| |
|
Curriculum VitaePDF Teaching PhilosophyPDF Research ProposalPDF Wayne State University Michigan State University NIST Michigan State University Saginaw Valley State University Lansing Community College Graduate Teaching Assistantship News WSU - Science MSU - Chemistry NIST - PL/OTD/LAG Official NIST Time Links for Chemists NIST Webbook - Chemistry Periodic Table Yahoo! Chemistry 
 |
During the Fall 2000 and Spring 2001 semesters I taught Introductory Chemistry (CEM 141) Class at Michigan State University in East Lansing, MI. CEM 141 was a four credit class that served as a first course in General Chemistry and met the requirements of a variety of degree programs. Each week consisted of three hours of lecture in a 432 seat auditorium, and a single recitation meeting of not more than 35 students in a classroom, supervised by a teaching assistant. The course was not intended for students pursuing degrees in chemistry, biochemistry, or chemical engineering. Students must have achieved a passing grade (1.0) in CEM 141 in order to progress to CEM 142 or 143. Concepts in CEM 141 included elements and compounds; reactions; stoichiometry; thermochemistry; atomic structure; chemical bonding; states of matter; solutions; acids and bases; and aqueous equilibria. In both semesters, I taught two lecture sections. In the Fall 2000 semester this consisted of 740 students out of a total of 1975 students in five lecture sections, and 669 students in the Spring 2001 semester out of total 927 students in three lecture sections. The Director of General Chemistry, Dr. Paul W. W. Hunter, was responsible for much of the course content modeled after American Chemical Society certification requirements. The syllabus, the course schedule, the texts, the homework problems and the grading scale and policies were ultimately decided upon by the Director. The individual instructors were responsible for their sections, and evaluation of our performance was based on the grade distributions and the student evaluations for our sections, and Dr. Hunter's personal observations. The text used for the course was the 4th Edition of Chemistry and Chemical Reactivity by J. C. Kotz and P. Treichel, Jr. (1998) and supplemental texts. The lectures also had a set of bound lecture notes written by Dr. Hunter to be used in his lecture sections. To keep the breadth and the pace of the material consistent between faculty, I used these notes as a guide for preparing my lectures. I supplemented this outline with overheads and personal experiences, both from the classroom and from the laboratory. I believed that the use of these notes had a positive impact on the grade distribution by increasing the clarity of the concepts presented, and allowed students to refer back to the concepts described in lecture as needed. It also helped to add structure to the lecture, and minimized the differences between the lectures. This helped to ensure that all the material that was supposed to be covered was covered at the same pace as the other sections. Lectures were a combination of an hour of demonstrations, information, and entertainment. The demonstrations, approximately one per lecture, were developed and performed by Mr. Sheldon Knoespel. These demonstrations were designed and chosen to reinforce the concepts of the day. I tried to disseminate the information required by the schedule, but at the same time, I tried to motivate the students to come to lecture, by making the lectures a fun experience. According to my student evaluations, I was successful to a good extent. There were three one hour examinations that covered approximately four chapters for each examination. Each examination was worth 15% of the final grade. The examinations were again developed as a team endeavor. Dr. Hunter wrote the multiple choice examination, and I then provided input by taking the examination under similar conditions to the students, and modified the examination for typographical errors and questions that were not completely clear. This reduced problems on exam night to almost zero. The final cumulative examination was two hours in length, worth 25% of the final grade and developed in the same manner. After some experience, I was able to write the exam and submit it for evaluation and editing. The exams listed at the bottom of this page are the result of this latter process. I assumed the responsibility for writing an explanatory key for the examination. This key showed how to solve the problems and directed students to areas where the questions were drawn from in the lecture notes, the study guide or the text. These keys are listed below in PDF format. The homework consisted of 22% of the final grade. Homework problem sets in CEM 141 are based upon the Computer Assisted Personalized Approach (CAPAŠ) system. Each student received a slightly different set of problems, based on the same concepts, and were encouraged to study together to solve the problems and learn the concepts. Each student was responsible for submitting their own set of answers by the deadline. In event of loss of the hard copy, it was possible to obtain the access code from any computer connected to the Internet. The computer system provided immediate feedback, and multiple attempts were permitted for each question. For some problems on-line assistance was available. The final 8% of the grading scale was assigned to an evaluation of contributions and performance in recitation. Recitations presented an opportunity for students to ask questions and discuss the course material, possibly by forming small groups and cooperatively working on problems. Students were also able to ask the recitation instructor, a teaching assistant, questions. The recitation instructors had control over their own sections, and had the responsibility to develop their own materials and presentations. In the future, I would like to work with the recitation instructors more to become more efficient in the use of the recitation time to contribute to the learning experience. Faculty Course Evaluations and Student Opinion of Courses and Teaching (SOCT) summaries are available below. Several questions in the Faculty Course Evaluation directly reflect my performance as an instructor. One of the most important questions to me is regarding an instructor rating by the students. Collectively, 86% of the students who responded in the survey indicated that I was an outstanding, very good or good instructor. In the SOCT survey, 79% of the respondents strongly agreed or agreed that I was an effective instructor. Complete analysis by individual semester is summarized below.
Contact me at the email address listed below with comments and suggestions...
Comments/Questions: webmaster@scottgoldie.com
Last updated: 05 September 2002 |
