Consequently, shortcomings in student study habits and work management skills, especially those typical of first-generation students in higher education[2], have particularly damaging effects early in the course: poor lecture and lab attendance or failure to study independently outside of scheduled class time in the initial weeks can put students too far behind to catch up. Interruptions due to external work or family commitments can magnify these problems, as can cultural factors related to asking for help or understanding instructors’ speech.

Students who struggle to succeed in General Chemistry typically encounter several interacting challenges. Here are some of the personas that we developed to capture common patterns of challenges (although few campuses encounter all of these):

Persona – Biology Major Ben/Briana

  • Does well in anatomy and physiology; good at memorizing raw facts
  • Poor math manipulative skills and poor math sense; i.e. is as likely to divide by 1000 as multiply by 1000 in converting mL to L.
  • Struggles with multi-concept settings, such as limiting reactant, calorimetry, Bohr Formula energy/wavelength calculations
  • Not motivated: no link between biology and chemistry other than the requirement.

Persona – Typical Tina/Tim

  • Comes to lecture but notes are sketchy; usually only writes what is on the board.
  • Studies by reading the chapters over 2-3 times; highlights important concepts.
  • Completes homework by working in a study group but cannot work alone.
  • Studies 20-30 minutes every other day like her roommates (who are humanities, education, or social science major.

Persona – International Student Ivan/Ingrid

  • Has had the first 6-8 weeks of General Chemistry in his “high school” course.
  • Reads English fairly well but audio understanding skills are poor.
  • Doesn’t come to class most days because he/she doesn’t get much out of lecture.
  • Works in study group with other international students; homework is always done well, but cannot do identical problems on the exam.
  • Lab attendance is sporadic, but is unaware of grading consequence.
  • Questions exam grading relative to other students, rather than to the solution key.

Persona – Engineering student Edward/Edwina

  • Is taking calculus (and or Physics) and chemistry
  • Has always done well in math and science courses
  • Has trouble finding enough time for all of the coursework (with demands of other classes or socializing or both.)
  • Never had to work this hard in high school
  • Crams for exams and “pulls all-nighters” to study beforehand. Makes a lot of small but significant mistakes on exams.
  • Does well on concrete subjects like stoichiometry, heat calculations
  • Struggles with abstract topics, such as atomic orbitals, hybridization

Persona – Environmental Science Major Ellen/Edgar

  • Generally poor math preparation and skills
  • Does poorly on analytical sections: stoichiometry, heat calculations
  • Struggles with abstract topics: orbitals, hybrids, heat, energy
  • Struggles with motivation
  • Likes to be outdoors; chemistry isn’t (at this level)

Persona – Exercise Physiology Major Erik/Erica

  • Interested in getting into chiropractic or physical therapy school
  • Needs grades of “A” or ”B” in chemistry
  • Did not take significant amounts of math & science in high school
  • Has difficulty with motivation since chemistry and career seem distantly related (but chiropractic and PT schools use chemistry for “weeding out” purposes)

Persona – Single Parent Pat

  • More mature in age and academically than traditional first year students
  • Clear career goals: has been in the workforce and needs a better paying job
  • Demands of life create a very rigid study schedule
  • Usually keeps up well, but no extra time when exams or projects are due
  • Very susceptible to interruptions, such as personal illness, ill children, childcare disruptions, family issues

Persona – Repeating Robert/Roberta

  • Starts course well; turns in homework early on; misses class regularly
  • When course returns to the previous stop-out point, performance dives.
  • Generally has not dealt with causes of previous poor performance.
  • Has not scheduled adequate time for the course when it reaches the stopping-out point and more effort is needed.

3. Directing Students into the Appropriate Courses - Placement Exams

As noted in the previous chapter, many (but not all) of the students who struggle with General Chemistry do so because of inadequate preparation for the course. If this shortfall is in the areas of mathematics or chemistry (high school Algebra II and high school chemistry are prerequisite courses for General Chemistry) then a placement or advising exam would be a useful tool for redirecting students to an appropriate preparation path and improve the “efficiency” of the General Chemistry course. To be most useful, the administration of this exam should be as unobtrusive as possible and timely for appropriate redirection, as necessary.

We envision placement exams playing an important role as advising tools. At this time we are not planning to use a placement exam to rule students out of General Chemistry, because of the many non-cognitive and attitudinal factors which influence student success in this course[3]. We also concluded that none of the extant placement tests had demonstrated success as a diagnostic tool to identify gaps in student knowledge for remediation[4] (although as noted in our web workspace we are pursuing further investigation of the evolving ALEKS tools for Chemistry).

A placement exam which would be useful in helping students to predict their probable success in General Chemistry would have the following attributes:

  1. Short and concise, < ½ hour administration time
  2. An on-line format
  3. The exam could be administered and scored prior to each semester and students could be well-advised prior to registration deadlines.
  4. Low- or no-cost for the test
  5. No cultural or gender bias (beyond those inherent in General Chemistry success)
  6. High reliability (>80%) for D-F-W avoidance

CSU Experience with placement exams:

The Toledo Examination (1998) is a 60-item, 55-minute examination with math and high school-level chemistry questions. The California Chemistry Diagnostic Test (2006) is a 44-question, 45-minute exam developed by University of California faculty. The paper-based nature of these exams and the time requirements typically limit the use of these instruments to the first week of class, usually the first lab meting of the semester. This means that in practice any placement advice cannot be offered until the second week of classes (at the earliest). Both are available from the American Chemical Society Exams Institute (

Both of these have been used by several CSU chemistry departments:

  • Toledo: Northridge, Dominguez Hills, and Sacramento;
  • California: Fullerton.

Several campuses have created their own placement exams: Humboldt, Long Beach. None have definitive studies of the predictive power of the exams, but SacramentoStatehas worked on such a study this past year and hopes to report its findings shortly. No one has an on-line version of an exam, but all acknowledge the usefulness of such a format for timeliness and cost-savings. One campus has begun to use EPT and ELM scores for placement advice, but has not yet studied the issuesor outcomes systematically.

Project results and ongoing work:The team proposed the following Investigation on Placement Exams/Instruments, to be led by Jim Postma (CSU Chico):

1.Work with CSU Chico Institutional Research and the information database to evaluate ELM and EPT scores (or SAT/ACT) as a predictor of D/W/F grades in General Chemistry (CHEM 111) and General Chemistry for the Applied Sciences (CHEM 107.)

2.Invite other CSU campuses toinitiate a similar study of existing information as predictors of success in General Chemistry.We have indications of interest from Simone Aloisio (CSUCI), Susan Crawford (CSUS), Angel Pu (CSUDH) and Danika LeDuc (CSUEB) for this collaboration.

3.Obtain data and analyses from Susan Crawford (CSUS) aboutSacramentoState’s experiences with the Toledo Exam (ACS). Compare notes with Northridge and Dominguez Hills.

4.Follow up with Fullerton and San Bernardino about their experiences and analyses of the California Chemistry Diagnostic Test.

5.Explore whether ALEKS or other commercial systems have a test module that could serve as the basis of an on-line placement exam.

6.Explore the use of an existing online placement test such as the one used at the University of Iowa[5].

7.Research the efforts of University of Iowa, Wisconsin – Madison, Arizona State, and Maryland – Eastern Shore regarding placement exams. (All have had significant General Chemistry course redesign projects.) Compare/contrast with literature and CSU results.

8.Pilot test a placement exam in the fall of 2008 and an online version in spring 2009.

9.Ray Trautman of SFSU plans to pilot test the OWL Prep Chem online course in Spring 2009 as a complement to placement tests. [link to ppt on Owl Prep Chem]