Leo Farber, ‘18

May 2016

Sophomores find ourselves thrown into the midst of an intensifying high school curriculum and are made witness to the rising standards of competition and expectation that is fostered by Bard’s vigorous academic environment. During a time when so much is changing so quickly it's hard to find almost any universality across the sea of students that we are, but one needs to look no further than the toil and commitment that is endured by chemistry students to reveal where students fall into a universal category. After mediocre grades in the 10th grade chemistry course across the board for BHSEC’s class of 2017, the chemistry department took the initiative to transform and modernize certain aspects of the course. 

In September, professors began utilizing an online program called OWL for homework assignments, test preparation, and subject review. Through Java and another application called phet., OWL provides an interactive learning system for chemistry students that engages students with all sorts of problems and can also be used to assess their performance in an attempt to solidify previously acquired knowledge and help students feel more confident in their understanding. However, what was meant to be a revolutionary learning support was not taken lightly by students and reviews seem to fall into three conflicting camps, one of opposition, one of neutrality, and one of support. Pearl Cohen, a 10th grade student of Dr. Lofaro belonging to the group in opposition, stated “I think it's a bad way of measuring students capability because OWL work rarely corresponds with the curriculum, is way too time consuming, is often full of material errors and is technologically frustrating. If kids want to get better at what they are doing in chemistry, then they should take time to practice on their own terms.” Despite the beneficial connotations of the program in its ability to act as an online resource for students, many students reported that OWL is extremely frustrating and difficult to properly take advantage of. 

Even still, a large number of students advocated for the continuation of OWL as a part of the 10th grade chemistry curriculum. Colleen McKoy, a 10th grade student of Ms. Gamper, stated “OWL is an organized way of applying the concepts from the textbook into problems that not only tests your knowledge, but also ensures the mastery of the concepts in use by not allowing you to move ahead unless you have done so.” She illuminates the benefits of OWL when used as a study tool to solidify knowledge previously acquired in class and as a means of preparation for exams and quizzes. 

A third group of students reported feeling neutral about OWL. To receive an accurate analysis of the entire grade’s opinion on OWL, the Bardvark, in cooperation with the chemistry professors, issued a survey to 10th grade students regarding their positions on OWL. The survey first explicitly asked whether the respondent was for or against OWL then proceeded to ask five questions regarding the program's impact on understanding content, how seriously OWL assignments are approached, whether the respondent would prefer OWL to a traditional form of homework, the relevancy to class material, and the functionality of the program. The first question divided the total 130 students surveyed into three distinct groups; students in support of OWL, 47 or 36%, neutral students, 55 or 42%, and students against OWL, 28 or 22%. Of the 47 students who were in support of OWL, the survey shows that 87% of students said that OWL bettered their understanding of content, 66% said they’ approach their assignments seriously, 57% said they prefer OWL to traditional homework, and 74% said OWL is consistently relevant with class material. For these four out of the total five questions asked, the majority of those in favor showed positive responses, however the fifth question was an outlier. Only 32% of students said OWL is easy to use, while 36% said it was not. In fact, the fifth question, regarding the programs functionality, was the only question to be answered negatively by the majority of every distinct group. 

As for the largest group of students, the 55 who took a neutral stance on OWL, three questions were answered positively by the majority, while the third and fifth questions were answered negatively. For those neutral on the subject, 64% said OWL bettered their understanding, 62% said they approach their assignments seriously, 36% said they prefer OWL to a traditional form of homework, 51% said OWL is consistently relevant, and 20% said OWL was easy to use compared to 55% who said it was not. 

Of the 28 students, the smallest group, who were opposed to OWL, the majority of students had a neutral stance on the question regarding OWL’s bettering of understanding of content, surprisingly. 36% of students agreed while only 21% disagreed. The second question on approaching assignments seriously was answered evenly. However, the third question regarding preference of OWL over traditional homework, the fourth question about OWL’s consistency with class material, and the fifth question about the functionality of the program were all answered negatively by the majority. 

When looked at more generally, the survey reveals that 86 students said OWL bettered their understanding while 15 said it did not. 76 students said they approach their assignments seriously whereas 18 said they did not, 47 students preferred OWL to traditional homework whereas 48 did not, 72 said OWL is consistent with class material whereas 28 said it is not, and 37 students said the program is easy to function whereas 67 students said it isn’t. This information reveals that OWL is favored by 10th grade students, who report that it is said to be more beneficial than detrimental.

However, this does not remain true when the students are divided into their respective classes and therefore their respective professors. Out of the 47 students who were in favor of OWL, 25 of them, or 53%, were students from Ms. Gamper’s class, while 13, or 28%, were from Dr. Lofaro’s class, and only 9, or 19%, were from Dr. Chaterpaul’s class. Out of the 55 students who chose a neutral stance regarding OWL, they were fairly evenly spread throughout all three professors, with 17, or 30%, in Ms. Gamper’s class, and 19 or 35% in both Dr. Lofaro and Dr. Chaterpaul’s classes. As for those against OWL, out of 28 students, only 4 or 14% of students were from Ms. Gamper’s class, while 12, or 43% of opposed students were in both Dr. Lofaro and Dr. Chaterpaul’s classes. What this information illustrates is that Ms. Gamper’s students make up the majority of those in favor of OWL while Dr. Lofaro and Dr. Chaterpaul’s classes together make up the majority of those against OWL. Despite this however, there is significant data for all three classes that shows significant improvement in student performance between the Fall 2014 and Fall 2015 semesters.

Although OWL may be tiring and at times a lot of work, how each teacher chooses to use OWL in their classes is up to their professional judgement and assesses the needs of their student. The fact that the survey exemplifies a large portion of students who are opposed to the specific implementations of OWL reflects a need for more communication between students and their professors. Healthy communications can create a balance which will end up benefiting both the student and the teacher.