When do students recognize relationships between molecular structure and properties? A longitudinal comparison of the impact of traditional and transformed curricula

Chemistry Education Research and Practice

Volumn 17, Issue 2, 2016, Pages 365-380

  Underwood, Sonia M ^a   Reyes Gastelum, David ^b   Cooper, Melanie M ^b  

^a FLORIDA INTERNATIONAL UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 85016392690     PISSN: None     EISSN: 11094028     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1039/c5rp00217f     Document Type: Article

References (40)

1. Agresti A. and Finley B., (1979), Statistical Methods for the Social Sciences, San Francisco: Dellen Publishing Company
2. Allison P. D., (2010), Survival Analysis Using SAS: A Practical Guide, Cary, NC: SAS Institute
3. Bauer C. F., (2008), Attitude toward chemistry: a semantic differential instrument for assessing curriculum impacts, J. Chem. Educ., 85, 1440
4. Bowers A. J., (2010), Grades and graduation: a longitudinal risk perspective to identify student dropouts, J. Educ. Res., 103, 191-207
5. Brandriet A. R., Xu X., Bretz S. L. and Lewis J. E., (2011), Diagnosing changes in attitude in first-year college chemistry students with a shortened version of Bauer's semantic differential, Chem. Educ. Res. Pract., 12, 271-278
6. Bryfczynski S. P., (2012), BeSocratic: an intelligent tutoring system for the recognition, evaluation, and analysis of free-form student input, Doctoral dissertation, Clemson University
7. Cohen J., (1988), Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences, 2nd edn, Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates
8. Cooper M. M. and Klymkowsky M. W., (2013), Chemistry, life, the universe and everything: a new approach to general chemistry, and a model for curriculum reform, J. Chem. Educ., 90, 1116-1122
9. Cooper M. M. and Sandi-Urena S., (2009), Design and validation of an instrument to assess metacognitive skillfulness in chemistry problem solving, J. Chem. Educ., 86, 240-245
10. Cooper M. M., Grove N., Underwood S. M. and Klymkowsky M. W., (2010), Lost in Lewis structures: an investigation of student difficulties in developing representational competence, J. Chem. Educ., 87, 869-874
11. Cooper M. M., Underwood S. M., Hilley C. Z., (2012a), Development and validation of the implicit information from Lewis structures instrument (IILSI): do students connect structures with properties? Chem. Educ. Res. Pract., 13, 195-200
12. Cooper M. M., Underwood S. M., Hilley C. Z., Klymkowsky M. W., (2012b), Development and assessment of a molecular structure and properties learning progression, J. Chem. Educ., 89, 1351-1357
13. Cooper M. M., Corley L. M. and Underwood S. M., (2013), An investigation of college chemistry students' understanding of structure-property relationships, J. Res. Sci. Teach., 50, 699-721
14. Cooper M. M., Underwood S. M., Bryfczynski S. P. and Klymkowsky M. W., (2014), A short history of the use of technology to model and analyze student data for teaching and research, in Cole R. and Bunce D. (ed.), Tools of Chemistry Education Research, ACS Symposium Series, American Chemical Society, pp. 219-239
15. Cooper M. M., Williams L. C. and Underwood S. M., (2015), Student understanding of intermolecular forces: a multimodal study, J. Chem. Educ., 92, 1288-1298
16. Corcoran T., Mosher F. A. and Rogat A., (2009), Learning progressions in science: an evidence based approach to reform (No. RR-63), Consortium for Policy Research in Education, Teachers College-Columbia University
17. DeFever R. S., Bruce H. and Bhattacharyya G., (2015), Mental Rolodexing: Senior Chemistry Majors' Understanding of Chemical and Physical Properties, J. Chem. Educ., 92, 415-426
18. Hinkle D. E., Wiersma W. and Jurs S. G., (1988), Applied Statistics for the Behavioral Sciences, Boston: Houghton Mifflin
19. Ishitani T. T., (2006), Studying Attrition and Degree Completion Behavior among First-Generation College Students in the United States, J. Higher Educ., 77, 861-885
20. Kozma R. and Russell J., (1997), Multimedia and understanding: expert and novice responses to different representations of chemical phenomena, J. Res. Sci. Teach., 34, 949-968
21. Krajcik J. S., Sutherland L. M., Drago K. and Merritt J., (2012), The promise and value of learning progression research, in Bernholt S., Neumann K. and Nentwig P. (ed.), Making It Tangible: Learning Outcomes in Science Education, Münster: Waxmann, pp. 261-284
22. Mastering Chemistry, (2013), http://masteringchemistry.com/site/index.html, accessed 9.1.13
23. McMurry J. E. and Fay R. C., (2014), General chemistry: atoms first, 2nd edn, Upper Saddle River, NJ, Pearson Education, Inc
24. Miller R. G., (1981), Survival Analysis, New York, Wiley
25. Millis S. R., (2003), Statistical practices: the seven deadly sins, Child Neuropsychol., 9, 221-233
26. Murphy K., Holme T., Zenisky A., Caruthers H. and Knaus K., (2012), Building the ACS Exams Anchoring Concept Content Map for Undergraduate Chemistry, J. Chem. Educ., 89, 715-720
27. National Research Council, (2012), A framework for K-12 science education: practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas, Washington, DC: National Academies Press
28. Pintrich P. R., Smith D. A. F., Garcia T. and McKeachie W. J., (1991), A Manual for the Use of the Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire (MSLQ), (No. NCRIPTAL-91-B-004), Ann Arbor, MI: National Center for Research to Improve Postsecondary Teaching and Learning
29. Raker J., Holme T. and Murphy K., (2013), The ACS Exams Institute Undergraduate Chemistry Anchoring Concepts Content Map II: Organic Chemistry, J. Chem. Educ., 90, 1443-1445
30. S.A.S. Institute, (2012), SAS/STAT 12. 1 User's Guide: Survey Data Analysis (Book Excerpt), SAS Institute
31. Sevian H. and Talanquer V., (2014), Rethinking chemistry: a learning progression on chemical thinking, Chem. Educ. Res. Pract., 15, 10-23
32. Shaffer J. P., (1995), Multiple hypothesis testing, Annu. Rev. Psychol., 46, 561-584
33. Shane J. W. and Bodner G. M., (2006), General chemistry students' understanding of structure-function relationships, Chem. Educ., 11, 130-137
34. Singer J. D. and Willett J. B., (1993), It's about time: using discrete-time survival analysis to study duration and the timing of events, J. Educ. Stat., 18, 155-195
35. Talanquer V., (2008), Students' predictions about the sensory properties of chemical compounds: additive versus emergent frameworks, Sci. Educ., 92, 96-114
36. Tobin K. G. and Capie W., (1981), The development and validation of a group test of logical thinking, Educ. Psychol. Meas., 41, 413-423
37. Treagust D. F., Chittleborough G. and Mamiala T. L., (2002), Students' understanding of the role of scientific models in learning science, Int. J. Sci. Educ., 24, 357-368
38. Underwood S. M., Reyes-Gastelum D. and Cooper M. M., (2015), 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., 99, 1055-1072
39. Williams L. C., Underwood S. M., Klymkowsky M. W. and Cooper M. M., (2015), Are Noncovalent Interactions an Achilles Heel in Chemistry Education? A Comparison of Instructional Approaches, J. Chem. Educ., 92, 1979-1987
40. Zwick R. and Sklar J. C., (2005), Predicting college grades and degree completion using high school grades and SAT scores: the role of student ethnicity and first language, Am. Educ. Res. J., 42, 439-464