My first two student labs are extensions of labs that I have done previously and are in this issue. Bularzik describes an alternative to an “old penny” density lab that includes extensions. His method also provides the students with an opportunity to use their data to explore two different methods and determine which is more accurate and which is more precise. There are several more articles in this issue of the Journal that contain extensions from previously presented ideas for both the classroom and laboratory.

Patti Duncan shares the first “Classroom Activities Connections” article—Marbling Paper Postcards. This is an extension of a Classroom Activity that first appeared in JCE in April 2007. I learned how to marble paper about 15 years ago. Though I thought my students would really enjoy the end product, I was concerned that the solution would be spilled everywhere and there would be a mess to clean up. That procedure was oil based and contained some rather expensive materials. Then at ChemEd 2005, the ChemEd 2007 planning committee presented a new paper marbling procedure. I was impressed by its simple and inexpensive method. Patti presents an application of this idea that I really like. I will add it to my spring laboratory activities this year for my first-year chemistry course.

Risley describes how he allows his students to rework exams during the semester to earn additional points and how this impacts his students. I have never allowed my students to do this, but I found his description of his methodology and the impact on his students insightful. His article may not lead to change in my classroom, but his methodology has certainly caused me to consider the possibility for change.

I have used a lab practical as a final exam in my Advanced Placement class ever since I started teaching AP Chemistry. Though Neeland’s description of how his department implemented lab practical exams focuses on organic chemistry, many of the types of questions he discussed could easily be modified for use in a high school classroom. Not only does his article describe types of questions, but it also provides details about how to set-up the testing environment, run the exam, and grade the exam. For those of you who have not used a lab practical as part of your curriculum, I strongly encourage it. When the college students come back to visit, it is the one thing they consistently thank me for “making them do”.

This year’s James Bryant Conant Award winner, Eleanor Siegrist, shares wonderful information about her teaching career with JCE editorial staff. In her responses there were two things that really spoke to me. One was in her description about the qualities of a great teacher—“… loves to teach, enjoys and respects her students …”. The other was in her response to a two-part question about her suggestions to those who shape education in this country and what is needed to attract and keep the best teachers in the classroom—“Teachers need to be allowed to teach. … Teaching to a test tends to discourage the creative, enthusiastic teacher.” Eleanor’s response challenged me to remember that teachers need to be encouraged, not discouraged, and commended for the manner in which they daily give themselves to their students. I have added this to my notes for the conclusion of any of my future presentations.

Erica’s Take on the Issue

“Shrimp ketchup” is the phrase that comes to mind when I read an article that mentions the term “prior knowledge”. One of our young children requested “shrimp ketchup” to accompany her meal one day. It took time to figure out what she meant, but in the end it made perfect sense. A red sauce in a bottle, but for shrimp. Several days earlier, she had eaten shrimp with cocktail sauce for the first time. This was her connection of old and new knowledge. Grove and Lowery Bretz begin their article with a brief discussion of prior knowledge, but then go on to share their research in “the second dimension of prior knowledge—that is, learning about learning”. They developed CHEMX, a 47-item survey, “to measure students’ knowledge about what they will be expected to do to learn chemistry”. They used CHEMX to compare what faculty think about learning with what undergraduate students think—before and after the students complete various courses. Further research using CHEMX could be done on the high school level. How would high school faculty answers compare to those at the college level? How could an educator use survey results from the start of a semester to help guide their curriculum for the year? As usual, interesting research leads to even more questions to explore.