Organic Chemistry is a required course for programs in chemistry, biology, and many health science careers. It has historically been considered a highly challenging course with significant failure rates. As with many science disciplines, the teaching of Organic Chemistry has traditionally focused on unstructured exposition-centered delivery of course material. This report details efforts to transform the teaching of a large section of Organic Chemistry to a more student-centered approach through the use of a highly structured, active learning format. In this study, the authors examine student performance data on homogeneous examinations and course grades for two groups of students at a large public university for comparison between those that received highly structured active learning pedagogy and those that received traditional, unstructured, lecture pedagogy in Organic Chemistry. Data consist of repeated cross sections over 4 different years, with a total sample size n = 766. Regression and propensity score matching (PSM) are used to analyze student academic outcomes. Results suggest that students exposed to a highly structured, active learning pedagogy in Organic Chemistry scored statistically significantly higher on total points earned and final exam scores, and had a higher probability of an increase in their final course grade. Results further suggest that while increased structure in conjunction with active learning improved outcomes generally for all students who received it, those students at the lowest academic achievement levels experienced the most gains. This study is significant in its causal analysis of the impact of highly structured active learning on academic outcomes.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

For the past dozen years, the federal government has held schools accountable for students' achievement in reading and mathematics. Schools that have not demonstrated improved student scores have faced heavy sanctions, including reconstitution and closure. In response to this high-stakes environment, schools appear to have extended the time students spend in instruction in various ways. In this article, the authors develop a typology of the programs and reforms that extend instruction along three dimensions: time, target, and providers. On the time dimension, extended instruction can occur within a school day or outside of it. Along the target dimension, some types of extended instruction are delivered to all of a school's students while others target particular subpopulations, such as those who have failed to meet certain performance thresholds. Finally, extended instruction may be provided by a school's core instructional staff or by others, including specialized teachers, private providers, and peers. Through the typology, the authors provide a framework for understanding schools' instructional responses to federal accountability requirements and set forth a research agenda that calls attention to unanswered questions about the effectiveness and equity of instructional time interventions.