As a result of attending this workshop, Betsy began thinking about what she might do to improve her students' learning. One step was articulating her aims of an improved Chemistry 111-namely, she believed she could improve her students' learning if she (1) made chemistry more interesting to them and (2) made greater use of technology in the classroom.

1. Tinkering with Modules

   Through her involvement with the ChemLinks/MC² consortia, Betsy learned about teaching with modules and got excited about the possibility that this different instructional approach might help her address her classroom concerns of boredom, relevance and engagement. So she started tinkering with her own classes during the 1997 academic year:

   What would have been the next thing that I did? I think I toyed a little bit with teaching little pieces that next fall, or that spring--I guess I'm getting all my dates mixed up. But then we had a February Valentine's meeting at Grinnell, and at that point, I became a co-author on the Global Warming module. So I was just starting with P. Chem., but then was just kind of getting involved with that group. So then I've been going to the joint meetings ever since. The following year it was in Berkeley, then back in Minnesota.

   She first used only one module on global warming (one she helped write) in all sections of Chem 111 in 1997. The following year, she started teaching Chem 101 (an introductory course that focuses on applications of chemistry to environmental science) on her own and as a "fully modular" course.

   When I did it the first time around in the Environmental Chemistry, there's only one section of that class. It's not for majors, and those courses, at least in our department, nobody except the person who's teaching them really pays any attention to what's happening. I probably could have taught Shakespeare in that class, and people might not have noticed. So, I took that opportunity to jump in and do the modules, a fully modular course. I didn't need to ask permission, in a sense.

   
   

2. Expanding Teaching with Modules to the Department

   After a semester of working through the kinks of teaching a fully modular course, Betsy saw that modules could be an effective way of making other courses in the UST chemistry curriculum more engaging. So she pitched to her departmental colleagues the idea of using more modules in the Chem 111-112 sequence:

   When we thought about doing it in Gen. Chem, there was the discussion of "Oh, should we make some improvements in Gen. Chem" that has been going on for years. We meet each summer for two days off campus for retreat. When we have these kind of long term planning discussions. I guess, I just suggested it. I said "Let's try what I just did in Environmental, let's do this in Gen. Chem."

   Some of her colleagues were interested, and some less so. But they managed to agree as a group to try it for two or three years.

   During the 1998-99 academic year, four of five sections of the Chem 111-112 were taught entirely with modules. Betsy and her colleague David Boyd each taught one "standard" section of Chem 111 and 112, and the other two sections (one standard and one extended) with modules were taught by two different, non-tenure-track faculty (one in a one-year position, the other in a five-year limited term position). The fifth section for honors students was taught by a tenured faculty member who neither supported nor used modules.

   
   

3. Chem 111 modules: Fall, 1998

   During that semester, Betsy and the others taught Chem 111 using just four modules: global warming, airbags, fats, and blue light. (For more information on each module, visit the accompanying web site.)

   • global warming
   • airbags
   • fats
   • blue light

4. What the class looked like

   In the resource section, you will find a copy of the Fall, 1998 Chem 111 syllabus used by Betsy and David.

   Reviewing it, you'll see that, apart from the use of modules, a difference between the "old" Chem 111 and the modularized version was the introduction of learning journals, in which students were expected to reflect upon their learning experiences and help Betsy understand the highs and lows of learning chemistry with modules.

   Another crucial piece to modularizing Chem 111 was providing students with all the instructional materials they needed without overwhelming or disorienting them-which meant using the conventional text and the module student guides. (Later sections used a customized text from Wiley Publishers that attempted to combine both the text and the module student guides.)

   Students were given CD-ROMs that accompanied their texts. These module web tools, also published by Wiley ChemConnections, included the materials for eight modules-three of the four for Chem 111 (excluding airbags), and five that could be used in Chem 112 the following semester ("computer chip," "stars," "ozone hole," "water treatment," and "origin of life"). The CD-ROM could be used on both Windows and Macintosh platforms.

   
   

5. A typical day in Betsy's class

   Here, Betsy provided a glimpse of what module-based instruction in her class looked like:

   We start out by asking, "How many of you have ever been in an accident, or been in a crash where an airbag deployed?" In each class there was at least one person. So we'd have that person describe what happened. Then we'd go into the videos--there are some animations on the CD. So they really connect with what they already know and what's meaningful to them.

   We learned that the first day of the module is critical. We learned that it is critical how you set the stage, how you phrase the question. If you start out the module by saying, "We're about to do the Air Bags module now. Let's start with section 1A and do it,"-- that's kind of an extreme example, but that type of approach doesn't do it. You really need to kind of reel them in. "Find a hook," we would call it. And we learned that we needed to find our own hook. The first part of the modules is written to kind of create a context, but reading this text is not really how do you reel them in.

   For example, for global warming, this is how we reeled them in. The U.S. Senate has not yet voted to ratify the Kyoto Protocol, which says, "Yes we'll reduce these emissions." So I stared out, I brought in a computer and there's a web site that has a running up-to-date list of which countries have ratified this. So I brought in the computer, went to that web site and said, "Let's look at these countries." I had first described what the Kyoto Protocol was, but only in a sentence or two, since they already know about global warming. We looked at these countries-- there were eighty, I think, at the time. There were some comments, like "Oh, I've never heard of that country."

   We got to the end and we said, "What are some things that you observed?" There were various observations, but somebody always noticed, "Well, the United States isn't on there. Why are all the other countries, the so-called big countries on there and the U.S. isn't?" And it worked in all three classes. They are the ones who noticed that U.S. is not on there. And after they said, "Why isn't the U.S. on there?" we said, "Let's find out. What might be the reasons why the U.S. might not have yet moved to ratify it? What might be the reasons why some people want to, some people don't?"

   We told them on the first day that "you will have some power persuasion at the end of this module. You'll be writing a letter to your Senator urging them to ratify or not ratify." So, we didn't decide as a class, we left it an individual decision. And getting back to your question as to why do I do this - that's one reason. One neat thing about that is that none of them had ever written a letter to their Senator. They thought it was just kind of a phony assignment. I said, "No, this is real. You're going to mail it to Congress." Many of them didn't know who their Senator was, or if they're from Iowa, or Missouri, whether they needed to mail it to a different Senator. I really liked the fact that chemistry was not such an isolated discipline then. There was a connection to things outside of chemistry. And they liked that too, I think.

   
   

6. Summary of how modules were used in Chem 111

   Because modules can be used by an individual instructor in different ways and to different degrees, here is a summary of the ways in which Betsy and David used modules in their classes.

   • Modules are a supplement to, not a replacement for, the text (Chemistry by Chang, 1998).
   • Modules provide a framework for a guided inquiry approach to learning.
   • A given module is centered around a relevant, interesting question.
   • Modules make use of active learning/teaching.
   • Modules attempt to integrate class and lab into one course experience.
   • Most conventional chemistry content remains in the course; some additional content is added.
   • In-class lecturing is used.
   • In-class problem solving (i.e., homework) is used.
   • End-of-module exams replace end-of-unit exams.
   • The final exam from previous years is used.
   • Modules are intended to be adapted (that is, the instructor chooses how heavily to focus on the module question and how extensively to incorporate module activities into the course).