Mental rolodexing: Senior chemistry majors' understanding of chemical and physical properties

Journal of Chemical Education

Volumn 92, Issue 3, 2015, Pages 415-426

  Defever, Ryan S ^a   Bruce, Heather ^a   Bhattacharyya, Gautam ^a,b  

^a CLEMSON UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b MISSOURI STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Chemical Education Research; Constructivism; Molecular Properties Structure; Organic Chemistry; Second Year Undergraduate; Upper Division Undergraduate

Indexed keywords

EID: 84924369481     PISSN: 00219584     EISSN: 19381328     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1021/ed500360g     Document Type: Article

References (31)

1. Strickland, A.; Kraft, A.; Bhattacharyya, G. What happens when representations fail to represent? Graduate students' interpretations of organic chemistry diagrams Chem. Educ. Res. Pract. 2010, 11, 293-301
2. Cooper, M.; Underwood, S.; Hilley, C.; Klymkowsky, M. Development and assessment of a molecular structure and properties learning progression J. Chem. Educ. 2012, 89, 1351-1357
3. Cooper, M.; Underwood, S.; Hilley, C. Development and validation of the implicit information from Lewis structures instrument (IILSI): Do students connect structures with properties? Chem. Educ. Res. Pract. 2012, 13, 195-200
4. Cooper, M.; Corley, L.; Underwood, S. An investigation of college chemistry students' understanding of structure-property relationships J. Res. Sci. Teach. 2013, 50, 699-421
5. Donovan, M.; Bransford, J.; Pelligrino, J. How People Learn: Brain, Mind, Experience, and School, Expanded Ed.; National Academies Press: Washington, D.C., 2000.
6. Singer, S.; Nielsen, N.; Schweingruber, H. Discipline-Based Education Research: Understanding and Improving Learning in Undergraduate Science and Engineering; National Academies Press: Washington, D.C., 2012.
7. Cooper, M. Evidence-based reform of teaching and learning Anal. Bioanal. Chem. 2014, 406, 1-4
8. Sevian, H.; Talanquer, V. Rethinking chemistry: A learning progression on chemical thinking Chem. Educ. Res. Pract. 2014, 15, 10-23
9. Cooper, M.; Klymkowsky, M. Chemistry, Life, the Universe, and Everything: A new approach to general chemistry, and a model for curriculum reform J. Chem. Educ. 2013, 90, 1116-1122
10. Cooper, M.; Klymkowsky, M. The trouble with chemical energy: Why understanding bond energies requires an interdisciplinary systems approach CBE-Life Sci. Educ. 2013, 12, 306-312
11. Bodner, G. Constructivism: A theory of knowledge J. Chem. Educ. 1986, 63, 873-878
12. von Glasersfeld, E. Cognition, construction of knowledge, and teaching Syntheses 1989, 80, 121-140
13. Patton, M. Qualitative Research and Evaluation Methods, 3 rd ed.; Sage: Thousand Oaks, CA, 2003.
14. Vygotsky, L. Thought and Language; MIT Press: Cambridge, MA, 1986.
15. Sullivan, P. Teaching Mathematics: Using Research-Informed Strategies; ACER Press: Camberwell, Australia, 2011.
16. Bruice, P. Organic Chemistry, 6 th ed.; Prentice Hall: Boston, MA, 2011.
17. Henderleiter, J.; Smart, R.; Anderson, J.; Elian, O. How do organic chemistry students understand and apply hydrogen bonding? J. Chem. Educ. 2001, 78, 1126-1130
18. Grove, N.; Bretz, S. Perry's Scheme of Intellectual and Epistemological Development as a framework for describing student difficulties in learning organic chemistry Chem. Educ. Res. Pract. 2010, 11, 207-211
19. Kraft, A.; Strickland, A.; Bhattacharyya, G. Reasonable reasoning: Multi-variate problem-solving in organic chemistry Chem. Educ. Res. Pract. 2010, 11, 281-292
20. Talanquer, V. Students' predictions about the sensory properties of chemical compounds: Additive versus emergent frameworks Sci. Educ. 2008, 92, 96-114
21. Crismond, D.; Adams, R. The informed design teaching and learning matrix J. Eng. Educ. 2012, 101, 738-797
22. Talanquer, V. Commonsense chemistry: A model for understanding students' alternative conceptions J. Chem. Educ. 2006, 83, 811-816
23. Bhattacharyya, G.; Bodner, G. It gets me to the product": How students propose organic mechanisms J. Chem. Educ. 2005, 82, 1402-1407
24. Ferguson, R.; Bodner, G. Making sense of the arrow-pushing formalism among chemistry majors enrolled in organic chemistry Chem. Educ. Res. Pract. 2008, 9, 102-113
25. Grove, N.; Cooper, M.; Rush, K. Decorating with arrows: Toward the development of representational competence in organic chemistry J. Chem. Educ. 2012, 89, 844-849
26. Case, S.; Swanson, D. Constructing Written Test Questions for the Basic and Clinical Sciences, 3 rd ed.; National Board of Medical Examiners: Philadelphia, PA, 2002.
27. Haladyna, T.; Downing, S.; Rodriguez, M. A review of multiple-choice item-writing guidelines for classroom assessment Appl. Meas. Educ. 2002, 15, 309-334
28. Hendrickson, A.; Huff, K.; Luecht, R. Claims, evidence, and achievement-level descriptors as a foundation for item design and test specifications Appl. Meas. Educ. 2010, 23, 358-377
29. Kozma, R.; Russell, J. Multimedia and understanding: Expert and novice responses to different representations of chemical phenomena J. Res. Sci. Teach. 1997, 34, 949-968
30. Kozma, R.; Russell, J. Modelling students becoming chemists: Developing representational competence. In Visualization in Science Education; Gilbert, J., Ed.; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2005; pp 299-332.
31. Schön, D. A. Educating the Reflective Practitioner: Toward a New Design for Teaching and Learning in the Professions; Jossey-Bass: San Francisco, CA, 1987.