Athens, Ohio -- Many students see their first-year chemistry courses as the "great gatekeeper," the nearly insurmountable mountain that stands between them and their dreams of becoming doctors, pharmacists, veterinarians, or pursuing other scientific endeavors. Two Ohio University chemistry professors are working to change that perception.

"People who teach want to see their students succeed," said Jared Butcher, associate professor of chemistry in the College of Arts and Sciences. "We're not in the business of raining on anyone's parade. We want students to succeed in our courses and follow their dreams, but we also want to make sure that they learn chemistry."

Success in General Chemistry, the yearlong course required of all science majors, is defined as a C minus or better, but the number of students achieving that standard began a precipitous drop in 1992. From 1992 to 1996, the percentage of students who earned a C minus or better in the first term of their freshman years fell from 75 to 53 percent.

Butcher and Lauren McMills, an assistant professor of chemistry, were concerned. The nature and content of the course had not changed significantly during the four-year period and neither had the way the course was taught. In fact, the way that chemistry has been taught had not changed significantly since Isaac Newton wrote out formulas for his students at Cambridge University in the early 1700s.

"It occurred to us that the traditional methods of university teaching -- lecturing and testing - were not working with today's students," Butcher said. "But, with some 600 students in General Chemistry each term and as many as 180 in Organic Chemistry, chances to provide more interaction or individualized instruction seemed remote."

Butcher began experimenting by breaking students into smaller groups that promoted greater interaction and he saw glimmers of improvement in student performance. But, working by himself with only a handful of teaching assistants, the instructors were spread too thin. Then, McMills attended a workshop at the Gordon Conference on Innovations in College Chemistry Teaching where she heard about learning communities.

McMills and Butcher implemented learning communities for General Chemistry and Organic Chemistry with a $5,000 grant from the National Science Foundation and $6,500 from Ohio University's 1804 Fund that was supplemented by the College of Arts and Sciences Dean's Office. The funds were used to pay peer mentors. Round picnic tables where the small groups meet and work in the lobbies of the Clippinger Laboratories Building on campus were provided from industrial support.

"The peer mentor is not a tutor," said McMills.

Peer mentors facilitate group interaction in the process of collectively solving problems. They don't show the group how to solve problems, rather they make sure the group sees different approaches to solving problems, according to McMills.

"They, occasionally, may ask a leading question if the group really gets stuck, but mostly they ask members of the group how and why they arrived at a particular solution and whether there is another way to solve the problem."

Students are not merely memorizing patterns and formulas; they are constructing their own knowledge and developing critical thinking skills, according to McMills.

The program went into effect at the beginning of the 1999-2000 school year and figures compiled by McMills and Butcher indicate it is having a positive affect on student performance. A total of 61 students participated in the learning communities and 76.5 percent achieved grades of C minus or better compared with 69.2 percent of the class as a whole. Even when McMills compared groups of similar students who shared similar backgrounds and preparation for chemistry, she still found that students who participated in the learning communities out-performed those who did not.

Students in Organic Chemistry who participated in learning communities showed similar success. Nearly 90 percent of the learning community students earned a C or better compared to 74 percent in the non-learning community group. They also had a higher percentage of As and Bs and a lower percentage of Ds and Fs.

Learning community students in General Chemistry received fewer As and Bs than non-learning community students, but they also received fewer Ds and Fs. McMills thinks she knows the reason for this. "Students choose to participate in the learning communities; it is not required," McMills said. "Some students come into the course with excellent skills and preparation and they know they don't need the extra help. I think students who elect to join the learning communities in first-year chemistry either are unsure of their abilities or they know they need help. While they may not be A students, with the learning communities they're less likely to be D and F students."

Kristi Fisher, a first-year student who participated in the learning communities agreed. "I do think that it helped me do better in the course and to better understand chemistry," Fisher said. "It helped to show me concepts and gave me practice in solving problems. It was great to work in the small group and get to know people in the class that I could contact if I had questions."

Butcher and McMills both think the learning communities have benefits that go beyond improving student performance. "The learning communities make the prospect of taking a big, college lecture class with a reputation of being tough less intimidating for many students," Butcher said. "It creates a comfortable environment where students can talk and ask questions without feeling silly. And, some students continue to work and study together even after they've completed the class."