The document discusses the Department of Chemistry at Leicester University's introduction and refinement of problem-based learning (PBL) into some of its undergraduate courses since 2007. It describes replacing lectures and workshops with weekly small group PBL sessions facilitated by instructors. Based on student and instructor feedback, changes were made to improve student access to facilitators, provide more detailed feedback, and better integrate the PBL topics with course material. Overall, the introduction of PBL was found to be successful in engaging students and improving learning outcomes.

1. Department of Chemistry
Developing a Sustainable Approach to
Problem Based Learning in Chemistry
Dr. Dylan Williams
dpw10@le.ac.uk

2. Since 2007 the Department of Chemistry
at Leicester has introduced PBL content
into some undergraduate courses.
Between 2007-09 the Department was
the lead institution of Strand 3.2 of the
CFOF project (funded by the HEFCE &
managed by the RSC).
This presentation focuses on the
changes we have made to our PBL
approach since 2007.

3. To investigate potential benefits of the
introduction of PBL including:
Greater appreciation of chemistry in a
wider context.
Increased student engagement and peer
teaching.
Development of transferable skills.
Improved understanding of connections
between different areas within the subject.
Improved student retention.

4. 18 PBL sessions were introduced in to a
core level1 inorganic-physical module
replacing 8 lectures and 7 workshops.
Students worked in small (5-6) groups on
week long problems (2 × 1 hr sessions).
Learning supported by Blackboard VLE.
Facilitators guided the learning process by
engaging students in dialogue.
Facilitators guided 3 groups per session.

5. Facilitators gave feedback at the end of
every problem - Further modifications
allowed until the end of the problem
scenario.
Final individual marks took into account
the group mark, facilitator comments, the
mark from individual essay and peer review
survey responses.

6. ‘A Tiny Adventure’ (weeks 1-6) - students
acted as scientific advisors to a movie
studio.
States of Matter, Size & Scale, Bonding, etc.
Spectroscopy based problems (weeks 7-
10).

7. Students formed strong bonds with group
members – low drop out rate.
PBL did not adversely affect the module
average – encouraged weaker students to
work.
Most students liked the format.
Overall, the introduction of PBL into the
Department was successful.

8. PBL is resource intensive - Contact
time, number of staff & suitable teaching
space.
Structure of the problems made it difficult
to give students detailed feedback to
reflect on.
Students dislike waiting to a facilitator
during contact sessions.
Some students felt the scenario got in they
way of learning.

9. Introduce longer problems – combine
existing problems to create a series of
two week long problems & use the final
session to give detailed feedback.
Improve the student access to facilitators
– facilitators only work with 2 groups per
session.
Cut some film dialogue in the scenario.
Produce robust assessment criteria &
facilitator guide – detailed guide
prepared.

10. Session 1 – Planning session run in
much the same way as 2007/08.
Session 2 – Group progress meeting:
students must give a short summary of
what research they have done since S1.
Between S2 and S3 students upload a
draft answer which facilitators check.
Session 3 – Each group receives
detailed feedback from the facilitator –
this is a major improvement on the
previous year.

11. Individual essay replaced with peer
assessment task – each student marks a
part of another group’s wiki.
Peer review survey simplified in order to
make it easier to scale marks.

12. Students spend more time with facilitators
during sessions (in 07/08 - facilitator spent
18 hrs with 3 groups, in 08/09 - 14 hrs with
2 groups in 08/09)
More use of PhD students as facilitators –
reduces the teaching cost.
Improved peer review survey is much
easier for staff to interpret.
Students get a chance to see work
submitted by other groups.

13. Answers Percent
Answered
The PBL was OK but we often had to wait to see our facilitator and 60%
this wasted time
Because PBL was done in teams it was a good way to meet 58.5%
people and make friends
I thought the PBL topics were integrated well with the module 56.9%
Doing PBL in teams was useful, I found it helpful to talk about some 41.9%
of the concepts with other students and PBL forced me to do this.
PBL made me think about the course material in a different way 41.9%
I thought the PBL did not improve my understanding of chemistry at 20%
all
I thought the PBL problems did not integrate well with the rest of the 13.8%
module
I didn't mind the problems but I did not like working in a group it 6.1%
would be better if you worked on your own.

14. Dr Dai Davies, Prof Derek Raine, Dr
Jonny Woodward, Dr Sarah Symons and
all staff at the University of Leicester
Department of Chemistry and Centre for
i-Science.
Dr Katy McKenzie and all facilitators
Strand 3.2 Partners