I listed these persistent misbeliefs.

• Most of the students in our classes are going to be chemistry majors.
• We do not have time to discuss applications and implications of chemical science, because we have to concentrate on the basics.
• The latest research results are too complicated and require too much background for our students to appreciate and understand them.
• Chemistry is too hard for many students and therefore we ought to find algorithms by which they can obtain correct answers without understanding why the algorithm works.
• Students can learn directly from what we say, without processing information and constructing understanding.
• Students who can answer numeric questions on exams actually understand the principles of chemistry.

Last month my remarks were directed toward the first three points. This month I explore the last three.

Chemical education research has demonstrated that these last three statements are untrue. When I queried a friend about them, two of her graduate students almost immediately sent me an annotated bibliography containing a dozen references that contradict them (1)—convincing evidence that we should stop organizing our courses as if they were true.

I contend that allowing students to use algorithms instead of teaching for deeper understanding of concepts makes chemistry harder, not easier. Once a concept is thoroughly understood, a wide range of problems can be solved by applying that concept. In addition, real understanding has a relatively long half-life and can be called upon years or even decades later. An algorithm, on the other hand, is usually limited to one kind of problem and depends on rote memory. If a student needs to solve many different kinds of problems, the algorithmic approach collapses under the large number of different algorithms required. If a student needs to solve a problem of a type not previously encountered, or to address a more complicated, multifaceted problem, the student may have no suitable algorithm. If chemistry is hard for students to learn, that’s a good reason to avoid algorithms and concentrate on understanding.

Unfortunately we cannot simply tell students what we think they should know and expect that magically they will understand. Students bring with them a variety of backgrounds, misconceptions, and levels of motivation that must be addressed if we are to enhance most effectively their mastery of chemical concepts. Students need time to process and assimilate new information and ideas, opportunities to make observations that contradict concepts they believe to be true, encouragement to revise their thinking accordingly, and challenging and relevant content that motivates them to higher levels of effort and achievement. In many cases our courses are crammed with so much content that students have little or no opportunity to reflect on and assimilate the concepts we want them to learn. They are denied the “Aha!” moments of true understanding that would motivate them toward careers in chemistry. Instead they often fall back on memorizing algorithms simply to get by.

Why have we not noticed? Largely because of the last misbelief listed above: we do not use appropriate tools to discern whether students understand and can apply concepts. By testing only with questions that require calculations, we fail to assess students’ ability to apply conceptual understanding while reinforcing their tendency to study for rote responses. For at least the past 15 years, papers in this Journal have reported that a student’s success in carrying out numerical calculations does not guarantee conceptual understanding, nor does it mean that a student will be able to answer a closely related question asked in the next course.

Willing retention of misbelief permits us to continue teaching this year as we have for many years. It is easier, faster, and fits our busy schedules. It allows us to avoid careful, analytic examination of the structure and content of our courses. Willing retention of misbelief may allow us personal satisfaction, but it is not good science. Nor is it a good way to approach teaching and learning. As the new year begins, resolve to expunge misbeliefs. Analyze the fundamental beliefs that underlie how your courses are structured. Base the analysis on what has been experimentally determined regarding how students learn and what we know about measuring the extent to which real learning has taken place. Then act on that analysis and end the influence of misbeliefs on your teaching.

Literature Cited

1. Flens, Elizabeth A.; VandenPlas, Jessica. Personal communication.