Teaching Teams Program at ASU

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 dont want to study, or they cant
  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
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?
• Didnt think my class needed it
• Afraid of time / extra workload

11
Teaching Teams Implementation

• 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.

12
Teaching Teams Implementation

• 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.

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 Ws 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)

• 101 113 115/116
• 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, Ws 9 / 32 18 / 22 19 / 27

20
Spring Highlights Team Leaders (TL)

• 101 113 115/116
• 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 As 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