Using Presentation Software for General Chemistry Lectures

Part of The Alchemist's Lair Web Site
Maintained by Harry E. Pence, Professor of Chemistry, SUNY Oneonta, for the use of his students. Any opinions are totally coincidental and have no official endorsement, including the people who sign my pay checks. C omments and suggestions are welcome (pencehe@oneonta.edu).

Last Revised Jan. 7, 1997

Submitted for Publication - Please Do Not Cite.

USING PRESENTATION SOFTWARE FOR
GENERAL CHEMISTRY LECTURES

Harry E. Pence
Professor of Chemistry
SUNY College at Oneonta
Oneonta, NY 13820
PENCEHE@ONEONTA.EDU

INTRODUCTION

By the fall of 1990, it was clear that student performance in my general
chemistry course wa s declining. Although the failure and withdrawal rates had
been relatively stable for a number of years prior to this, these measures of
student performance had been decreasing for the previous three years. To
counteract this trend, I implemented a revised lecture plan combining
cooperative learning with multimedia, such as computer simulations,
laserdiscs, and videotapes. This had the desired effect of decreasing
withdrawals and failures, and in the 1994-5 academic year I expanded the
project by converting my lectures from overhead projecturals to computer
presentation software.

There were several advantages to combining multimedia and cooperative
learning. Chemistry, like other sciences, has a strong visual component, and
multimedia presentations made the material more realistic as well as easier to
understand. Cooperative learning forced the students to respond actively
rather than sinking into the passive mode that they may have learned from a lifetime of watching television. This combination proved to be successful, and
two articles describing the project are available (Pence, 1993 and 1996).

During this initial phase of the project, I evaluated several different methods to
improve the integration of the multimedia into the lecture, including giving the
lectures in hypercard or from a word processor. By the fall of 1994, I had
concluded that presentation software was the most practical way to accomplish
this, a nd I began converting the lectures into Power Point.

IMPLEMENTATION

The general chemistry course discussed in this paper is a traditional
preparatory course for science majors. The enrollment ranges from 60 to 100
students, depending on the semester. I had previously lectured from overhead
projecturals, prepared before class. To help freshman identify the important
ideas, the projecturals were color coded. Key concepts were written in red;
regular notes were in bl ue; worked sample problems were in black; and real-
world chemical applications were in green.

My original plan in 1990 was to present a short (10-15 minutes) lecture
segment, followed by a visual presentation, consisting of either a live
demonstration or a video (videotape, laserdisc, computer simulation, etc.).
Next I asked pairs of students (lecture partners) to discuss and/or explain what
they had seen. using a set of questions that I projected on the screen. After
al lowing time for discussion, I would ask individual students to answer the
questions. Often, when one student answered a question, I would ask his or
her lecture partner to explain the answer. This insured that the students were
accountable for discussing the questions with their partners. Then I began the
process again with another short lecture segment.

The multimedia workstation consisted of a Macintosh LC-III, equipped with a
laserdisc player, a CD-ROM drive, and a VCR. All of these could be projected
on a large rear-projection screen. Beginning in 1994, I used Power Point as
the presentation software. I have found Quicktime to be a flexible and simple
way to create and show movies, including those created with a shareware
molecular modelling program, MacMolecule.

There are several reasons why I chose to add presentation software to this plan.
Compared with hypercard or a word processor, the presentation software
combined the least pre paration time with the greatest flexibility. Power Point
made it easy to color code the notes, as I had done in the past, and the ability
to build text, line by line, was convenient for cooperative learning scripts. The
combination of the build and transition made it possible to guide the students'
eyes through each frame much easier than was the case with any other
method, including overhead projecturals. Perhaps most important,
presentation software allowed me to establish a clo se physical relationship
between the text describing a concept and the images that showed the
application of the concept.

As Neil Postman points out (1992), every new technology has pluses and
minuses. Wise technology implementation focuses not only on what the new
technology will offer but also on what may be lost when the old methods are
abandoned. I feel that the addition of Power Point lectures maintained much
that was good from the previous presentation methods and al so provided new
capabilities that were educationally beneficial

ASSESSMENT

Continuing student assessment, both formal and informal, is a vital part of
the multimedia development process. It is all too easy for an instructor to
become so engrossed in the technology that instructional problems are
overlooked. To prevent this, I used several methods for evaluating student
reactions. The simplest method is to observe how the students respond during
the lecture. For example, if more than one or two students were squinting, it
was obvious that the fonts or colors needed to be changed to make the
presentations more readable. In addition, I would often chat informally with
individual students during lab or after class. These conversations gave me a
general sense of what they liked and didn't like about the lecture. Finally, I
used anonymous surveys at least twice a semester to obtain a broader view and
especially to probe questions that individu als had raised during the informal
interviews.

Based on both formal and informal surveys, the combination of multimedia
and cooperative learning is very popular with the students. The results from
the fall, 1996 survey are typical. Student response to the statement, "The
combination of hearing about a concept, seeing a demonstration, then talking
about it seems to be the best way for me to learn," was 60% strongly agree,
38% agree, 2% neutral and none of the st udents checked disagree, or strongly
disagree.

Informal student comments also demonstrated the effects of multimedia. In a
number of cases, students stopped after lecture to comment on how much they
had enjoyed the multimedia, especially the videos and movies. For example,
when I showed a video of the burning of the Hindenberg to demonstrate the
properties of hydrogen gas, four or five students stopped to say how much they
enjoyed the movie. Similarly, the first time th at I showed a short movie on
molecular rotation in class, the students were so fascinated that they asked
that the movie be repeated.

Initially, the student reaction to the use of presentation software was not as
favorable. When I introduced computerized lectures in the fall of 1994, only
about half the lectures had been converted and the rest were still given from
overheads. At that time, the students indicated no strong preference between
the two methods. When asked & quot;Which method did you prefer, overhead
transparencies or the computer?" the response was 12% strongly preferred the
computer, 14% preferred the computer, 45% were neutral, 19% preferred the
overheads, and 10% strongly preferred the overheads.

The next semester (spring, 1995), however, student preference shifted strongly
to presentation software, even though many of the students had continued
from the previous semester. In the spring survey, 73% of the students strong ly
preferred the computer; 16% rated the computer as somewhat better; 7%
indicated they were neutral; 4% preferred other methods; and none strongly
preferred other methods. Each semester since then, the results of student
surveys have indicated a strong preference for the use of presentation software.

There are several possible explanations for these changing responses. I did
change the wording of the question slightly, but it seems unlikely that this
could explain the mag nitude of the change. Of course, as I became more adept
with Power Point, my lectures would be expected to improve. In particular, I
felt that I learned to avoid the temptation of lecturing too rapidly, which is a
serious temptation with presentation software.

Just as it takes time for the instructor to become accustomed to presenting
lectures from the computer, it also takes time for the students to become
accustomed to taking notes from the computer screen. Surveys taken s everal
different semesters have found that even though many students quickly became
accustomed to taking notes from Power Point, some required at least a week or
so before they were comfortable, and a few never did feel comfortable.

Another possible explanation for the changing student response is that after
the first semester I didn't use overhead projecturals very much, so the students
didn't have a good basis for comparison. Students often mention color coding
as one of the things they like about the presentation software, and they
probably don't see this in most of their other classes. Regardless of the factors
involved, the students seem to be very satisfied with lectures based on Power
Point.

Informal student comments on presentation software were also very favorable.
The images included in the notes were especially popular, and many students
commented that they associated the concepts with the images in order to
remember them better . I did not distribute copies of the notes to the students,
although the presentations were available on computers at the
chemistry/physics computer center. Many students reported that they often
included at least a sketch of the images in their notes. Almost none of the
students reported frustration or problems with the use of images, and two
thirds or more of the students indicated that the images "helped me to
understand the concepts being presented" or "made the notes more
interesting."

DISCUSSION

Probably the greatest educational advantage that presentation software
provides is the ability to closely integrate text and images. This can have both
long term and short term results. Research indicates that the sophisticated
use of images is an important characteristic of professional chemists
(Kleinman, 1987). My surveys indicate that students use the images to both
understand the concepts and also to serve as a cue th at will help them recall
the information later. To help this process, the instructor must be careful to
select appropriate images. Unless the images complement the concepts, the
software simply becomes an expensive substitute for an overhead projector.

Using images for chemistry education can be particularly effective. Chemistry
is dynamic; molecules are constantly moving, even when they are not reacting.
In the past, aside from an occasional movie or demonstration, lectur es about
chemistry have mainly been static. When the presentation technology is
combined with molecular modelling software, it is now possible to show how
chemical reactions happen, even at the molecular level. Beyond this, historical
images can offer a context for historical references that in the past might have
simply passed over the heads of the students.

It is now possible to readily convert still pictures, movies, and sounds into
digital format, and all of these ca n be inserted into a Power Point frame to
complement the text. Of course, teachers have been using slides, movies, and
tapes to do all of this in the past. The important change is the ease of
combining all these into a single visual unit. We are still in the early stages of
learning how to make the best use of this capability to improve education.

Some of the early groups to use multimedia for chemistry education report
results similar to those discussed above. Casanova a nd Casanova (1991)
indicated that their students encountered problems adjusting to multimedia
organic lectures and also observed that the students are the best judges of
what actually works. Whitnell and co-workers at the University of California
at San Diego (1994) have constructed lectures for a multimedia physical
chemistry course. They suggest that the most successful multimedia lectures
are usually quite different from traditional lectures.

As noted earlier, not all s tudents are prepared to make full use of multimedia
instruction. Even though the majority of students may prefer the visual
learning style, few of them have been trained to use images effectively. Their
previous experience with television may have led them to expect to be passive,
rather than active learners. In particular, most students will probably need to
greatly expand their skills as note takers. Cooperative methods, such as those
described earlier, offer an excellent avenu e for developing these new skills and
making the students active participants in the learning process.

There are, however, some pitfalls when using presentation software. It is most
useful in cases where the material is well-organized and reasonably linear. It
is possible to build in opportunities for asides and tangents, but if an
instructor wishes to be totally spontaneous, presentation software is probably
not a good choice. In addition, it takes time to learn to use the several
software packages that are needed to both manipulate images and create the
presentations. Finally, it usually takes longer to prepare a lecture unit than
would be the case with overheads or blackboard presentations.

It is probably easier to produce a readable product with presentation software
than by writing on the blackboard or an overhead, but problems still can occur.
Font selection and color choices must be designed for the specific system and
room where th e presentation will be given. It is always a good idea to do a dry
run, testing the presentation under the conditions that will prevail in the
classroom. Otherwise you may find that your favorite font is not available on
the classroom computer, or the projector you are using does a terrible job with
the color selection that looked so good on the machine in your office.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on this on-going project, I would suggest several conclusions are
justified. Fi rst, and perhaps most important, it is possible for a single
individual working with moderate support to develop multimedia presentations
for teaching. Both hardware and software are now relatively inexpensive, and
the main deterrent is the time required. Even though the results may not be
as impressive as those obtained by larger groups with greater financial support,
individual faculty members can make meaningful contributions.

The new educational technology offer a specia l challenge to the present
generation of college teachers. For many years, college teachers have basically
taught the way in which they had been taught themselves. Change in teaching
has been incremental at best. Now teachers are being called upon to use new
technologies in unprecedented ways. Relatively few instructors at the college
level have taken courses in pedagogy, and most of them have taught themselves
how to use technology. The success of these efforts will require tha t all of us
share what we are learning, and also that we all become more aware that the
students are not merely the recipients of the new methods, but also important
evaluators of how successful the methods may be.

Technology offers no universal solution which every teacher can adopt. Just as
students have different learning styles, instructors have different teaching
styles. Each of us must find the technology that best supports the way that we
teach. In some cases, th e best solution may still be blackboard and chalk.
Many teachers will find, however, that new technologies, including the
combination of multimedia and cooperative learning, open new possibilities for
the educational process.

Finally, we must all recognize that these new tools require us to rethink our
approach to the educational process. Like most new technologies, our first
response is to simply try to do the same old things in a slightly improved way.
In the long run , however, we must find new ways to teach that full exploit the
capabilities that are available. The real challenge is not the technology, but
finding pedagogies that use technology to give our students an improved
learning environment.

Perhaps the best summary is to quote the response that one of the students
gave on an anonymous survey:
With the computer, the concepts became real. They weren't just notes
on a piece of paper. You actually prove that thin gs happen and we don't
have to just accept what you tell us.
As long as technology offers the possibility for offering this kind of experience
for our students, it is well worth pursuing.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

The author wishes to express his appreciation for a Classroom Scholarship
Grant from the Joint Labor-Management Committee of United University
Professions and the State of New York, which was used to purchase software
and video materials for this project.

REFERENCES

Casanova, J., and Casanova, S.L., "Computers as Electronic Blackboard:
Remodeling the Organic Chemistry Lecture", Educom Review, Spring, 31-4,
1991.

Kleinman, R.W., Griffin, H.C., and Kerner, N. K., "Images in Chemistry",
J.Chem.Ed., 64, 766-700, 1987.

Pence, H.E., "Combining Cooperative Learning and Multimedia in General
Chemistry", Education, 113, 375-380, 1993.

Pence, H.E., "A Report from the Barrica des of the Multimedia Revolution", J.of
Educ.Tech., 24, 159-164, 1996.

Postman, N., Technopoly:The Surrender of Culture to Technology, Alfred A.
Knopf, New York, New York, 1992

Whitnell, R.M. et al, "Multimedia Chemistry Lectures", Journal of Chemical
Education, 71, 721-725, 1994.

END OF ARTICLE

Return to The Alchemist's Lair Web Site

You are the visitor to the Alchemist's Lair site since Jan. 10,1997.