FLAG - Tools: Student Interview Protocols


MC2/ChemLinks: Student Interview Protocols

Elaine Seymour
Director of Ethnography & Evaluation Research
Bureau of Sociological Research
Campus Box 580
University of Colorado
Boulder, CO 80309
email: seymour@spot.colorado.edu
(303) 492-0084

In collaboration with
Joshua Gutwill
University of California-Berkeley
email: gutwill@socrates.berkeley.edu
(510) 643-5610


Introduction:
In the spring and fall semesters of 1996 and 1997, a series of experimental modular general chemistry units, developed by the ModularChem Consortium (MC2) and ChemLinks chemistry curriculum reform coalitions began to be implemented at participating institutions. A sample of ten classes was selected from among these early testings of the modular approach at institutions of different types (3 research universities, 3 liberal arts colleges, 2 community colleges, 1 comprehensive state university, and 1 historically-black college). For the purposes of obtaining student feedback and for comparison with more traditional approaches, a sample of students enrolled in these ten modular courses and in ten matched comparison courses were interviewed. (The findings from eight of these matched sets of interviews can be obtained from the authors.)


Summary of Student Learning Issues Raised in First-Round Modules
The following topics were distilled from the aims and objectives spelled out (or embedded in) the text of the first round of modules that were used at the ten institutions (across both the MC2 and ChemLinks initiatives) selected for the comparative student interviews. The issue of whether students feel that they got out of their classes what their teachers actually intended for them was addressed in all focus groups and individual interviews. Module developers' objectives that fell largely within the "learning" and "skills" categories were marked with an "L" in the master list of topics below.

In their description of what they wanted to achieve, almost every developer mentioned particular concepts, processes, skills, ideas, etc., that he/she wanted students to acquire. These were grouped into eight "master" topics. All interviewers asked each of the main questions (bold italic typeface) of all students. In some topic areas there is more than one main question. Interviewers were guided by prior consultations with both the modular and non-modular teachers whose students they interviewed as to the most appropriate follow-up/additional questions they should ask in each topic area as discussed in the instructions to interviewers.

Finally, a list of the hypotheses found to be embedded in the developers' descriptions of aims and objectives has been added. Interviewers should explore one hypothesis (chosen by their module developer) with students who have experienced their module (only). These lists and instructions are being sent both to the interviewers, and to the module developers/teachers. The interviewers will collaborate with the two teachers at their site, and with the interview protocol author to finalize the topics list they will use.


MC2/ChemLinks: Student Interview Protocols


Master List of Topics for Focus Groups and Interviews

TOPIC 1: Interest, engagement, enthusiasm, excitement

Main Question:

Extra Questions:


TOPIC 2: Learning, Understanding, Explaining, Thinking

Main Questions:

Extra Questions:


TOPIC 3: Skills

Main Question:

Extra Questions:


TOPIC 4: Styles of Teaching and Learning

Main Question:

Extra Questions:

Main Question: Extra Questions:

Main Question:

Main Question:


TOPIC 5: TAs

Main Question:


TOPIC 6: Assignments and Tests

Main Question:

Extra Questions:


TOPIC 7: Specific Learning Sought

Main Question:

Optional extra question:


TOPIC 8: Some specific outcomes desired by teachers

Main Question:


Module Developers' and Teachers' Hypotheses

    1. If chemistry faculty teach interactively, using students' questions as a legitimate part of class business, students will be motivated to work harder and to do well.
    2. If students are very excited about what they are doing, they won't mind having to work hard.
    3. If chemistry teachers start with, or build a class around common experiences, a more diverse cross-section of students can participate in chemistry classes.
    4. Active learning promotes the best learning.
    5. A topics-centered approach encourages the student to integrate their knowledge, and to be more competent in/comfortable with inter-and intra-disciplinary thinking.
    6. Because they have learned to work as a group, students will be better able to understand, explain, and discuss concepts.
    7. Because students are trying to answer interesting questions, they will have more enthusiasm for learning what they need to know in order to address them.
    8. The modular/topics-centered approach encourages students to seek explanations for what the teacher presents them with.
    9. Active learners are more motivated to learn more than are passive learners
    10. If students are bored, and see no relevance of the class materials to the real world, then the teacher has failed.

Ask the following two questions at the end of the focus group or interview.

    - What were the best and worst aspects of learning chemistry in the way in which this class was taught?

    - What advice would they give to the teacher about how to improve the class?