|
Much research on chemistry learning, problem solving, and classroom and laboratory strategies has appeared in the past thirty years. Most of it has been published in the science education literature and has not been seen by the majority of chemical educators. (Here I use the term chemical educator to refer to any chemist who is interested in helping people understand and learn chemistry.) That is unfortunate, because the results of good research in this area can have an impact. We need only remind ourselves of Dudley Herron's articles on Piaget that appeared in this Journal in the early 1970s and the 1986 article by George Bodner describing constructivism - the learning theory that explains why we cannot transfer an exact copy of our understanding to our students.These papers certainly affected the way that many of us think about our students' learning.
Reports of chemistry education research are like reports of research in more traditional areas of chemistry. Some are very insightful and extend our perspectives, while others reinforce the foundations of the science. Some provide conflicting results; we need think only of early research on photosynthesis or on the synthesis, composition, and behavior of high-temperature superconductors to see analogies with research at the frontiers of chemistry. Some, in both areas, are wrong. As in chemistry, most research papers in science education focus on a narrow problem and do not have all the answers. Some of the best research may simply be a jumping off point. For example, Watson and Crick's suggestion of a helical structure for DNA, as brilliant as it was, was such a start. A great deal more work was required to provide a more complete understanding of the functioning of DNA. So it is with some areas of science education.
Most of you do not have the time to sort through the science education research literature. This column will summarize selected articles from that literature: reports that are theory based, that use data collected in a reproducible manner using methods that minimize bias, and that produce generalizable results of interest to chemical educators. The research will examine what works and why, or why not. It will focus on a variety of basic research questions: How and why do students learn? Why is chemistry difficult, even for many good students? What works to facilitate effective learning of chemistry? Topics will be selected because they could be of interest to you as a chemical educator. However, they will provide views from the perspective of authors who are accustomed to asking "How do you know?" when it comes to statements about teaching and learning.
For those of you who cannot wait to get started, let me suggest you look at "What Makes Chemistry Difficult? Alternate Perceptions" by Nancy Brickhouse and Carolyn Carter [J. Chem. Educ. 1989, 66, 223]. As the semester begins, it may be of interest to see if students' perceptions of what makes chemistry difficult fit yours. Many of us were surprised that they did not fit ours. If you feel that the students surveyed are from different majors than yours, try your own survey.
|
Citation
