Climate change communication efforts grounded in the information deficit model have largely failed to close the gap between scientific and public understanding of the risks posed by climate change. In response, simulations have been proposed to enable people to learn for themselves about this complex and politically charged topic. Here we assess the impact of a widely-used simulation, World Climate, which combines a socially and emotionally engaging role-play with interactive exploration of climate change science through the C-ROADS climate simulation model. Participants take on the roles of delegates to the UN climate negotiations and are challenged to create an agreement that meets international climate goals. Their decisions are entered into C-ROADS, which provides immediate feedback about expected global climate impacts, enabling them to learn about climate change while experiencing the social dynamics of negotiations. We assess the impact of World Climate by analyzing pre- and post-survey results from >2,000 participants in 39 sessions in eight nations. We find statistically significant gains in three areas: (i) knowledge of climate change causes, dynamics and impacts; (ii) affective engagement including greater feelings of urgency and hope; and (iii) a desire to learn and do more about climate change. Contrary to the deficit model, gains in urgency were associated with gains in participants’ desire to learn more and intent to act, while gains in climate knowledge were not. Gains were just as strong among American participants who oppose government regulation of free markets–a political ideology that has been linked to climate change denial in the US–suggesting the simulation’s potential to reach across political divides. The results indicate that World Climate offers a climate change communication tool that enables people to learn and feel for themselves, which together have the potential to motivate action informed by science.

Supplemental instruction classes have been shown in many studies to enhance performance in the supported courses and even to improve graduation rates. Generally, there has been little evidence of a differential impact on students from different ethnic/racial backgrounds. At San Francisco State University, however, supplemental instruction in the Introductory Biology I class is associated with even more dramatic gains among students from underrepresented minority populations than the gains found among their peers. These gains do not seem to be the product of better students availing themselves of supplemental instruction or other outside factors. The Introductory Biology I class consists of a team-taught lecture component, taught in a large lecture classroom, and a laboratory component where students participate in smaller lab sections. Students are expected to master an understanding of basic concepts, content, and vocabulary in biology as well as gain laboratory investigation skills and experience applying scientific methodology. In this context, supplemental instruction classes are cooperative learning environments where students participate in learning activities that complement the course material, focusing on student misconceptions and difficulties, construction of a scaffolded knowledge base, applications involving problem solving, and articulation of constructs with peers.

Comparisons between participants and non-participants in supplemental instruction classes at San Francisco State University over a six-year period show positive impacts in terms of increased student performance and progression through subsequent courses in a sequence, despite the lower academic indicators of the supplemental instruction participants. More females participated than were represented in the course as a whole, but the effects were greater for males. Effects were particularly striking for students from underrepresented minority groups, particularly in introductory courses.

ChemPrep was developed to be a stand-alone preparatory short-course to help students succeed in general chemistry. It is Web-based and delivered using the OWL system. Students reported that the ChemPrep materials (short information pages, parameterized questions with detailed feedback, tutorials, and answers to questions through the OWL message system) permitted them to work independently without the need for textbook or lecture. On average, students who completed ChemPrep had higher grades in the subsequent GenChem, Nursing, and Honors chemistry courses, with a greater percentage achieving a grade of C- or higher. Participation in ChemPrep was voluntary, and more women than men responded. Students in the Honors course enrolled in ChemPrep in higher percentages than students in GenChem and Nursing. SAT and departmental math placement exam scores were used as proxy measures of prior achievement and ability. Based on these, Honors chemistry ChemPrep users were on par with their peers but performed better in the course than non-users. In GenChem and Nursing chemistry courses, ChemPrep helped students of high prior achievement and ability perform better than their achievement scores would predict. Weaker or less motivated students did not respond to the voluntary offerings of ChemPrep in the same numbers as stronger or more motivated students, and we are seeking alternate ways to reach this population.

This paper examines the impact of supplemental instruction (SI)nonremedial workshops that support regularly scheduled courseson four different chemistry courses: General Chemistry I and II, and Organic Chemistry I and II. Differences in how SI impacts student performance in these courses are discussed, particularly in terms of whether students from underrepresented minority groups are affected differently from their peers. We found that SI appears to be most effective in courses at the beginning of the chemistry sequence and least effective in those in which students have already had to demonstrate effectiveness with the material in order to succeed in the course; its impact on performance in General Chemistry I appears to be quite high compared to a negligible impact in Organic Chemistry II. Impacts appear to be due to SI itself rather than the academic fitness of the students who opt to enroll in it. In the four courses examined, SI did not appear to have a different impact on students from underrepresented minority groups than it did on their peers.