Reforming a Large Foundational Course: Successes and Challenges

Journal of Chemical Education

Volumn 94, Issue 12, 2017, Pages 1844-1851

  Talanquer, Vicente ^a   Pollard, John ^a  

^a University of Arizona   (United States)

Author keywords

Collaborative Cooperative Learning; Curriculum; First Year Undergraduate General; Inquiry Based Discovery Learning; Second Year Undergraduate

Indexed keywords

EID: 85038218069     PISSN: 00219584     EISSN: 19381328     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1021/acs.jchemed.7b00397     Document Type: Article

References (29)

1. Tobias, S. Revitalizing Undergraduate Science: Why Some Things Work and Most Don't; Research Corporation: Tucson, AZ, 1992.
2. Seymour, E.; Hewitt, N. Talking About Leaving: Why Undergraduates Leave the Sciences; Westview Press: Boulder, CO, 2002.
3. Atkinson, R. D.; Mayo, M. Refueling the U.S. Innovation Economy: Fresh Approaches to Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) Education. Information Technology & Innovation Foundation; 2010. Available at http://www.itif.org/files/2010-refueling-innovation-economy.pdf (accessed Aug 2017).
4. President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST), White House. Engage to Excel: Producing One Million Additional College Graduates with Degrees in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics; National Academy Press: Washington, DC, 2012.
5. Association of American Universities (AAU). Framework for Systemic Change in Undergraduate STEM Teaching and Learning. AAU Undergraduate STEM Education Initiative; AAU, Washington, DC, 2013.
6. National Research Council (NRC). What Research Says About Effective Instruction in Undergraduate Science and Engineering; The National Academies Press: Washington, DC, 2015.
7. National Research Council (NRC). Discipline-Based Education Research; National Academy Press: Washington, DC, 2012.
8. Freeman, S.; Eddy, S. L.; McDonough, M.; Smith, M. K.; Okoroafor, N.; Jordt, H.; Wenderoth, M. P. Active Learning Increases Student Performance in Science, Engineering, and Mathematics Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 2014, 111, 8410-8415 10.1073/pnas.1319030111
9. Eberlein, T.; Kampmeier, J.; Minderhout, V.; Moog, R. S.; Platt, T.; Varma-Nelson, P.; White, H. B. Pedagogies of Engagement in Science Biochem. Mol. Biol. Educ. 2008, 36 (4) 262-273 10.1002/bmb.20204
10. Moog, R. S.; Spencer, J. N. Process Oriented Guided Inquiry Learning (POGIL); ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society, Washington, DC, 2008.
11. Gosser, D.; Kampmeier, J.; Varma-Nelson, P. Peer-Led Team Learning: 2008 James Flack Norris Award Address J. Chem. Educ. 2010, 87, 374-380 10.1021/ed800132w
12. Seery, M. K. Flipped Learning in Higher Education Chemistry: Emerging Trends and Potential Directions Chem. Educ. Res. Pract. 2015, 16, 758-768 10.1039/C5RP00136F
13. Esterling, K. M.; Bartels, L. Atoms-First Curriculum: A Comparison of Student Success in General Chemistry J. Chem. Educ. 2013, 90 (11) 1433-1436 10.1021/ed300725m
14. Lafarge, D. L.; Morge, L. M.; Meheut, M. M. A New Higher Education Curriculum in Organic Chemistry: What Questions Should Be Asked? J. Chem. Educ. 2014, 91, 173-178 10.1021/ed300746e
15. Schaller, C. P.; Graham, K. J.; Johnson, B. J.; Fazal, M. A.; Jones, T. N.; McIntee, E. J.; Jakubowski, H. V. Developing and Implementing a Reorganized Undergraduate Chemistry Curriculum Based on the Foundational Chemistry Topics of Structure, Reactivity, and Quantitation J. Chem. Educ. 2014, 91, 321-328 10.1021/ed400336d
16. 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 10.1021/ed300456y
17. Talanquer, V.; Pollard, J. Let's Teach How We Think Instead of What We Know Chem. Educ. Res. Pract. 2010, 11, 74-83 10.1039/C005349J
18. Sevian, H.; Talanquer, V. Rethinking Chemistry: A Learning Progression in Chemical Thinking Chem. Educ. Res. Pract. 2014, 15, 10-23 10.1039/C3RP00111C
19. Henderson, C.; Beach, A.; Finkelstein, N. Facilitating Change in Undergraduate STEM Instructional Practices: An Analytic Review of the Literature J. Res. Sci. Teach. 2011, 48, 952-984 10.1002/tea.20439
20. Gillespie, R. J. What is Wrong with the General Chemistry Course? J. Chem. Educ. 1991, 68, 192-194 10.1021/ed068p192
21. Hawkes, S. J. (2005), Introductory Chemistry Needs a Revolution J. Chem. Educ. 2005, 82, 1615-1616 10.1021/ed082p1615
22. Cooper, M. The Case for Reform of the Undergraduate General Chemistry Curriculum J. Chem. Educ. 2010, 87 (2) 231-23 10.1021/ed800096m
23. Chemical Thinking Website; https://sites.google.com/site/chemicalthinking/structure (accessed Aug 2107).
24. For more information about ACS exams visit https://uwm.edu/acs-exams/ (accessed Aug 2017).
25. Ben-Shakhar, G.; Sinai, Y. Gender Differences in Multiple-Choice Tests: The Role of Dfferential Guessing Tendencies J. Educ. Meas. 1991, 28, 23-25 10.1111/j.1745-3984.1991.tb00341.x
26. Talanquer, V. Common Sense Chemistry: A Model for Understanding Students' Alternative Conceptions J. Chem. Educ. 2006, 83, 811-816 10.1021/ed083p811
27. Talanquer, V. (2013). Threshold Concepts in Chemistry: The Critical Role of Implicit Schemas J. Chem. Educ. 2015, 92, 3-9 10.1021/ed500679k
28. 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 Chem. Educ. Res. Pract. 2012, 13, 195-200 10.1039/C2RP00010E
29. 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