Teaching Teams Program

at ASU

Pam Marks – Chemistry and Biochemistry

Sonya Curry – Coordinator & Doctoral
Student, Learning Support Services

August 1, 2006
Problems Leading to Poor
Retention
• Variation in preparation for general chemistry
• Students get frustrated doing problems
• Poor study skills
• Some students are bored and see the class as a
repeat of their second year of high school
chemistry.

• Some students don’t want to study, or they can’t

find the time…
Improving Retention
• Providing a variety of resources and alternate
ways for students to learn should help retain
the students that are motivated to learn.

Lecture
Structured In-Class Activities
• Chemistry Department

• Faculty Lectures
o Interactive
o Group activities woven throughout the lecture
o Opportunities for students to ask questions

• Graduate Teaching Assistants

o Discussion sessions 1 day per week
 Cooperative activities
 Question/Answer sessions
Student Resources Outside of
Class
• Chemistry Department

o Faculty
 Website Resources such as optional worksheets
 Office hours and email
o Graduate Teaching Assistants
 Office hours two hours per week (LRC)
 Review sessions for exams
o Director of the Chemistry LRC
 Directs LRC activities / Resource for TAs
 Runs large-scale review sessions for CHM
113/115/116 (High Attendance)
What is Lacking?
• Many students need more small-group
interactions where they are able to express
their thinking processes.

• Students find it hard to form groups to work in

outside of class.

• Many “top-end” students are not motivated so

they do minimal work.
Teaching Teams Pilot Program
• The Teaching Teams Program takes advantage
of a resource usually under-utilized at most
campuses:
o Highly motivated undergraduates
 with good high school backgrounds
 who are interested in sharpening their leadership
skills
 who would likely not be challenged to their full
potential in a normal student role
Program Models: Teaching
Teams
• The Teaching Teams Program began at the
University of Arizona in 1997.
o Department of Planetary Sciences
o Grew into the Teaching Teams Program with
230 student leaders in 30 courses, who
influence the learning environments of more
than 4500 students
• The Program Model is in use at the University
of Texas Austin, and University of Wisconsin
at Milwaukee.
Case Study: Genetics Course at
UT-Austin
9 preceptors led study
groups in which 95 students
participated (52% of the class)
Preceptors performed one letter
grade higher on average than
the rest of the class: 3.6 vs. 2.6
Study group participants
performed a half-letter grade
higher than non-participants:
2.9 vs. 2.4
The Beginning of a Partnership
• Spring 2005 ─
o I was asked by Sonya Curry and Jeanne
Hanrahan of the University LRC to participate
in a teaching teams pilot program in CHM 113
(2 sections of 192 students each).

• Reluctant –
o How would their program fit into my current
course structure?
o Didn’t think my class needed it
o Afraid of time / extra workload
Teaching Teams
Implementation
• I worked with Sonya last summer to tailor the
program to the needs of my course:

• Undergraduate “leaders” would be trained

• 2-credit “leadership” course taught by Sonya
• Leaders would be responsible staying ahead of
lecture material and would hold a study session once
a week.
• I would assign take-home quizzes on a regular basis.
• Sonya would take care of all the administrative
aspects.
Teaching Teams
Implementation
• Day 1:
o Sonya came to class and introduced the
program.
o Team leader and participant applications were
distributed, along with contact info.
• Day 2:
o Applications due (overwhelming interest!!)
o Sonya identifies Teams Leaders and informs
them of how to register for the leadership
class.
Leadership Class (LIA 194)
• Aspects of the leadership class:
o How to facilitate study groups
o Time management
o Test anxiety
o Presenting/talking about difficult concepts
o Leadership skills
o Assignments that forced leaders to learn
material ahead of time
o Interaction with other leaders
Study Sessions
• Weekly study sessions were scheduled by
team leaders.
• A schedule was distributed in lecture and
posted online.
• Leaders helped students with homework,
studying for exams, and reflection after
exams.
Study Sessions
Fall Highlights
• Team Leaders (29) averaged a 3.07 (B) grade
from the course. (30% were minorities)
o The class average was a 2.19 (C).
• Participants (61) averaged 5% higher on their
Final Exam
o This is significant because the participants and
non-participants had similar averages on the first
exam.
• D, E, and W’s 23% Participants / 28% Non-
participants
Spring Semester
• The Teaching Teams Program was expanded
for the Spring semester of 2006:
o 4 participating faculty members
o 8 sections of Chemistry
 CHM 101 (Introductory Chemistry)
 CHM113 (1st Semester General Chemistry)
 CHM115 & CHM 116 (2nd Semester Gen. Chem.)
o Total Enrollment: Over 1100 students
Spring Semester
• Changes / Additions
o Experienced leaders helped to train/ mentor
new team leaders.
o More advertising
Spring Highlights –
Participants (P)/ Non-Participants
(NP)
101 113 115/116
P / NP P / NP P / NP

Enrollment 47 / 275 57 / 319 37 / 418

%Participants 15% 15% 6%

Percent on Final 64%/65% 67%/69% 67%/67%

Course GPA 2.5 / 2.2 2.6 / 2.6 2.3 / 2.4
D, E, W’s 9% / 32% 18% / 22% 19% / 27%
Spring Highlights – Team Leaders
(TL)
101 113 115/116
TL/ NP TL/ NP TL/ NP
# of Team Leaders 5/ 275
7/ 319 9/ 572
Course GPA 3.6/ 2.2 3.9/ 2.6 3.8/ 2.4
Mean Final Ex 83%/65% 86%/69% 88%/67%
Qualitative Data:
Participant Feedback
• Participants reported that study groups:
o Helped them learn to work with others
o Gave them someone they could relate to
o Allowed more one on one interactions
o Provided a setting for sharing ideas
o Helped clarify concepts / increase understanding
o Eased test anxiety
o Boosted their confidence in their knowledge
o Helped them pass the class
Qualitative Data:
Participant Feedback
• Reasons for not participating:
o Many had time conflicts
o Some formed their own study groups
o Some said they worked better on their own
Qualitative Data:
Team Leader Feedback
• Team Leaders reported that the program helped:
o Develop better study skills
o Reduce procrastination
o Promote group-thinking and problem solving skills
o Develop patience, cooperation, and discipline
o Strengthen understanding of course material
o Self-esteem
o Personal growth
o Define their goal of being a teacher
Qualitative Data:
Team Leader Feedback
• Many Team Leaders signed up for the
position for “honors” credit or for the
“leadership class” to be on their transcript
and resume.

• All have stated that the experience was

much more personally rewarding than
expected.
Qualitative Data:
Team Leader Feedback
• “Although I have generally made “A’s”
through most of my education, I often do not
put in the time and effort needed to fully
absorb information. By becoming a team
leader, I have had no choice but to keep up
not only with the lessons but ahead of them.”
• …… “I liked having the added moral
obligation to the students I teach…”
Qualitative Data:
Team Leader Feedback
• “I learned that what I might quickly
understand, other people may not
comprehend. Thus, it is really important that I
have patience and pay attention to what
people need help with.”
• “Being a leader, doesn't mean that you will
always come up with the most creative ideas.”
• “It is important to understand how the major
themes of chemistry fit together.”
Trends Observed
• High percentage of female team leaders (68%)
• Program was most successful / popular in the
first semester courses (Intro and 1st semester
general chemistry)
Changes for Fall 2006
• More leadership classes (more availability)
o More leaders per lecture section
 More study sessions
 Greater participation
• More problem-solving activities
• Integration of Chemistry LRC with University
LRC.
o More involvement of Chemistry staff
• Website:
o www.asu.edu/lrc/teachingteams.htm
Acknowledgments
• Learning Support Services
o Jeanne Hanrahan, Director

• Chemistry Faculty
o Ron Briggs, CHM 113
o Janet Bond-Robinson, CHM 116
o Jack Fuchs, CHM 115/116
o Rich Bauer, Coordinator of General Chemistry
o Jim Birk, Emeritus Faculty

• ASU CLAS Deans Office