Are Noncovalent Interactions an Achilles Heel in Chemistry Education? A Comparison of Instructional Approaches

Journal of Chemical Education

Volumn 92, Issue 12, 2015, Pages 1979-1987

  Williams, Leah C ^a   Underwood, Sonia M ^a   Klymkowsky, Michael W ^b   Cooper, Melanie M ^a  

^a MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO   (United States)

Author keywords

Chemical Education Research; First Year Undergraduate General; Hydrogen Bonding; Noncovalent Interactions; Second Year Undergraduate

Indexed keywords

EID: 84949035995     PISSN: 00219584     EISSN: 19381328     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1021/acs.jchemed.5b00619     Document Type: Article

References (32)

1. Cooper, M. M.; Corley, L. M.; Underwood, S. M. An investigation of college chemistry students' understanding of structure-property relationships J. Res. Sci. Teach. 2013, 50, 699-721 10.1002/tea.21093
2. Cooper, M. M.; Williams, L. C.; Underwood, S. M. Student understanding of intermolecular forces: A multimodal study J. Chem. Educ. 2015, 92, 1288 10.1021/acs.jchemed.5b00169
3. Peterson, R. F.; Treagust, D. F.; Garnett, P. Development and application of a diagnostic instrument to evaluate grade-11 and -12 students' concepts of covalent bonding and structure following a course of instruction J. Res. Sci. Teach. 1989, 26, 301-314 10.1002/tea.3660260404
4. Goh, N. K.; Khoo, L. E.; Chia, L. S. Some misconceptions in chemistry: A cross-cultural comparison, and implications for teaching Aust. Sci. Teach. J. 1993, 39 (3) 65-68
5. Schmidt, H.-J.; Kaufmann, B.; Treagust, D. F. Students' understanding of boiling points and intermolecular forces Chem. Educ. Res. Pract. 2009, 10, 265-272 10.1039/B920829C
6. Henderleiter, J.; Smart, R.; Anderson, J.; Elian, O. How do organic chemistry students understand and apply hydrogen bonding? J. Chem. Educ. 2001, 78 (8) 1126-1130 10.1021/ed078p1126
7. Villafañe, S. M.; Bailey, C. P.; Loertscher, J.; Minderhout, V.; Lewis, J. E. Development and analysis of an instrument to assess student understanding of foundational concepts before biochemistry coursework Biochem. Mol. Biol. Educ. 2011, 39, 102-109 10.1002/bmb.20464
8. Tarhan, L.; Ayar-Kayali, H.; Urek, R. O.; Acar, B. Problem-based learning in 9th grade chemistry class: "intermolecular forces. Res. Sci. Educ. 2008, 38, 285-300 10.1007/s11165-007-9050-0
9. Bryfczynski, S. P. BeSocratic: An intelligent tutoring system for the recognition, evaluation, and analysis of free-form student input. Doctoral Dissertation, Clemson University, 2012.
10. Cooper, M. M.; Underwood, S. M.; Bryfczynski, S. P.; Klymkowsky, M. W. A short history of the use of technology to model and analyze student data for teaching and research. In Tools of Chemistry Education Research; Cole, R.; Bunce, D., Eds.; ACS Symposium Series 1166; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2014; pp 219-239.
11. American Chemical Society Examinations Institute http://chemexams.chem.iastate.edu/ (accessed Jan 2015).
12. Barker, V.; Millar, R. Students' reasoning about basic chemical thermodynamics and chemical bonding: What changes occur during a context-based post-16 chemistry course? Int. J. Sci. Educ. 2000, 22, 1171-1200 10.1080/09500690050166742
13. Bodner, G. M. I have found you an argument: The conceptual knowledge of beginning chemistry graduate students J. Chem. Educ. 1991, 68 (5) 385-388 10.1021/ed068p385
14. Grove, N. P.; Cooper, M. M.; Rush, K. M. Decorating with arrows: Toward the development of representational competence in organic chemistry J. Chem. Educ. 2012, 89, 844-849 10.1021/ed2003934
15. Bhattacharyya, G.; Bodner, G. M. It gets me to the product": How students propose organic mechanisms J. Chem. Educ. 2005, 82 (9) 1402 10.1021/ed082p1402
16. Bhattacharyya, G. Trials and tribulations: student approaches and difficulties with proposing mechanisms using the electron-pushing formalism Chem. Educ. Res. Pract. 2014, 15, 594 10.1039/C3RP00127J
17. Ferguson, F.; Bodner, G. M. Making sense of the arrow-pushing formalism among chemistry majors enrolled in organic chemistry Chem. Educ. Res. Pract. 2008, 9 (2) 102-113 10.1039/B806225K
18. Klymkowsky, M. W.; Underwood, S. M.; Garvin-Doxas, R. K. Biological Concepts Instrument (BCI): A diagnostic tool for revealing student thinking. 2010, arXiv:1012.4501. http://arxiv.org/abs/1012.4501.
19. Cooper, M. M.; Grove, N.; Underwood, S. M.; Klymkowsky, M. W. Lost in Lewis structures: An investigation of student difficulties in developing representational competence J. Chem. Educ. 2010, 87, 869-874 10.1021/ed900004y
20. Cooper, M. M.; Underwood, S. M.; Hilley, C. Z.; Klymkowsky, M. W. Development and assessment of a molecular structure and properties learning progression J. Chem. Educ. 2012, 89, 1351-1357 10.1021/ed300083a
21. Cooper, M. M.; Underwood, S. M.; Hilley, C. Z. 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 10.1039/C2RP00010E
22. Underwood, S. M.; Reyes-Gastelum, D.; Cooper, M. M. Answering the questions of whether and when student learning occurs: Using discrete-time survival analysis to investigate how college chemistry students' understanding of structure-property relationships evolves Sci. Educ. 2015, 10.1002/sce.21183
23. Cooper, M. M.; Klymkowsky, M. W. 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 10.1021/ed300456y
24. National Research Council. A framework for K-12 Science Education: Practices, Crosscutting Concepts, And Core Ideas; National Academies Press: Washington, DC, 2012.
25. Campbell, D. T.; Stanley, J. C.; Gage, N. L. Experimental and Quasi-Experimental Designs for Research; Houghton Mifflin: Boston, MA, 1963.
26. Schmidt, M. The Sankey diagram in energy and material flow management: Part 1: History J. Ind. Ecol. 2008, 12 (1) 82-94 10.1111/j.1530-9290.2008.00004.x
27. Schmidt, M. The Sankey diagram in energy and material flow management: Part 2: Methodology and current applications J. Ind. Ecol. 2008, 12 (2) 173-185 10.1111/j.1530-9290.2008.00015.x
28. National Research Council. Discipline-Based Education Research: Understanding and Improving Learning in Undergraduate Science and Engineering; Singer, S. R; Nielson, N. R.; Schweingruber, H. A., Eds.; National Academies Press: Washington, DC, 2012.
29. Maeyer, J.; Talanquer, V. The role of intuitive heuristics in students' thinking: Ranking chemical substances Sci. Educ. 2010, 94, 963-984 10.1002/sce.20397
30. McClary, L.; Talanquer, V. College chemistry students' mental models of acids and acid strength J. Res. Sci. Teach. 2011, 48 (4) 396-413 10.1002/tea.20407
31. Taber, K. S. College students' conceptions of chemical stability: The widespread adoption of a heuristic rule out of context and beyond its range of application Int. J. Sci. Educ. 2009, 31 (10) 1333-1358 10.1080/09500690801975594
32. Lee, H. S.; Liu, O. L.; Linn, M. C. Validating measurement of knowledge integration in science using multiple-choice and explanation items Appl. Meas. Educ. 2011, 24 (2) 115-136 10.1080/08957347.2011.554604