Student recognition and construction of quality chemistry essay responses

Chemistry Education Research and Practice

Volumn 7, Issue 3, 2006, Pages 160-169

  Bunce, Diane M ^a   Vandenplas, Jessica R ^a  

^a CATHOLIC UNIVERSITY OF AMERICA   (United States)

Author keywords

Assessment; Cognitive load; Essay questions; Open ended questions; Research methodology

Indexed keywords

EID: 33748548997     PISSN: 11094028     EISSN: 11094028     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1039/B6RP90007K     Document Type: Article

References (13)

1. Abraham M.R, Gryzbowski E.B, Renner, J.W. and Marek E.A, (1992), Understandings and misunderstandings of eighth graders of five chemistry concepts found in textbooks, Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29, 105-120.
2. Bodner G, (1991), I have found you an argument: the conceptual knowledge of beginning chemistry graduate students, Journal of Chemical Education, 68, 385-388.
3. Cavallo A.M.L, McNeely J.C. and Marek E.A, (2003), Eliciting students' understandings of chemical reactions using two forms of essay questions during a learning cycle, International Journal of Science Education, 25, 583-603.
4. Danili E. and Reid N, (2005), Assessment formats: do they make a difference?, Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 6, 204-212.
5. Kovac J. and Sherwood D.W, (1999), Writing in chemistry: an effective learning tool, Journal of Chemical Education, 76, 1399-1403.
6. Moore J.W, (1997), Assessment, achievement, and understanding, Journal of Chemical Education, 74, 477.
7. Novak, J.D. and Gowin, D.B, (1984), Learning how to learn, New York, Cambridge University Press.
8. Oliver-Hoyo M.T, Allen D, Hunt W.F, Hutson J. and Pitts A, (2004), Effects of an active learning environment: teaching innovations at a research I institution, Journal of Chemical Education, 81, 441-448.
9. Roadrangka V, Yeany R.H. and Padilla M.J, (1982), Group assessment of logical thinking, University of Georgia.
10. Russell A.A, (2004), Calibrated peer review: a writing and critical-thinking instructional tool. In S. Cunningham and Y.S. George (Eds.), Invention and impact: building excellence in undergraduate science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) education. Washington, DC, American Association for the Advancement of Science.
11. Sweller J, (1994), Cognitive load theory, learning difficulty and instructional design, Learning and Instruction, 4, 295-312.
12. Velleman P.F. and Wilkinson, L, (1993), Nominal, ordinal, interval, and ratio typologies are misleading, The American Statistician, 47, 65-72.
13. Wandesee J.H, Mintzes J. and Novak J.D, (1994), Research on alternative conceptions in science, in D. Gabel (Ed.), Handbook of research on science teaching and learning (pp. 177-210), New York, Macmillan.