12/18/14
1
International Conference on Education in Chemistry Homi Bhabha Centre for Science Education
December 12, 2014
Introduction to POGIL: Process Oriented
Guided Inquiry Learning
The POGIL Project
• Launched by sequential NSF (2003-‐2011) and other grants • Based on curricular work done by a variety of like-‐minded people in the mid-‐90’s
• Became a not-‐for-‐profit organization in 2010 • The mission of The POGIL Project is to connect and support educators from all
disciplines interested in implementing, improving, and studying student-‐centered pedagogies and learning environments.
• The POGIL Project is run by • A 6-‐member Board of Directors • Executive Director (Rick Moog, Franklin & Marshall College) • Steering Committee of 9 experienced practitioners (college and high school faculty) • 8 part-‐time and full-‐time staff in POGIL National Office, Lancaster, PA
The POGIL Project
• Offers faculty development
• Twenty to thirty workshops each year for high school and university faculty
• Institutes for workshop facilitators
• Actively involves over 1000 individuals each year
• Workshop attendees
• Workshop facilitators
• Curriculum developers
• Has touched 1000’s of people
• More than 1000 people are implementing POGIL pedagogy across multiple disciplines
• In Hyderabad: International Institute for Information Technology, VNR Vignana Jyothi Institute of Engineering and Technology: Sandhya Kode, Director, EnhanceEdu
A POGIL Classroom Experience
Periodic Table
1
Hhydrogen
[1.007, 1.009]
1 18
3
Lilithium
[6.938, 6.997]
4
Beberyllium
9.012
11
Nasodium
22.99
12
Mgmagnesium[24.30, 24.31]
19
Kpotassium
39.10
20
Cacalcium
40.08
37
Rbrubidium
85.47
38
Srstrontium
87.62
38
Srstrontium
87.62
55
Cscaesium
132.9
55
Cscaesium
132.9
56
Babarium
137.3
87
Frfrancium
88
Raradium
5
Bboron
[10.80, 10.83]
13
Alaluminium
26.98
31
Gagallium
69.72
49
Inindium114.8
81
Tlthallium
[204.3, 204.4]
6
Ccarbon
[12.00, 12.02]
14
Sisilicon
[28.08, 28.09]
32
Gegermanium
72.63
50
Sntin
118.7
82
Pblead207.2
7
Nnitrogen
[14.00, 14.01]
15
Pphosphorus
30.97
33
Asarsenic
74.92
51
Sbantimony
121.8
83
Bibismuth
209.0
8
Ooxygen
[15.99, 16.00]
16
Ssulfur
[32.05, 32.08]
34
Seselenium78.96(3)
52
Tetellurium
127.6
84
Popolonium
9
Ffluorine
19.00
17
Clchlorine
[35.44, 35.46]
35
Brbromine
[79.90, 79.91]
53
Iiodine126.9
85
Atastatine
10
Neneon20.18
2
Hehelium4.003
18
Arargon39.95
36
Krkrypton
83.80
54
Xexenon131.3
86
Rnradon
22
Tititanium
47.87
22
Tititanium
47.87
40
Zrzirconium
91.22
72
Hfhafnium
178.5
104
Rfrutherfordium
23
Vvanadium
50.94
41
Nbniobium
92.91
73
Tatantalum
180.9
105
Dbdubnium
24
Crchromium
52.00
24
Crchromium
52.00
42
Momolybdenum
95.96(2)
74
Wtungsten
183.8
106
Sgseaborgium
25
Mnmanganese
54.94
43
Tctechnetium
75
Rerhenium
186.2
107
Bhbohrium
26
Feiron55.85
44
Ruruthenium
101.1
76
Ososmium
190.2
108
Hshassium
27
Cocobalt58.93
45
Rhrhodium
102.9
77
Iriridium192.2
109
Mtmeitnerium
28
Ninickel58.69
46
Pdpalladium
106.4
78
Ptplatinum
195.1
110
Dsdarmstadtium
29
Cucopper
63.55
47
Agsilver107.9
79
Augold197.0
30
Znzinc
65.38(2)
48
Cdcadmium
112.4
80
Hgmercury
200.6
111
Rgroentgenium
112
Cncopernicium
114
Flflerovium
116
Lvlivermorium
57
Lalanthanum
138.9
89
Acactinium
58
Cecerium140.1
90
Ththorium
232.0
59
Prpraseodymium
140.9
91
Paprotactinium
231.0
60
Ndneodymium
144.2
92
Uuranium
238.0
61
Pmpromethium
93
Npneptunium
62
Smsamarium
150.4
94
Puplutonium
63
Eueuropium
152.0
95
Amamericium
64
Gdgadolinium
157.3
96
Cmcurium
65
Tbterbium
158.9
97
Bkberkelium
66
Dydysprosium
162.5
98
Cfcalifornium
67
Hoholmium
164.9
99
Eseinsteinium
68
Ererbium
167.3
100
Fmfermium
69
Tmthulium
168.9
101
Mdmendelevium
70
Ybytterbium
173.1
102
Nonobelium
71
Lulutetium
175.0
103
Lrlawrencium
21
Scscandium
44.96
39
Yyttrium88.91
57-71
lanthanoids
89-103
actinoids
atomic number Symbol
standard atomic weight
2 13 14 15 16 17 Key:
3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
name
Notes- IUPAC 2011 Standard atomic weights abridged to four significant digits (Table 4 published in Pure Appl. Chem. 85, 1047-1078 (2013); http://dx.doi.org/10.1351/PAC-REP-13-03-02. The uncertainty in the last digit of the standard atomic weight value is listed in parentheses following the value. In the absence of parentheses, the uncertainty is one in that last digit. An interval in square brackets provides the lower and upper bounds of the standard atomic weight for that element. No values are listed for elements which lack isotopes with a characteristic isotopic abundance in natural terrestrial samples. See PAC for more details.
- “Aluminum” and “cesium” are commonly used alternative spellings for “aluminium” and “caesium.”
- Claims for the discovery of all the remaining elements in the last row of the Table, namely elements with atomic numbers 113, 115, 117 and 118, and for which no assignments have yet been made, are being considered by a IUPAC and IUPAP Joint Working Party.
For updates to this table, see iupac.org/reports/periodic_table/. This version is dated 1 May 2013. Copyright © 2013 IUPAC, the International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry.
IUPAC Periodic Table of the Elements
INTERNATIONAL UNION OF PURE AND APPLIED CHEMISTRY
Student Outcomes
Other than content knowledge, what might your students gain from this type of learning environment?
• Individually: 1 minute • Group: 3 minutes • Discussion
12/18/14
2
What is POGIL? What is POGIL?
Process Skills
• Information Processing • Critical Thinking • Problem Solving • Communication • Teamwork • Management • Assessment
What is POGIL?
Learning Cycle Activities
Learning Cycle
• Parallels the “scientific method” • Provides context for introduction of new terms • Explicitly provides opportunities for critical thinking
Karplus, K. & Thier., H.D. (1967). A New Look at Elementary School Science. Chicago: Rand McNally and Co.
Piaget, J. (1964). Part I: Cognitive development in children: Piaget development and learning. J. Res. Sci. Teach., 2, 176–186.
12/18/14
3
What is POGIL? Information
Processing Model
Johnstone, A.H. (1997). Chemistry Teaching- Science or Alchemy? J. Chem. Educ., 74, 262–268.
Gazzaniga, M. S., Ivry, R. B., & Mangun, G. R. (2008). Cognitive Neuroscience: The Biology of the Mind (3rd ed.). New York: W. W. Norton & Company.
New Paradigm
• Knowledge results only through active participation in its construction.
• Students teach each other and they teach the instructor by revealing their understanding of the subject.
• Teachers learn by this process…by steadily accumulating a body of knowledge about the practice of teaching.
Teaching is enabling.
Knowledge is understanding. Learning is active construction of subject matter.
Elmore, R. F. (1991). Foreword. In C.R. Christensen, D.A. Garvin, & A.Sweet (Eds.),
Education for Judgment (pp. ix–ixi). Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
Guided Inquiry Approach
• Students work in groups • Students construct knowledge • Activities use Learning Cycle paradigm • Students teach, discuss, and learn from other
students
• Instructors facilitate learning
Analysis of Student Outcomes
Data on the use of POGIL in a variety of academic settings
General Chemistry
at Franklin & Marshall College
• “Lecture”: F1990–S1994: n = 420 • POGIL: F1994–S1998: n = 485 • Sections of ~24 students • Same instructors
• Students randomly placed Fall semester & designate preference Spring semester (but not guaranteed to get their choice)
• Compare course grades (ABC’s vs. DFW’s)
12/18/14
4
General Chemistry
at Franklin & Marshall College
Data from classrooms of Moog, Farrell, and Spencer
Farrell, J.J., Moog, R.S., & Spencer, J.N. (1999). A Guided Inquiry Chemistry Course. J. Chem. Educ., 76, 570–574.
Organic 1 at a
Large Public University
• Two sections: one lecture, one POGIL; taught at the same time
• Students randomly placed in sections • Compare withdrawal rate and common exam scores
• Final exam created solely by lecture instructor and administered to both groups
Organic 1
at a Large Public University
Withdrawals & Common Final Exam Scores, Fall 2000
Assessment Pre-Quiz for Organic 2
• Large public university • Classes of about 250 • Unannounced quiz given on first day of Organic 2 (written by non-‐POGIL instructor)
• Students had taken Organic 1 • With lecture (two different instructors)
• With POGIL
Retention of Learning
Organic 2 Pre-‐quiz Results (Lecture vs. POGIL Organic 1)
Ruder, S.M., & Hunnicutt, S.S. (2008). POGIL in Chemistry Courses at a Large Urban University: A Case Study. In R.S. Moog, & J.N. Spencer (Eds.), Process-Oriented Guided Inquiry Learning: ACS Symposium Series 994 (pp. 133–147). Washington, D.C.: American Chemical Society.