Using Modules to Teach General Chemistry

Effecting sustained curricular and pedagogical reform--such as modular chemistry--is more difficult than simply implementing a new approach. Efforts to innovate often don't catch on--not because they are ineffectual but because the innovation fails to spread and take hold. There is nothing unusual about the chemistry department at UST in this regard; at other institutions, instructional innovations flourish and fade all the time. In the case of UST, however, it simply happened that someone was watching. That is, fully expecting that modular chemistry would persist at UST, we studied the trajectory of an instructional innovation that simply did not, so to speak, achieve escape velocity. Without gathering more data (e.g., by interviewing members of the Chemistry Department again), we can only speculate about the reasons why modules did not catch on in the UST chemistry department. Based on (1) what we already know about the use of modules at UST (interviews and observations during 2000) and (2) our experience studying the dissemination of innovations in pedagogy and curricula, here's what we see:

Loss of the innovation's "idea champion."

Perhaps more than any other factor, Betsy's departure from her role as modular chemistry's key supporter and organizer jeopardized the approach's long-term prospects. In his study of how innovations spread, Rogers (1995) points out that successful and durable innovations are frequently propagated by enthusiastic and charismatic supporters who throw their weight behind the innovation, thus counteracting the resistance or indifference a new idea can arouse in an organization. Sometimes, innovations will become linked with those innovation champions, and when that individual will not or cannot continue to advocate for the innovation, it simply declines or disappears. Review of the other LT² cases provides strong evidence for the importance of this factor.

The myth of the instructional hand-off.

Faculty often believe that teaching methods are like recipes and can be handed from one to another, their success depending only on how well one follows the directions. However, as Parker Palmer (1993; 1998) points out, teaching is more than technique--it is a manifestation of the teacher's knowledge and passion, and can no more succeed as a "hand off" than can other intimate human activities, such as falling in love or being a parent. The methods have to fit the individual's personality and aims, and be responsive to working with many different kinds of people. Although it is not clear from the data in this case, it appears that the department believed that modular chemistry could be handed off from Betsy to other teachers in the department as long as they followed the "recipe."

The pitfalls of moving from pedagogical to curricular reform.

Where professors often get tripped up is moving from issues of teaching to issues of curriculum. Shifting from pedagogical innovation to curricular innovation can politicize the change (Kozma, 1985). Another characteristic of this case similar to others we have seen is what happens when a key innovator who is doing innovative teaching on her own tries to involve her colleagues. Inevitably, the pedagogical becomes curricular, and suddenly the unsuspecting person has wandered into a quagmire of unseen issues and deeply held opinions. Although many faculty may not worry about how others may teach (considering it to be an individual matter), trying to change the curriculum can awaken deep divisions of opinion that are otherwise papered over in the name of collegiality.

The advantages of "tinkering" with one's teaching.

In a study of faculty who tried changing their teaching practices, Stevens (1988) found that the most successful faculty tended to "tinker" with their teaching--that is, they changed their teaching in small and manageable ways rather than on a large scale. Stevens also described two different kinds of "tinkerers": reactive and reflective. Reactive tinkerers tended to change their teaching to solve a particular problem by adopting a technique or trick (e.g., trying "think-pair-share" activities with seemingly bored students), and when the technique didn't work, the reactive tinkerers tended to give up. However, the reflective tinkerers that Stevens studied tended to tinker regularly, seeking not necessarily to solve problems but to engage in a kind of continuous improvement, knowing that one never solves instructional problems permanently and for all groups. Moreover, reflective tinkers tended to rely not on others, but on themselves, as creators and evaluators of instructional innovations.

By analogy, we might say that reactive tinkerers are like computer users who run into a problem and download a utility that they expect to help them. If it solves their problem or meets their need, then great, they press ahead. But if it doesn't, they uninstall it and either give up or search for something else. Reflective tinkerers, on the other hand, see teaching as "open-source code" and themselves as programmers with a capacity for building their own innovations. And although they too may borrow tools and utilities that others have made, they are willing to "reverse engineer" an approach that doesn't work and perhaps use it in a different context. As with computing, those who can construct and evaluate their own approaches have greater flexibility (and perhaps satisfaction!) than those who must rely on programs or applications devised by others that may or may not accommodate their particular circumstances.