No full-text available
To read the full-text of this research,
you can request a copy directly from the author.
A tale of two textbooks
Abstract
MILLIONS OF COLLEGE STUdents have learned general chemistry from "Chemistry: Principles and Properties" by Michell J. Sienko and Robert A. Plane and organic chemistry from the textbook by that name by Robert T. Morrison and Robert N. Boyd. But how many scientists know the stories of these books and their authors? Theirs were among the tales told at a Division of the History of Chemistry symposium on "Landmark Chemistry Books of the 20 th Century" at the recent American Chemical Society national meeting in Washington, D.C. Sienko & Plane was the first modern chemistry text, said James L. Ealy Jr., assistant professor of education at Cedar Crest College, Allentown, Pa., and many modern general chemistry texts still follow its basic format. The text's "straightforward and practical approach to first-year chemistry caused more than a few students to reconsider chemistry as a major," Ealy noted, but "for many of us, this text opened the door to ...
The fundamental structure of a typical mainstream two-semester organic chemistry course, populated mostly by life science majors and taught at universities throughout the United States, has changed little since the 1970s. However, much of the research on learning in organic chemistry has been devoted to characterizing student difficulties of various types, and there is now persuasive evidence that organic chemistry as currently taught is neither effective nor relevant for a majority of students. In an attempt to address the problems with traditional approaches to organic chemistry instruction, we have developed an approach to the design of a transformed organic chemistry course (Organic Chemistry, Life, the Universe and Everything or OCLUE) suitable for the vast majority of organic chemistry students that includes (1) using the Framework of three-dimensional learning (3DL) to support knowledge in use and (2) emphasizing biologically important mechanisms. In this course, topics are connected to core ideas by using scientific practices, such as constructing models and explanations, analyzing and interpreting data, and emphasizing causal mechanistic reasoning. Here we discuss the theory and the decisions that went into the development of the course, including the compromises made and the rationales behind those choices. The outcome is a course that emphasizes causal mechanistic reasoning, has an increased focus on biologically prevalent reactions, and uses spectroscopy early and often to support evidence-based arguments about structure–property relationships. The materials we have developed are freely available to students and to potential users.
This Review of Chemistry Education Research (CER) provides an overview of the development of research in chemistry education from the early days, when ideas about how to teach chemistry and help students learn were guided by practitioner wisdom, to current research that is based on theories of learning and provides evidence from which to make arguments about improving teaching and learning. We introduce the dominant learning theories that have guided CER over the years and attempt to show how they have been integrated into modern research in chemistry education. We also provide examples of how this research can be used to inform the development and use of educational materials. Because CER literature is vast, we chose to limit the research we reviewed to those studies that help us answer three driving questions: (1) What should students know and be able to do with that knowledge? (2) How will we know that students have developed a coherent and useful understanding of chemistry? (3) What evidence do we have about how to help students develop a deep and robust understanding of chemistry?
The traditional textbook model for general chemistry is discussed and reviewed in a historical context. © 2018 American Chemical Society and Division of Chemical Education, Inc.
The 1957 Soviet launch of Sputnik launched the United States on “catch-up” science and mathematics curriculum reform pathways at all educational levels. Two major secondary level projects were the Chemical Education Materials Study and the Chemical Bond Approach. Both involved teams of secondary and tertiary faculty and intended to expose high school students to a modern understanding of chemistry. At the tertiary level, the launch coincided with the publication of Sienko and Plane’s general chemistry text, perhaps the most influential text at this level ever published. It ushered in the era of theory-first presentation that became the norm for general chemistry texts and courses for several decades. An overriding principle of these developments was to get the science right and rigorous, so students would get a good foundation and not have to “unlearn” later. The consequences were a staggering amount of material and effort in the form of textbooks and their supplementary texts (study guides and problem solving guides), topical monographs, audiovisual aids, computer-assisted instruction, redesigned courses, and more, almost all aimed at getting students started on a pathway into the chemical sciences. How did it work out?
During the period of time from Sputnik to the present, phenomenal technological advances have impacted the way chemistry instruction is delivered by instructors, how chemistry is learned by students, and the manner in which student performance is assessed at universities and secondary schools in the United States. These advances were made possible by the availability of relatively inexpensive, high-speed, large-capacity computers. Computer chips have taken us from print media to a digital environment that chemical educators have just begun to exploit. Students, who once came to class with textbook, notebook, and slide-rule in hand to watch a lecture written in chalk on a blackboard with an occasional overhead projector image, now come with laptop computers, tablet computers, and smartphones. In the current classroom environment, chemistry is taught on whiteboards or smartboards, and instructors interact with students using mobile devices. Because of technology, today’s classroom is more interactive and engaging than ever before. In the past written homework might have been periodically graded in a day or so. Today students are doing on-line homework using sophisticated programs that give students immediate feedback that addresses student misconceptions and assigns grades to the homework assignments. Formative assessment of student work that used to wait for the first written exam now occurs daily. These homework programs are now becoming adaptive with each student following a different learning path that is based on continuous assessment of student mastery. In the future, adaptive learning will enable instructors to more successfully deliver chemistry instruction to underprepared students as well as students with enhanced backgrounds.
While the present volume had its origins in a symposium held at the 249th National ACS Meeting in Denver honoring Dwaine Eubanks, the 2015 Pimentel Award recipient, the content has been greatly expanded by each author to include additional material impossible to address in the brief time allotted to each oral paper. This introductory chapter outlines the rationale, background, goals, and coverage of the book. It also gives a brief history of the development of chemistry education, both prior to and following the launch of Sputnik. Since chemistry education is such a broad field, the discussion necessarily addresses the various types of students that study chemistry, both future professionals and general studies students, at the various levels of their education.
A new approach for teaching general chemistry is presented and discussed. Importantly, a storyline approach is provided in which the same chemical item or concept is reintroduced and embellished from chapter to chapter. The intention is to bring more connectivity between the various seemingly unrelated chapters. This might lead to a more interesting “narrative” presentation whose contents could be remembered for longer. “H2O”, “energy quantization”, and “electrons” are considered as three such “main characters”. Parallels with character development in fiction can be made. They are considered throughout all chapters in three standard contemporary general chemistry texts. First, contents regarding the selected “characters” were abstracted for each chapter. Second, the characters were viewed as to how they are connected to generalizations, theories, or laws. This approach, in which each “character” is iteratively discussed in each chapter from different angles depending on the chapter emphasis, while still theoretical, is designed with the intention of helping aid long-term memory of the material.Keywords (Audience): First-Year Undergraduate/General; High School/Introductory Chemistry
ResearchGate has not been able to resolve any references for this publication.