My participation in the SOTL seminar series was beneficial me and had an impact that extended to the larger academic community. Discussions arising from the presentations made me realize that the challenges to teaching and learning are common across the disciplines and also across the colleges. I became aware of Nelson Nunez-Martinez’s work on empowering students and invited him to share his work with STEM faculty members at BMCC. He gave a faculty development seminar at BMCC on the topic in Spring 10 and faculty who attended the seminar indicated that the seminar was beneficial to them. Many indicated that they plan to use some of the strategies shared. In addition, Nelson Nunez-Martinez invited me to Hostos Community College to present a faculty development seminar on SOTL in Fall 09. The seminar was well attended and generated much interest. What I have learned from seminar series will influence re-design of my study. From Ken Estey, I learned that misconceptions can be also be uncovered by place-based learning. From Joe Bisz, Maria Jersky and Leigh Jones, I learned of the potential of using games and mulitimedia tools to uncover and rectify misconceptions. In addition, Tim McCormack and Dara Bryde provided me with new insights into designing appropriate assessments for my study.
Understanding reaction mechanisms is an underlying theme of undergraduate chemistry and it is an area in which students have great difficulties (Friesen 2008; Mullins 2008). An aspect that has not been previously investigated is the incomplete knowledge/misconceptions students have that hinder their understanding of reaction mechanisms. I am currently undertaking such a study. The study is designed to: (1) Identify the common misconceptions/incomplete knowledge that students have that prevent them from a complete understanding of writing reaction mechanisms (2) Identify the basis for such misconceptions/ incomplete knowledge and, (3) Compare the effectiveness of writing and responses to specific questions in uncovering misconceptions/incomplete knowledge. Among other things, students are asked to identify specific difficulties they have in writing reaction mechanisms and to describe in detail why they feel that the specific topic is difficult. This is an adaptation of a reflective practice used successfully used by Salavatori in a composition course (Salavatori 2000). It is envisaged that such writing assignments will not only identify students’ misconceptions, but will provide deeper insights about students thinking about specific concepts. In response to the findings from students’ writings and answers to specific assigned questions, follow-up writing assignments are developed and used to rectify students’ misconceptions/incomplete knowledge. It is anticipated that such reflective practices will develop the metacognitive skills of students. The study has been done (so far) with a section each of Organic Chemistry I and Organic Chemistry II and will continue with other sections in the new academic year. Preliminary results are positive. It is envisaged that a manuscript describing this study will be written and submitted to the Journal of Chemical Education.
References
Friesen, J. B. 2008. Saying What You Mean: Teaching Mechanisms in Organic Chemistry. Journal of Chemical Education 85: 1515-1518.
Mullins, J. 2008. Six Pillars of Organic Chemistry. Journal of Chemical Education 85: 83-87.
Salvatori, M. R. 2000. Difficulty: The Great Educational Divide. In Opening Lines; Approaches to the Scholarship of teaching and Learning., The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, ed. P. Hutchins, 81-93. Menlo Park: Carnegie Publications
