CHI TIẾT NGHIÊN CỨU …

Tiêu đề

Problems of the general chemistry course and possible solutions: The 1-2-1 general/organic/general curriculum and its challenges

Tác giả

Garkov V.

Năm xuất bản

2006

Source title

Chemistry

Số trích dẫn

DOI

Liên kết

https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-33750926484&partnerID=40&md5=1a81f04ee64ee1d5d167ebe87e19b280

Tóm tắt

A review is presented of the literature concerning the problems associated with teaching general chemistry and their possible solutions. These problems tend to be associated with three factors: the eclectic nature of the course content, the lack of logical organization of the chemistry topics presented in textbooks, as well as the students, their interests and level of preparedness. Different institutions deal differently with these challenges. One of the ways to address the problems in general chemistry is the non-traditional, 1-2-1 curricular organization of chemistry courses, which is especially appropriate for smaller, relatively less selective colleges that follow the liberal-arts model of education found in the United States. In this sequence, students take one semester of general chemistry, followed by two semesters of organic chemistry, and then the second semester of general. Such re-organization requires textual materials which are not currently available on the market. An example of such preliminary, textual materials and their pilot classroom evaluation is described. The topics are hierarchically ordered starting with what is the structure of matter (from atoms to bonding to molecules), moving on to how and then why matter gets transformed. The presentation does not assume any background chemistry knowledge, so that it could serve today's under-prepared yet able students who may follow the 1-2-1 sequence of chemistry courses.

Từ khóa

1-2-1 curricular organization; Chemistry in Mary Baldwin College; General chemistry teaching

Tài liệu tham khảo

Lloyd B.W., A review of curricular changes in the general chemistry course during the twentieth century (FORUM), J. Chem. Educ., 69, pp. 633-636, (1992); Gillespie R.J., Reforming the general chemistry textbook, J. Chem. Educ., 74, pp. 484-485, (1997); Moore J.W., Has chemical education reached equilibrium?, J. Chem. Educ., 74, (1997); Gillespie R.J., What is wrong with the general chemistry course?, J. Chem. Educ., 68, pp. 192-194, (1991); Kreyenbuhl J.A., Atwood C.H., Are we teaching the right things in general chemistry?, J. Chem. Educ., 68, pp. 914-918, (1991); Rettich T.R., An integrated curriculum for first- and second-year chemistry courses, J. Chem. Educ., 72, (1995); Spencer J.N., General chemistry content, J. Chem. Educ., 69, pp. 183-186, (1992); Reingold D., Bioorganic first: A new model for the college chemistry curriculum, J. Chem. Educ., 78, pp. 869-871, (2001); Ege S.N., Coppola B.P., Lawton R.G., The University of Michigan undergraduate chemistry curriculum, J. Chem. Educ., 74, pp. 74-83, (1997); Schwartz T., General chemistry and cell biology: An experiment in curricular symbiosis, J. Chem. Educ., 78, pp. 1490-1494, (2001); Barreto J.C., Integrating the general chemistry and the general biology curriculum, J. Chem. Educ., 77, (2000); Nurrenbern S.C., Pickering M., Concept learning versus problem solving: Is there a difference?, J. Chem. Educ., 64, pp. 508-510, (1987); Pickering M., Further studies on concept learning versus problem solving, J. Chem. Educ., 67, pp. 254-255, (1990); Heylin M., Chemistry grads decline in 2002, Chem. & Engng News, pp. 49-55, (2004); Gray K., Herr B.A.E., Degrees Should Not Be the only Way, The Chronicle of Higher Education, (1996); Jencks C., Phillips M., The Black-White Test Score Gap, (1998); This year's freshmen: A statistical profile, The Chronicle of Higher Education, (1999); Taft H.L., National curriculum survey of college general chemistry, J. Chem. Educ., 74, pp. 595-599, (1997); Chemistry. An ACS Project, (2005); Arasasingha R.D., Taagepera M., Potter F., Lonjers S., Using knowledge space theory to assess student understanding of stoichiometry, J. Chem. Educ., 81, pp. 1517-1523, (2004); Pickering M., Why some students don't learn chemistry, J. Chem. Educ., 69, pp. 191-196, (1992); Nakhleh M.B., Are our students conceptual thinkers or algorithmic problem solvers?, J. Chem. Educ., 70, pp. 52-55, (1993); Smith B.D., Jacobs D.C., A window into how general and organic chemistry students use textbook resources, J. Chem. Educ., 80, pp. 99-104, (2003); Journal of Chemical Education Buyers Guide, (2003); US Department of Education Statistics 2000, Postsecondary Education Report; Kogut L.S., A General Chemistry Course for Science and Engineering Majors with Marginal Academic Preparation, J. Chem. Educ., 70, pp. 565-567, (1993); Yoblinski B.J., Sequencing general chemistry: A new more logical approach, J. College Sci. Teaching., 32, pp. 382-387, (2003); Gilbert T., Kirss R.V., Davies G., Chemistry: The Science in Context, (2003); Wertz D., Chemistry: A Molecular Science, (2002); Russo S., Silver M., Introductory Chemistry: A Conceptual Focus, (2000); Bettelheim F., Brown W., March J., Introduction to General, Organic, and Biochemistry, (2001); Blei I., Odian G., An Introduction to General Chemistry, (2000); Goldberg D., Fundamentals of Chemistry, (2001); Cohen J., Encouraging meaningful quantitative problem solving, J. Chem. Educ., 77, pp. 1166-1173, (2000); Roadrangka V., Yeany R., Padilla R.M., The construction and validation of group assessment of logical thinking, Annual Meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, (1983)