Journal of Academic Development and Education JADE Issue 9 | Page 36

HIGHLIGHT #4 | 37 36 | JADE SARAH AYNSLEYNAY ÖZEN feedback for the cohort was good with positive comments on the presentation quality and delivery. The majority of the groups handled the questions well and showed a depth of knowledge beyond that which they had presented. In addition groups which were asked questions to which they didn’t immediately know the answer showed confidence and maturity in how they thought logically through the question and attempted an answer, instead of merely replying that they didn’t know. The creativity of the groups was excellent but still relevant to the topic and many of the presentations provoked strong emotions in the student and staff audience with several commenting that it had made them think about the subject in a way that could not have been conveyed simply by a lecture. Most poignant was the role play depicting end of life decisions, support and care a topic not often covered and that the group approached sympathetically and competently. By giving the students free rein to present how they wished the task now encourages the groups to think about the different ways we have to communicate and to consider which is most suitable for the content in addition to learning the basic skills needed. Considerations Whilst the changes appeared to increase student engagement with the task and the presentations were of a much higher quality than that seen in precious years there are some considerations which need to be addressed. By giving groups complete free rein to think creatively some students may have felt daunted and struggled with this concept, particularly if they are used to being given a very direct list of tasks to complete and structure to do this. There is also the possibility that such a free structure could cause tension within a group with naturally creative thinkers taking hold of an idea and the other members of the group not engaging in the task. The task is continuing to run in the new format for another academic year and the perceptions and comments of students will be analysed alongside tutor reflections to assess whether any of these considerations are valid concerns. References Nicol, D.J & D. Macfalane-Dick. 2007. Formative assessment and self –regulated learning: a model and seven principles of good feedback practice. Studies in Higher Education. 31, 199-218. Holmes, N. 2017. Engaging with assessment: Increasing student engagement through continuous assessment. Active Learning in Higher Education. 11, 167-176. McMahon, T. 2006. Teaching for more effective learning : Seven maxims for practice. Radiography. 12, 34-44. HIGHLIGHT #4 Title Active Learning Techniques to Build Problem Solving Skills in Chemistry Students Authors Natalie Brown, Chloe Howe, Graeme R. Jones, & Tess R. Phillips DOI http://dx.doi.org/10.21252/ KEELE-0000025 Contact [email protected] Abstract Through the introduction of Team- Based Learning problem classes and a ‘Purple Pens’ feedback intervention in which students write their own feedback on a mixed formative and summative class test we have been able to observe a significant increase in exam performance in Foundation Year students. Both Science and Health students improved their exam performance by 13% and 11% respectively and both interventions were positively received by students. Keywords Team-Based Learning, Purple Pens, Exam Performance, Problem Solving Introduction Adapting TBL At its heart Chemistry is a problem solving subject. Traditional chemistry teaching consists of instructors working through problems in lectures, followed by students attempting similar problems by themselves, which are then handed in for marking or discussed in problem classes or tutorials. For many students the step from following an instructor tackle to them tackling it themselves is a quantum leap. The methodology of TBL has been extensively reported (Sweet, 2009) however we wish to report our adaptation of TBL for our specific circumstance. We organised the teaching so that three lectures were delivered per week with a TBL session on Friday on the material presented during that week. The assessment of the module remained the same, a summative class test (20%) which has formative feedback and a summative exam (50%) at the end of the semester together with laboratory practicals (30%). At Keele we use large group problem classes extensively in a Chemistry Foundation Year 20 credit module (FHEQ level 3) which attracts a cohort of very mixed ability and motivation. However as class sizes grew we found that the feedback about the problem classes was negative with students complaining that their questions were not getting answered during the session because of too few staff. Therefore in 2015–16 we decided to adopt a Team- Based Learning (TBL) approach to organising these problem classes. We surmised that TBL with its focus on problem solving in a team would be an ideal way to get students to help solve each other’s individual questions allowing the instructor to focus on areas where the whole cohort has misconceptions. The structure of the TBL sessions took the traditional approach with an iRAT and a tRAT testing basic background knowledge followed by application activities (Hancock et al 2017). The application activities took the format of modified exam level questions which had been broken up into smaller divisions with the aim of guiding the students through the question. The answers for the application activity were discussed by projecting the answers of the teams using a visualizer and asking other teams to comment on the answer and the instructor providing the correct answer. Similar levels of positive feedback from the students that we have previously reported for TBL was recorded for these sessions (Jones and Hancock, 2015).