Activity

pubs.acs.org/jchemeduc

Organic Mastery: An Activity for the Undergraduate Classroom

Michael D. Mosher,*,† Melvyn W. Mosher,‡ and Michael P. Garoutte‡
†
Department of Chemistry, University of Northern Colorado, Greeley, Colorado 80639, United States
‡
Physical Sciences Department, Missouri Southern State University, Joplin, Missouri 64801, United States
*
S Supporting Information

ABSTRACT: A group activity for use in the classroom or recitation section of an organic
chemistry course is described. This activity, a board game using trivia and concepts from
See https://pubs.acs.org/sharingguidelines for options on how to legitimately share published articles.

the course material, can be used periodically throughout the semester to introduce or
reinforce content knowledge. Alternate versions can be easily constructed for other courses.
Downloaded via UNIV FED DO CEARA on October 17, 2024 at 01:47:22 (UTC).

KEYWORDS: Second-Year Undergraduate, Organic Chemistry, Collaborative/Cooperative Learning,

Hands-On Learning/Manipulatives, Humor/Puzzles/Games, Nomenclature/Units/Symbols, Reactions, Spectroscopy,
Student-Centered Learning

I n recent years, much research has focused on how students

learn.1,2 Whereas students have been shown to exhibit
various strengths in learning styles, one common conclusion is
semester in recitation sections, as a classroom activity, or by
students on their own. Student enjoyment of the game and
their interest in using it as a study aid have been overwhelming.
that all learning past a certain introductory level involves The original board game was created by Melvyn Mosher for
transfer of knowledge from previous experiences of the student. use in the majors’ organic chemistry courses. Given the success
Utilization of various instructional methods in multiple contexts of the game as a study aid in organic chemistry, versions of the
is most likely to maximize student learning. game have been developed for use in general chemistry and in
This research has led to new paradigms in the education of the GOB course often taken by nursing majors. Simply by
students, many of which take advantage of the finding that creation of additional sets of cards, this activity can be tailored
learning is an inherently social process.3−5 Some instructors to any course and made specific to any textbook.
have attempted to use a variety of teaching styles and methods
to improve student enjoyment, interest, and ultimately,
retention and mastery of the material. In addition to
■ THE ACTIVITY
The board game can be played in groups of three to six
supplementing the traditional “chalk-talk” with PowerPoint students in the classroom setting. Each group is given a game
lectures6,7 or movies and slideshows,8−10 many instructors are board, a four-sided die, a pad of paper and pencil for each
regularly engaging students with the use of classroom response student, and a set of colored question-and-answer cards. The
systems,11−13 in-class worksheets,14 and small-group work such game can easily be played within a 20−30 min time frame
as that offered in the techniques of Process Oriented Guided depending on the size of the group playing the game, which
Inquiry Learning (POGIL).15−17 Although many of these allows for additional instruction at the start of the class or
nontraditional modes of instruction have been found to recitation period. Alternatively, instruction at the end of the
enhance student performance, there is often a significant game allows the instructor to follow up on questions that are
preparation-time component that hinders the implementation not answered during game play. The game is best played while
of alternative instructional modes. the instructor moves about the room, monitoring group
A board game that requires knowledge of the subject matter discussions, and providing secondary instruction on questions
to successfully complete is described. This alternative that arise during play.
instruction tool requires little additional preparation time, as The rules of the game are typical of a standard board game.
the required materials have been prepared and are included in Players use a four-sided die to move their markers along the
the Supporting Information. Moreover, this instruction tool board. The die can be purchased inexpensively online or at
relies on small-group work to accomplish an activity. As a study
aid, the board game may be played numerous times through the Published: January 19, 2012
© 2012 American Chemical Society and
Division of Chemical Education, Inc. 646 dx.doi.org/10.1021/ed200015v | J. Chem. Educ. 2012, 89, 646−648
Journal of Chemical Education Activity

local gaming stores. Alternatively, in the absence of a four-sided questions will be answered incorrectly. But there is no need to
die, a standard six-sided die can be used and if the result is a “5” selectively remove or add questions from the decks of cards
or “6” the player rolls the die again. In such cases, rolling a “5” based on the coverage of material in the course. In essence,
or “6” a second time is equivalent to rolling a “1”. those questions serve as a “teaching point” during the game and
The game board is designed to represent a reaction profile as a point of reference during class discussions when the
diagram of a reactant proceeding through an intermediate to a material is covered.
product, with specific thermodynamic quantities marked on the Many of the question cards involve application of concepts
board. The board in Figure 1 illustrates an exothermic reaction; developed in the course. To maximize learning in the small-
group setting, the instructor may encourage students to discuss
incorrect answers for these questions, looking at the provided
answer with the goal of understanding why it is correct. Any
students in the group who have greater understanding can
explain their thought process to the others.
In some cases, the provided cards express answers that
demand further understanding on the part of the students.
These cards provide an additional teaching point for the
instructor, or the level of complexity of the answer can be
modified based on the level of the student.
Student retention of the information in the class has been
noted based on examination of the average scores on hour
examinations and student evaluation data given at the end of
the semester. Questions on those evaluations specifically
queried the topics that were included in the game cards and
covered in the lecture material within the classes. The average
grades on hour exams during the semesters that the activity has
been offered have been higher than in those courses where the
standard question-and-answer review sessions were held. The
statistical significance of the improvement was not calculated
due to the small sample size and other differences (instructor,
time, semester, student composition of the course, etc.) in the
courses of this initial assessment.
It should be noted, however, that student and faculty
enjoyment of the activity was a common comment on each
semester-ending evaluation of the courses. Typical student
Figure 1. The board showing an exothermic reaction. Specific moves responses indicated that this method of review for an exam was
for the labeled spaces are described in the blue box. preferred over the typical question-and-answer or group
worksheet style review session.
alternative designs for the board (illustrating an endothermic
reaction, a single-step reaction, or a multiple-step reaction) can
be used. Modification of the board and rules to demonstrate a
■ CONCLUSION
Students enjoy playing this game as an alternative to other
separate “catalyzed” reaction profile could be made. review activities during recitation or class time. It serves as a
Specific spaces on the board (Figure 1) denote the reactant supplementary mode of instruction and as a great way to
(R; the starting space), the transition state of each step in the reinforce understanding of specific topics in the course. Because
reaction (TS), the intermediate (I), and the product (P; the information relayed in the game can be adjusted for a given
finish line). Rules for each of these spaces differ from rules for course curriculum, this activity is portable across the
the normal spaces on the board. For normal spaces, a player is curriculum. As noted, this has been accomplished with success
asked a question from the similarly colored deck of cards and in many of the courses at the first-year and second-year levels.

■
follows the rules of the game to either advance or retreat his or
her marker. ASSOCIATED CONTENT
The winner of the game is not necessarily the player to finish *
S Supporting Information
the game first. Instead, the game runs until all players have
moved past the finish line. The winner is then determined by The rules of the game; a game board; a sample set of cards.
This material is available via the Internet at http://pubs.acs.org.

■
counting the number of correctly answered questions plus a
bonus for finishing first determined on the basis of the rules
(see the Supporting Information). If time is short, the game can AUTHOR INFORMATION
be stopped at any time; if more time is available, a second game Corresponding Author
may be started. *E-mail: [email protected].

■ DISCUSSION
As an alternative to a board game, the existing questions could
■ ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This article, and dissemination of the game he invented, is
be played simply as a “trivia” or “Jeopardy”-style game, with dedicated to the memory of Melvyn W. Mosher, who died in
players given a specific time limit to provide an answer. In this 2010. Acknowledgment is made to the authors’ respective
case, if the game is played near the beginning of the term, many departments for financial support of this work.
647 dx.doi.org/10.1021/ed200015v | J. Chem. Educ. 2012, 89, 646−648
Journal of Chemical Education

■
Activity

REFERENCES
(1) Bransford, J. D.; Brown, A. L.; Cocking, R. R. How People Learn;
National Academy Press: Washington, DC, 1999.
(2) Donovan, M. S.; Branford, J. D. How Students Learn: Science in the
Classroom; National Academies Press: Washington, DC, 2005.
(3) Bruffee, K. A. Collaborative Learning; Johns Hopkins University
Press: Baltimore, MD, 1993.
(4) Johnson, D. W.; Johnson, R. T.; Smith, K. A. Active Learning:
Cooperation in the College Classroom; Interaction Book Company:
Edina, MN, 1991.
(5) Lawson, A. E. What Should Students Learn About the Nature of
Science and How Should We Teach It? J. Coll. Sci. Teach. 1999, 28,
401−411.
(6) Szabo, A.; Hastings, N. Using IT in the undergraduate classroom:
should we replace the blackboard with PowerPoint? Comput. Educ.
2000, 35, 175−187.
(7) Bartsch, R. A.; Cobern, K. M. Effectiveness of PowerPoint
Presentations in Lectures. Comput. Educ. 2003, 41, 77−86.
(8) Griep, M. A.; Mikasen, M. L. Based on a True Story: Using
Movies as Source Material for General Chemistry Reports. J. Chem.
Educ. 2005, 82, 1501−1503.
(9) Wink, D. J. “Almost Like Weighing Someone’s Soul”: Chemistry
in Contemporary Film. J. Chem. Educ. 2001, 78, 481−483.
(10) Goll, J. G.; Woods, B. J. Teaching Chemistry Using the Movie
Apollo 13. J. Chem. Educ. 1999, 76, 506−508.
(11) Wagner, B. D. A Variation on the Use of Interactive Anonymous
Quizzes in the Chemistry Classroom. J. Chem. Educ. 2009, 86, 1300−
1303.
(12) Woelk, K. Optimizing the Use of Personal Response Devices
(Clickers) in Large-Enrollment Introductory Courses. J. Chem. Educ.
2008, 85, 1400−1405.
(13) Fies, C.; Marshall, J. Classroom Response Systems: a review of
the literature. J. Sci. Educ. Technol. 2006, 15, 101−109.
(14) Ostercamp, D. L. Inclass Interactive Worksheets for Organic
Chemistry. J. Chem. Educ. 1992, 69, 318.
(15) Farrell, J. J.; Moog, R. S.; Spencer, J. N. A Guided-Inquiry
General Chemistry Course. J. Chem. Educ. 1999, 76, 570−574.
(16) Process Oriented Guided Inquiry Learning (POGIL); Moog, R.,
Ed.; ACS Symposium Series: Washington, DC, 2008.
(17) Hurley, C. N. Study Groups in General Chemistry. J. Chem.
Educ. 1993, 70, 651−652.

648 dx.doi.org/10.1021/ed200015v | J. Chem. Educ. 2012, 89, 646−648