CHEM 210 and 215 are built around the idea that there is no learning resource more important than any other, and that giving students a wide selection of resources to select from is akin to a bountiful buffet restaurant. With a wide selection of entrees and side dishes, there are hundreds of different ways to create a nutritionally balanced meal with a rational calorie count, and no one of them is better at doing the job than the other. The vegans, the carnivores, and the keto crowd can all eat well without imposing their diet on others. The down side to this degree of choice is clear: bad decisions can be made, too. A large platter of fries with a side of warm pecan pie topped with vanilla gelato may be as satisfying as skipping class, and just as bad. Being able to make good choices in an autonomous environment is a key skill.

For many years, we had reached an acceptable balance point in CHEM 210 and 215. We studied the use of resources; not everyone made great choices, but most did.

In the 2021-2022 academic year, a combination of things turned up the autonomy dial, and the student performance seemed to reflect it. Here are same facts about the exams that year in both CHEM 210 and CHEM 215:

(a) the overall class averages on the exams were a little higher than usual

(b) the fraction of A/B grades was the same as always (70-75%), but it was skewed positive (the typical A:B ratio of 1:2 was more like 1:1)

(c) the fraction of C/D/E grades was also the same, but skewed negative (the typical C:D:E ratio of 6:1:1 was more like 3:1:3; although this has rebounded more towards the historical ratio)

What happened in 2021-2022?

(1) A Matter of University Policy: The last day to drop was kept at the last day of class; prior to COVID, the absolute last “W” day was about five weeks into the course, just after the first exams – students needed to make an important decision to stay (and commit) or go. At five weeks and one exam, there was plenty of time, and motivation with the commitment, to make changes. Now, the need to make the choice comes far too late to do anything about it, and about 14-16% of the class simply withdrew in the 72 hours leading up to the last day of classes. The decision to commit and engage the course was opened up to be more of a choice (increased autonomy).

(2) A Matter of Behavior: Although attending class in person prior to COVID was never mandated, and although automatic lecture recording has been used for almost 15 years, the choice to attend in person was made by the vast majority of students. Attending a well run, in person class is an exceptional opportunity to hone listening, concentration, and learning skills in a setting with minimal distractions. A good in person class will demonstrate quite convincingly that easy success at multitasking is a myth. When everyone was using online recordings during the pandemic, everyone was at the same disadvantage (and we know for a fact that learning was less effective and academic standards were nearly universally reduced). Now that classes are back in person, coming to class is unfortunately seen more generally as just another option (increased autonomy), and it is likely that a person who misses two classes is a row will adopt the new and bad habit of not attending.

(3) A Matter of Resources: The new textbook/workbook was introduced in 2021, and there are three features related to the topic of student choice. First, the book is custom designed to accompany the U-M course and to be able to be learned from in ways that standard texts often do not allow. Engaging the text as a key resource and learning topics independently from it in advance of class is likely a reason that the A:B ratio skewed positive. In 40 years, I have never seen so many students so well-prepared in advance of classes. Second, each section of text, which corresponds roughly to a class day, comes with a targeted set of questions that literally invites the reader to work them out at the moment. This is also not a common choice in a standard text. Finally, the hundreds of pages of questions come with a complete answer key. Answer keys are notoriously known to be as much a source of trouble for some students as they are a benefit to others. Do you hold off on checking the solution, preferring instead to sit and debate with others, and only when you reach consensus do the crosscheck? Or do you sit in front of the solutions, copying them into the answer spaces with the idea that you will “study” the answers that way? There is a remarkable amount of research that backs up the idea that misusing an answer key leads to a state of self-deception: you confuse understanding someone else’s answer with having solved it yourself, when (in fact) you have no idea how to solve it. Using this text well or poorly is a choice that likely leads to both the positive and negative skewing (increased autonomy).

Three sources of autonomy; three new and significant decisions that needed to be made. Make all those decisions in the right direction and things are likely better than before (particularly with the text and the answer key being used the right way). But make all these decisions in the wrong direction and things are likely worse than before.

How to make good decisions in an autonomous environment was always a part of CHEM 210 and CHEM 215, but all three of the factors dialed it up at the same time.

Essay 1: You have autonomy
Essay 2: The learning skills you enter with
Essay 3: Post-COVID dialed up autonomy
Essay 4: Resources and their useful use
Essay 5: Practice explanation: Control over when you make errors
Essay 6: Testing: It’s called performance for a reason
Essay 7: Transformational Learning: Resistance is Futile
Essay 8: Grading: Scales are good; curves are bad.