We have probably two hundred students, and maybe ten of them will go on to be chemists. The other 190 won't, and a majority of them might not even go into science. I think, "Well, this is their one science class and they're going to go out and be whatever they might be--professionals in economics or business. I want them to know what science is about."

--Betsy Longley, University of St Thomas Professor

In 1996, University of Saint Thomas chemistry professor Betsy Longley got interested in using modules to teach better. She first experimented, using modules in a limited way the following year. In 1997, Betsy decided to completely "modularlize" an introductory course (Chem 101) that she alone was teaching. Based on that experience, she persuaded her department colleagues to permit the use of modules in the three "regular" sections of Chem 111, a multi-section course that starts the curriculum sequence for chemistry majors. Data collected in 1998 from the module-based sections indicated that students performed as well on end-of-semester exams as those who took non-module sections in previous years. Despite mixed reactions to modules from both instructors and students, the module-based sections reported other salutary outcomes, including (on average) greater student enthusiasm, less absenteeism, and greater retention of content knowledge in subsequent, advanced courses.

The following year, neither Betsy nor her colleague David Boyd taught the module-based Chem111, instead handing the sections over to three of their departmental colleagues, who were somewhat less enthusiastic. When Betsy left the department--first for a maternity leave, then permanently--module-based Chem 111 lost a key supporter, and modular classes were then picked up by faculty who were either less familiar with, or supportive of, teaching with modules. Unable to sustain a critical mass of supporters during changes in personnel and class assignments, the movement to modularize Chem 111 foundered.

Not all successful educational reforms persist. Put another way, even though an innovative and effective educational approach may succeed in improving how students learn, that success is no guarantee that it will thrive or even persist. This statement may surprise some, but it is a truism among those who regularly work with groups of faculty who attempt to change their teaching practices. It happens time and time again: individual faculty members find something that works and try to share it with their colleagues, knowing that "it takes a department to raise a student." But along the way, maybe in the handoff, the innovation loses steam, something goes awry, and the innovation dies on the vine. In some cases, when the original innovator loses heart or has her innovation repudiated--sometimes through benign neglect--the innovation dies completely.

Why don't successful innovations "stick?" That question is the focus of this case study. Although the eight other LT² case studies have explored in great detail what makes their bricoleurs' instructional innovations not only succeed but persist, this case study is different. Here, we present a kind of cautionary tale that suggests that the toughest part of reforming undergraduate science education is not about innovating but finding ways for innovations to survive.

The case we'll be studying concerns the use of modules by Professor Betsy Longley to teach general chemistry at the University of Saint Thomas (UST) in St. Paul, Minnesota.

It is important to note right away that, in presenting this particular case, we do not wish to cast aspersions upon the credibility or effectiveness of modules in teaching chemistry. Indeed, evidence collected by Betsy and her colleagues (that we will examine later) suggests that her modular approach had salutary effects on students' motivation and acquisition of chemistry content knowledge. Moreover, findings from scholarly studies support claims for the effectiveness of using modules to improve how and what students learn (see, for example, Anthony, Mernitz, Spencer, & Gutwill, 1998; Gutwill-Wise, 2001).

So our point here is this case is not about the efficacy of the modules per se, because they worked for awhile at UST, and they work elsewhere ^a. We did not pick UST a priori as a case of an innovation not catching on. In using the same criteria as the other cases to select the University of Saint Thomas and Betsy Longley, we fully expected to describe the same kind of successes told in of cases at Joliet Junior College, University of Michigan, and University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. However, in the time between UST's selection as a case site and our composing this case study, the use of modules by the chemistry department at UST experienced a reversal of fortune. Based on our correspondence with key respondents involved with the case, we learned that modules will not be used to the same extent as they were at the time the case was selected. Believing it would be disingenuous to represent UST's use of chemistry modules as exemplary (which is a key purpose of these cases), we've chosen instead to illustrate why some reforms do not persist in spite of their efficacy. Our reason for this choice is that unsuccessful experiments often hold important lessons.

In short, the story is this: Betsy Longley becomes interested in chemistry modules through ChemLinks, and begins using modules in her own class. She takes to her department colleagues the suggestion that modules might be used to teach a multi-section course of general chemistry, and they express some interest, based in part on the argument she makes and the evidence she provides. Over the next year, Betsy and other chemistry professors use modules to teach general chemistry. They attempt to gather evidence for evaluating the modules against their instructional goals, and their use of modules is also studied in an evaluation study by Elaine Seymour and her colleagues. However, at a crucial stage in the spread of this innovation, Betsy is granted a maternity leave, leaving others to teach the course in which she had effectively used modules. Also, a colleague of hers who had used modules becomes the chair of the department, and must now devote more time to administrative responsibilities. In the time since Betsy's absence from the department in 1999, the department's interest in using modules flags significantly. Despite evidence that students were learning better with modules in Betsy's class (as well as other evidence in scholarly literature for the advantages of modules), the department has consigned chemistry modules to a kind of benign neglect. For a number of interrelated reasons--namely, divided faculty opinions about the value of modules, mixed student reactions, sections taught by faculty inexperienced with modules, and the departure of the modular approach's "idea champion"--the chemistry department at UST has decided to significantly reduce its use of modules.

The purpose, then, of this case is to analyze a situation where an instructional innovation did not catch on. First, we describe the case context, providing some background on the institution and the department. Then we describe the course of events involving the use of modules in UST's GenChem course--namely, how it was introduced, implemented, and what led to modules not being used. Finally, we provide some analysis of the case and suggest lessons that might be drawn from it.

Methods/Background
Information on how this case and other LT² cases were chosen and the methods used to gather data used for these case studies is presented in the Case Studies Overview and in the Resource section "Methods Used to Conduct This Case Study."