Incorporating More Individual
Accountability in Group Activities
in General Chemistry
By Charles T. Cox, Jr.
A modified model of cooperative
learning known as the GIG model
(for group-individual-group)
designed and implemented in a
large enrollment freshman chemistry
course. The goal of the model is to
establish a cooperative environment
while emphasizing greater individual
accountability using both group
and individual assignments. The
assignments were designed to be
parallel to each other, assessing
similar qualitative and quantitative
aspects of chemistry. The model
was designed for implementation in
recitation sections led by teaching
assistants. A statistical difference
between the treatment group and
the control groups was observed,
with the GIG group performing
statistically higher on the exams.
Furthermore, when compared
with the traditional passive
recitation, students reported a
greater satisfaction with the GIG
model in the final course survey.
The success of the model helped
provide support in the department
for further innovation of inquiry
and active learning methodologies
and development of the chemistry
curriculum.
30 Journal of College Science Teaching
T
he use of small group learn-
ing for STEM (science,
technology, engineering,
and mathematics) classes
has been widely researched over
the past 20 years (Bowen, 2000;
Bradley, Ulrich, Jones, & Jones,
2002; Cooper, Cox, Namouz, &
Case, 2008; Qin, Johnson, & John-
son, 1995). The methods of col-
laborative and cooperative group-
ing are becoming more common
in STEM classrooms. Unlike col-
laborative grouping, cooperative
grouping is generally long term
and often more formal, and stu-
dents have specific roles such as re-
cord keeper, team leader, assistant
team leader, and team counselor
(Cooper, 2005; Johnson, Johnson,
& Smith, 1991). The nature of
cooperative groups is to promote
positive interdependence that
makes students perceive that tasks
can only be completed if everyone
works as a group. Positive interde-
pendence emphasizes the impor-
tance of face-to-face interactions,
individual accountability, and in-
terpersonal skills (Cooper, 2005).
The goal of this project was to in-
corporate a model that uses coop-
erative learning while emphasizing
individual accountability through
connected assignments.
Two noteworthy meta-analyses
provide comprehensive evidence
of the effectiveness of collabora-
tive and cooperative grouping in the
classroom. A meta-analysis includ-
ing 39 studies since 1980 directly re-
lated to STEM courses was detailed
by Springer and colleagues (Qin et
al., 1995). The analysis reported
higher achievement (d = +0.51),
better student attitude (d = +0.55),
and a stronger persistence in STEM
courses (d = +0.46) using small
group learning or cooperative type
approaches. Bowen (2000) com-
pleted a similar study; however, this
study was chemistry specific and
included 49 studies with over 3,500
students enrolled in high school to
upper level (analytical chemistry)
college chemistry courses (Bowen,
2000). An effect size of d = +0.51
was observed for this study, again il-
lustrating the usefulness of coopera-
tive and collaborative groups. Only
five of the 49 studies demonstrated
a negative effect for cooperative
learning.
The effectiveness of these groups
arises from their ability not only
to promote metacognition (self-
reflection; Cooper, 2005; Rickey &
Stacy, 2000), but also to introduce
cognitive dissonance (Niaz, 1995).
Metacognition occurs when work-
ing in groups because students have
to think about and often defend their
strategies with other individuals.
Students cannot give up on concepts
and problems that pose difficulty as
easily as they might when working
alone. Cognitive dissonance (the
process in which students realize
they have alternate conceptions) of-
ten occurs while working in groups,
which forces students to confront
alternate conceptions; this is often

difficult, but the group environment
is often suitable for confronting and
correcting alternate conceptions
(Cooper, 2005; Cooper et al., 2008).
Not much research has been
done on the effects of gender as a
function of collaborative and coop-
erative grouping. Cooper reported
that no significant difference was
observed for males in competitive
and cooperative sections; however,
increased retention was observed for
females in the cooperative sections
(Cooper et al., 2008). Felder, Felder,
Mauney, Hamrin, and Dietz (1995)
reported observations that females
in chemical engineering generally
enter the program with the same
background as males, but during
their study, their performance of-
ten declines (Felder, 1995). Felder
discussed how cooperative learning
can be used to boost the perfor-
mance of females to stop the level-
ing effect in chemical engineering
courses. In particular, Felder noted
that most engineering courses at one
point emphasized individual work,
but following the implementation of
cooperative learning using in-class
activities and group homework,
female satisfaction with the courses
increased. Five chemical engineer-
ing courses were included in the
studynone of which demonstrated
a statistical difference in the average
mark between males and females at
the 95% confidence level. Given the
relatively small body of data col-
lected regarding gender differences
in cooperative learning, a secondary
component of this research study
was to analyze whether gender dif-
ferences are observed with regard
to problem solving or retention. It
was hypothesized that gender dif-
ferences would emerge in this study
given the prior findings with regard
to cooperative learning and gender.
A secondary goal of this research
was to address whether, as with
previous studies, gender differences
would emerge in the cooperative
Incorporating More Individual Accountability
environment implemented.
One of the issues with small
group learning is ensuring that all
students are actively participating.
This is known as the hitchhiker
problem (Cooper, 2005). One of the
solutions proposed is to weigh group
assignments less, but this does not
maximize the learning possibilities.
Therefore, the goal of this research
report is to address a variant of
cooperative learning that requires
students to complete both group and
individual components. The design
of the model and its implementa-
tion, including teaching assistant
(TA) training, is discussed. The
effect of this variant on problem-
solving skills and exam perfor-
mance is carefully considered. The
research project was implemented
at a large engineering institution
in the southeast and was approved
by the Institutional Review Board
(H08047). Data discussed in this
report includes only students who
consented to having their scores
included in the analyses.
Design
Format
Weekly recitation materials were
developed that included a lecture
summary as well as individual
and group problems. The lecture
summary was designed to reiter-
ate key concepts while providing
important formulae and worked
examples. The rationale for pro-
viding this summary was to pro-
mote a complete packet with all
relevant information condensed in
one location. The average lecture
summary was approximately five
pages including the worked ex-
amples.
The problems were designed to
include the microscopic, macro-
scopic, and symbolic representa-
tions of chemistry and, therefore,
included both conceptual and math-
ematical problems for each topic.
Group and individual problems were
written to minimize the use of rote
memory or algorithms to promote
problem-solving skills.
TA training
TAs received training on how to
implement small group learning
specifically, they were instructed on
how to promote active learning and
how to approach student questions
without directly giving out answers
to problems. During training, em-
phasis was placed on ensuring that
students remained on task during
the section. Example interactions
with students were provided to the
TAs during the discussions.
Recitation format
The recitation section had an aver-
age enrollment of 22 students who
were divided into groups of three
or four. Although students were
instructed to work with their spe-
cific group, which was assigned by
the TA, groups were encouraged to
communicate with other groups as
well as with the TA. The recitation
sections were entirely group driv-
en, with the first 1015 minutes be-
ing devoted to the discussion of a
mandatory homework assignment
and the remaining 35 minutes be-
ing devoted to the discussion and
completion of new problems. The
basis for the individual problems
was to provide students with a self-
assessment of their understand-
ing after the group activity. These
problems also served to promote
greater individual accountability,
thereby in part eliminating some
of the hitchhiker issues often
attributed to group activities. The
following recitation section started
with a discussion of the individu-
al problems as a group. Students
were given the option of changing
their answers during this discus-
sion. This follow-up discussion
was implemented to provide one
last opportunity in a group setting
for cognitive dissonance (Niaz,
Vol. 44, No. 3, 2015 31

FIGURE 1
The organization of the recitation using the GIG
(group-individual-group) model.
1995). Problems that the students
completed individually were then
collected, and one or two problems
in the set were graded for correct-
ness. The TAs would assess the
correctness of the individual work
(through the one or two problems
assessed and re-
turn the graded
assignments dur-
ing the following
recitation.
To attend reci-
tation, students
must have at least
attempted all of
the individual
problems. When
they arrived at
recitation, stu-
dents would place
their completed
assignments on
their tables for the TAs to quickly
scan for completion. We strongly
emphasized that the success of the
model depended on this individual
assignment. During the first 1015
minutes of recitation, students had
the opportunity to modify their
responses before submitting their
answers as a result of the group dis-
cussion; therefore, group members
who spent more time preparing their
individual responses contributed
more significantly to the discussions
and the success of the group.
The individual assignment was
required, and this does promote
individual accountability; how-
ever, motivating factors other than
grades were identified. In informal
discussions, students noted that peer
pressure was a secondary contribu-
tor to their motivation to come to
class prepared. Students felt that
they needed to sufficiently prepare
to more significantly aid in the
discussion and enable their group
to achieve the best possible grade.
Other studies have also shown that
peer pressure has been a significant
motivator (LeJune, 2003).

TABLE 1
A breakdown by time of the activities in a GIG (group-individual-group) recitation.

Activity Time Goals Additional information

Group 1015 Conclude the discussion of a topic Individual problems were

discussion minutes submitted to the TAs after
of individual Provide students with the opportunity to discuss their the discussion.
problems individual work before submission.

Group problems 3540 Orient students with the types of problems and TAs usually provided
(on the new minutes associated concepts for a new topic. feedback regarding
topic) progress at the end of
Provide students with a self-assessment of their the section. The use of
understanding in comparison to their peers. immediate feedback was
Promote problem solving in a group environment with emphasized.
support from a graduate TA.

Individual Homework Provide students with self-assessment outside of the Students were instructed
problems (from group environment. to try to complete the
the new topic) problems individually;
Promote individual accountability. however, office hours and
tutoring support were
available.

Lecture activities 2.5 hours Continue to reinforce what was covered in the recitation.
each week
Provide additional examples and additional context for
the problems.

Note: TA = teaching assistant.

32 Journal of College Science Teaching


After the discussion of the indi-
vidual problems was completed, a
new packet consisting of the sum-
mary and problems was provided.
The remaining time (35 minutes)
was designed for working and
discussing the new set of problems
related to the most recent class
lectures. TAs had whiteboards
available to assist and facilitate the
problem-solving session as neces-
sary. The model was called the GIG
model for group-individual-group
to define the order of activities that
take place during recitation Figure 1.
The first week of the semester, stu-
dents started with a group activity
during recitation, and an individual
assignment to be completed by the
second week was then given. Fol-
lowing the group discussion of the
individual problems, a second set of
group problems was assigned. This
continuity continued throughout
the semester until the final week,
which consisted of only a group
assignment without an individual
component. Given that we started
with a group assignment, then intro-
duced an individual assignment, and
concluded with a group discussion,
we called this approach the GIG
model for group-individual-group to
define the progression of problem-
solving activities. Table 1 provides
a complete summary of the standard
activities in a 50-minute session.
Figure 2 shows some example items
covering acid-base chemistry and
buffers, respectively.
Results and discussion
The GIG model was implemented
for a 2-year period at a major re-
search institution in the southeast.
During the implementation, the
principal investigator (PI) was
teaching the course and imple-
menting this approach only in his
section. Different approaches were
used during this period. The first
approach required all students to
attend the recitation sessions and
Incorporating More Individual Accountability
FIGURE 2
Example items covering acid-base chemistry and buffers.
ACIDBASE ACTIVITY
Group problems
1. Explain the following trends:
a. H2Te is a stronger acid than H2Se.
b. HCl is a stronger acid than H2S.
c. HOCl is a stronger acid than HOBr.
2. Calculate the pH and percent ionization of the following solutions:
a. 0.1 M NaF
b. 0.1 M NH4Cl
c. 0.1 M NH4C2H3O2
Individual problems
1. Explain the following trends:
a. Methyl amine is a stronger base than pyridine.
b. Methoxide is a stronger base than acetate.
2. What concentration of HF is required to have the same pH as 0.044 M HCl?
BUFFERS ACTIVITY
Group problems
1. Using 0.8 M acetic acid and sodium hydroxide (pellet form), explain how we can
prepare a 1 L buffer with a pH of 5.1. Assume we have 1 L of acetic acid initially and
the addition of sodium hydroxide does not sufficiently change the volume.
2. Using the buffer prepared in item 1, explain qualitatively what happens to the
concentration of all species in solution if HCl is added? If NaOH is added? What is
the buffer capacity?
Individual problems
1. Using sodium acetate (powder form) and 1.0 M HCl, prepare a 1 L buffer with a pH
of 4.6. Assume we have 1 L of HCl and the addition of sodium acetate does not
sufficiently change the volume.
2. Using the buffer prepared in item 1, calculate the change in pH if we add 25 mL of
0.1 M NaOH. Show all work.
participate. Five percent credit was was getting students to participate.
incorporated into the final grade A few students felt that group work
for recitation participation. Stu- would hinder their performance
dents were given a grade of 03 and did not want to risk having
for their participation during the their grade negatively impacted
session and a grade of 03 for the from collaboration. Other students
final written individual homework who were weaker in the course ma-
they submitted following the group terial were embarrassed because
discussion. A grade of 3 for partici- of their difficulties in grasping
pation was assigned to indicate that the concepts and would not share
students actively participated and ideas. Therefore, the participation
communicated with other members mark was designed to motivate
of the group. One of the challenges participation and communication
Vol. 44, No. 3, 2015 33
 among all group members. Table 2
illustrates the guidelines that were
provided to the TAs to use in as-
sessing students participation
marks. The agree column denoted
over 75% correct, neutral column
TABLE 2
The TA assessment form for student participation.
Actively participates with other group
members in the completion of the group
assignments and in the discussion of the
individual assignments.
Comes to recitation prepared with the
individual assignment completed.
Assignments (individual and group) are
completed with reasonable accuracy
and above-average understanding is
demonstrated.
Stays on topic during the recitation and
focuses upon completing the required
assignments.
Demonstrates a positive attitude toward
group members and the recitation leader.
FIGURE 3
A comparison of the control and treatment groups for spring 2009.
34 Journal of College Science Teaching
denoted 50% to 74% correct, and
disagree column denoted less than
50% correct. The remaining items
in the rubric were at the discretion
of the TA, but TAs were instruct-
ed to make notes of why students
Agree Neutral Disagree
would receive marks in the neutral
or disagree column.
The GIG section was only offered
initially with the PI of the project,
and traditional passive recitation sec-
tions were used for the other sections
of general chemistry. A control group
was not established because common
exams were not used across these
sections. However, a final course
survey was implemented to gauge
student responses to specific aspects
of the course using a scale from 15,
with 1 being strongly ineffective and
5 being strongly effective. A subset
of items with responses is shown in
Table 3 (spring 2008) and Table 4
(fall 2008). Notably a statistical dif-
ference (p < 0.01) using analysis of
variance (ANOVA) was observed for
both semesters for the first two items
related to the recitation and problem-
solving abilities. Furthermore, a
statistical difference (p < 0.01) was
observed for textbook use between
the GIG and the traditional section.
Given that problem solving is
perhaps one of the most important
skills in general chemistry, stu-
dents perceived increase
in problem-solving ability
is a notable finding. Also,
students in the GIG sec-
tion were given supple-
mental problems and in-
formation that contributes
to the decreased use of the
textbook. The grade dis-
tributions for the GIG and
traditional sections were
similar; however, stan-
dardized requirements set
the number of A, B, and C
marks each semester.
Given the progress of
the study on the basis of
data collected in the fall
of 2008, the study was
continued in the spring
semester. Given the lower
enrollment of 252 stu-
dents in the spring versus
1,200 in the fall, the PI
 Incorporating More Individual Accountability

taught both sections. Initially, a tradi-

TABLE 3
tional and GIG section were planned
to be offered separately; however, Student responses from an end-of-semester evaluation (spring 2008).
because of consistency issues, this
was not approved. Therefore, a varia- GIG
sections Traditional
tion of the GIG recitation model was Survey item (N = 101) (N = 85)
offered to provide consistency. In the
spring, to measure an effect, students Recitation improved my understanding in the 3.7 3.16
were given the opportunity to attend course.*
recitation. The recitation materials
were made available; however, the My problem solving skills were improved 3.9 3.3
formal requirement in the grading during this course.*
for recitation was not put in place.
This course enabled me to discover some of 4.0 3.8
The grade was determined by exams the ideas of chemistry for myself.*
and the American Chemical Society
standardized final, which was curved The course textbook improved my 2.95 3.6
according to the national average. Al- understanding of chemistry.*
though, the data comparing students
who did and who did not attend recita- Online homework helped facilitate my 3.7 3.35
understanding.
tion served as a basis for comparing
problem-solving abilities, the partici- The laboratory increased my understanding of 3.47 3.39
pation in the recitation was voluntary. chemistry.
A true control and treatment group
was not completely established given Note: GIG = group-individual-group.
the voluntary nature of recitation. *A statistical difference at a 95% confidence level was observed.
The exams in the course were
a mixture of multiple-choice and
free-response items. The exams were TABLE 4
designed to require problem solving
Student responses from an end-of-semester evaluation (fall 2008).
in lieu of rote memory. The data,
shown in Figure 3, was analyzed with
GIG
ANOVA, and a statistical difference sections Traditional
using a 99% confidence interval was Survey item (N = 138) (N = 329)
observed for all four exams and the
final. Only students who participated Recitation improved my understanding in the 3.82 3.54
in 11 of the 14 recitation sections course.*
were included in the treatment group.
My problem solving skills were improved 4.20 3.72
Of the students enrolled, 143 partici- during this course.*
pated in the GIG recitation and 109
opted out. No statistical differences This course enabled me to discover some of the 4.20 3.46
were observed in regard to the math ideas of chemistry for myself.*
SAT between the control and treat-
ment groups on a 95% confidence The course textbook improved my 3.09 3.52
understanding of chemistry.*
interval. Furthermore, it is assumed
that students have a similar back-
Online homework helped facilitate my 3.71 3.56
ground and similar majors given their understanding.
admission to the university.
Because of reported statistical The laboratory increased my understanding of 3.50 3.42
differences in males and females fol- chemistry.
lowing cooperative learning activi-
ties, analyses included a comparison Note: GIG = group-individual-group.
of gender. Using ANOVA, statistical *A statistical difference at a 95% confidence level was observed.
differences were not observed for

Vol. 44, No. 3, 2015 35

Incorporating More Individual Accountability
males and females in the treatment
group. This is counter to other find-
ings in education literature (Cooper
et al., 2008) and observations in
separate studies by the PI, which
indicate that females tend to do bet-
ter in a collaborative or cooperative
learning environment than males.
One possible explanation for this
observation is linked to the fact that
only 20% of the class was female
and 80% was male. Furthermore,
most cooperative environments are
designed to focus entirely on group
activities without an individual
component. Given the variant of the
GIG model, it is possible that the
individual assignment closed the
gender gap in cooperative learning.
This topic is currently being explored
in a new research study.
Conclusion
The GIG model provides structure
for the TAs to follow, and by design,
consistency was established in the
recitation sections. In the traditional
model, TAs were allowed to develop
their own lessons, which promote
instructional inconsistencies. More-
over, in traditional sections, students
who learn better by doing are not ad-
dressed. In the GIG model, the les-
son script includes a summary of the
pertinent concepts, examples, and
new problems to work as a group.
The individual problems are pro-
vided only after the group section.
The TAs followed the lesson to pro-
mote consistency in teaching and
provide guidance during recitations.
TA meetings consisted of attempting
to pinpoint areas that may pose dif-
ficulties for students and developing
guiding questions to promote dis-
cussion without directly telling stu-
dents answers. The use of the GIG
model promoted student satisfaction
because there was no need to iden-
tify, during registration, the TA who
provides the best script and lesson.
The most challenging aspect of us-
ing this model was trying to overcome
36 Journal of College Science Teaching
preconceived notions from faculty
and TAs. Several faculty were reluc-
tant to move away from the traditional
model and believed that the model
would only work with extensive TA
meetings and observations. TAs were
also reluctant because they felt that
passive instruction is more conducive
to learning. Some TAs wanted to teach
and not guide. Continual reinforce-
ment of the ideas of the model with
these TAs helped thwart some of the
resentment of the model. After two
semesters, the data was sufficient to
convince most faculty and TAs of the
merits of the model. Furthermore, TA
meetings were more efficient and on
task, and the materials were refined
and needed only minor revisions.
The goal of the project was to
provide a variation of collaborative
learning, which emphasizes individ-
ual accountability. A new research
model is being developed that fur-
ther assesses this role and includes
the use of peer review for individual
assignments. The GIG model was
designed to provide consistency in
recitation while promoting problem
solving, individual accountability,
and a better understanding of con-
cepts. According to the preliminary
data, the model was successful in
promoting these aspects in the gen-
eral chemistry classroom.
Acknowledgment
I thank my colleague Heidi Vollmer-
Snarr for her support and advice for this
project.
References
Bowen, C. W. (2000). A quantitative
literature review of cooperative
learning effects on high school and
college chemistry achievement.
Journal of Chemical Education, 77,
116119.
Bradley, A. Z., Ulrich, S. M., Jones, Jr.,
M., & Jones, S. M. (2002). Teaching
the sophomore organic course without
a lecture. Are you crazy? Journal of
Chemical Education, 79, 514519.
Cooper, M. M. (2005). An introduction to
small-group learning. In N. J. Pienta,
M. M. Cooper, & T. J. Greenbowe
(Eds.), Chemists guide to effective
teaching (pp. 117128). Upper Saddle
River, NJ: Pearson.
Cooper, M. M., Cox, C. T., Jr., Namouz,
M., & Case, E. (2008). An assessment
on the effect of collaborative groups
on students problem-solving strategies
and abilities. Journal of Chemical
Education, 85, 866872.
Felder, R. M. (1995). A longitudinal study
of engineering student performance
and retention. IV. Instructional methods
and student responses to them. Journal
of Engineering Education, 84, 361
367.
Felder, R. M., Felder, G. N., Mauney,
M., Hamrin, Jr., C. E., & Dietz, E.
J. (1995). A longitudinal study of
engineering student performance and
retention. III. Gender differences in
student performance and attitudes.
Journal of Engineering Education, 84,
151163.
Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T., &
Smith, K. A. (1991). Active learning:
Cooperation in the college classroom.
Edina, MN: Interaction Book
Company.
LeJeune, N. (2003). Critical components
for successful collaborative learning in
CS1. Journal of Computing Sciences in
Colleges, 19, 275285.
Niaz, M. (1995). Cognitive conflict as a
teaching strategy in solving chemistry
problems: A dialecticconstructivist
perspective. Journal of Research in
Science Teaching, 32, 959970.
Qin, Z., Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T.
(1995). Cooperative versus competitive
efforts and problem-solving Review of
Educational Research, 65, 129143.
Rickey, D., & Stacy, A. M. (2000). The
role of metacognition in learning
chemistry. Journal of Chemical
Education, 77, 915920.
Charles T. Cox, Jr. (ctcox@stanford.
edu) is a lecturer in the Chemistry De-
partment at Stanford University in Stan-
ford, California.
Copyright of Journal of College Science Teaching is the property of National Science
Teachers Association and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted
to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may
print, download, or email articles for individual use.