|
Chemical educators need to be better aware of the distinctions between algorithmic learning and conceptual learning. Much has been written on students who do not continue with their science education, the characteristics of these students, and the type of learners these students are. However, possibly due to the traditional and restrictive nature of our introductory curricula, many chemical educators fail to understand cognitive phenomena underlying algorithmic and conceptual learning.
It is important for chemical educators to understand that conceptual learning is actually superior to algorithmic learning along a cognitive spectrum. The reason for this is that conceptual learners have a better sense of the context in problems, can distinguish unique features in problems, and can employ more flexible problem solving strategies. Their learning is much further than that of students who can solve rote exercises. The recognition of context, what essentially separates the conceptual learner from the algorithmic learner, is known as situated cognition.
Until we, as chemical educators, broaden our understanding of the term learning, we will continue to struggle with the notion of what makes a successful science student. As important as mathematics is to our field and introductory curricula, we need to support the quantitative aspects with more qualitative aspects. Conceptual content should not be exclusively reserved for non-majors; we do a disservice to science majors by excluding this content from introductory courses. A more balanced curriculum might provide chemical educators a better indication of success among all science students.
|
Citation
