Australian Chemistry Education Research and Practice: A Dynamic

Downloaded via ARIZONA STATE UNIV on July 6, 2018 at 15:27:24 (UTC). See https://pubs.acs.org/sharingguidelines for options on how to legitimately share published articles.

Chapter 11

Australian Chemistry Education Research and Practice: A Dynamic and Colourful Landscape of Learning and Teaching Gwendolyn A. Lawrie*,1 and Daniel C. Southam2 1School of Chemistry & Molecular Biosciences, The University of Queensland, St. Lucia, Queensland 4072, Australia 2School of Molecular and Life Sciences, Curtin University, Perth, Western Australia, 6845, Australia *E-mail: [email protected].

Australia is presented as a unique but fertile context in terms of chemistry education research and practice. While focusing on the tertiary sector, the influence and partnerships with secondary education researchers is also recognized. A metareview of publications in key chemistry and science education research journals between 2008-2017 has been analysed to identify the breadth of chemistry education research by Australians as well as concentrations of excellence. It was found that the field is underpinned by strong leaders, mentors and role models, academics representing multiple STEM disciplines engage in publishing their chemistry education-based research. Also, the nature of research is maturing from ontological focused questions to epistemological studies.

© 2018 American Chemical Society Cox and Schatzberg; International Perspectives on Chemistry Education Research and Practice ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2018.

The Context Chemistry education research (CER) is a well-established field with a long history in the rigorous application of theoretical frameworks to enable evaluation and evidence of student learning through the collection of qualitative and quantitative data (1, 2). Typical of a discipline-based education research (DBER) field, students’ learning experiences are highly variable depending on context and prior experience requiring researchers to seek evidence drawn across multiple studies to determine the generalizability of their own findings. Australia represents a unique context based on high school curricula and the transition to tertiary studies that has propagated a rich culture in research and practice in chemistry education, across both the secondary and tertiary sectors. International leaders have emerged who have established strong foundations in conceptual change and diagnostics, multiple representations and teacher professional development. Many faculty and teachers participate in research in both the secondary and tertiary domains enabling cross-fertilisation of information and outcomes. In this chapter, we will focus primarily on the tertiary context while acknowledging key researchers who work in both contexts.

Transitions into Tertiary Chemistry Study With only 43 higher education institutions in Australia, most of which deliver tertiary chemistry studies, this is a unique context in the international landscape of CER. The geographical distribution of these institutions is primarily concentrated in the major cities in each of the 6 states and 2 territories - a number of universities have specialized in the delivery of online learning for remote and regional students, in parallel with their on-campus offerings. In 2016, 1.4 million students were enrolled in higher education in Australia with approximately 7% enrolled in the field of Physical and Natural Sciences and over 24000 students graduating from this field in that year (3), most of these students will have encountered chemistry as part of their programs of study. As with parallel international contexts, the largest enrolment classes within Australian higher education institutions are first year general chemistry units where some cohorts are between 1500-2000 students in metropolitan universities. Until the introduction of the National Curriculum in 2014, each state and territory in Australia delivered a unique secondary (high school) chemistry syllabus. While up to 25% of students are international students, the large proportion of students have remained in their state of origin to complete tertiary studies. The tertiary chemistry curriculum in each state has tended to respond to their local students’ preparation and learning needs. In recent years, while not mandatory, most states have broadly aligned their syllabi with the National Curriculum.

176 Cox and Schatzberg; International Perspectives on Chemistry Education Research and Practice ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2018.

Defining the Breadth of Activity in Chemistry Education Research and Practice in Australia In the tertiary sector, STEM DBER was has been presented as an overarching research field that encompasses multiple disciplines, including chemistry education (4). Figure 1 displays the different dimensions of STEM DBER in terms of learning outcomes for students, domain-specific foci for CER and emerging topics of interest for STEM DBER research, including CER, aligned to contemporary pedagogies and assessment practices.

Figure 1. Dimensions and topics that frame the scope of STEM DBER and Chemistry Education Research (CER) informed by NRC 2012 report (4).

A large proportion of CER is related to evidencing student learning outcomes related to the learning goals shown in the bottom left sector in the context of chemistry. There is also a substantial body of work addressing the emerging themes in the context of chemistry therefore, this framework has been used in this chapter to guide to categorization of the initiatives and practices in our community of chemistry education researchers in Australia.


To evaluate the scope and depth of recent Australian activity in chemistry education research and scholarly practice, a meta-review has been completed for this chapter to identify the studies led, or involving collaboration, by Australian authors for the decade 2008-2017. Two highly regarded journals in the field of chemistry education research, The Journal of Chemical Education (JCE) and Chemistry Education Research and Practice (CERP), were selected based on evidence that they contained the highest number of chemistry education articles (5, 6). Full texts of the articles were analysed using Leximancer® to create a concept map which provides a visual display of the relationships between key concepts. Keywords nominated by the authors were used to categorise the audience, pedagogy, educational domain and scientific domain. Three high impact journals in the field of science education research (Science Education; International Journal of Science Education and International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education) were also reviewed.

Innovative Pedagogies and Practices There has been sustained publication by a diverse range of Australian authors representing 21 institutions (49% of the total number of institutions) in JCE (Figure 2). CERP is the higher impact of the two journals (with JIF 1.941 compared to 1.419 for JCE) and its articles typically demand stronger literature frameworks and evidenced methodologies to underpin the collection of research data and evaluation of practice. The number of articles involving Australian authors published between 2008-17 in CERP has steadily grown (representing 10 institutions) reflecting a maturation and recognition of chemistry education as a research field in Australia.

Figure 2. A comparison of the number of articles published by Australian authors in JCE and CERP between 2008-2017.


A map that shows the relationships between concepts presented in these articles has been generated by entering full texts into Leximancer® and these are shown graphically below in Figure 3. The size of the ‘bubble’ indicates the relative number of references and the proximity between ‘bubbles’ indicates the semantic proximity between concepts. It is evident that publications in JCE (Figure 3a) are typically ontological studies that focus on what students do, with key concepts relating to teaching and experiments. In CERP (Figure 3b), the core focus is on students and teachers indicating a bias towards more epistemological-based research as academics focus on how and where students learn, for example the concept ‘laboratory’ as the environment in Figure 3b is the cited theme compared to ‘experiment’ in Figure 3a.

Figure 3. Concept maps revealing the relationships between concepts in articles published by Australian authors in (a) JCE and (b) CERP. According to the keywords used by authors in JCE and CERP, the focus has been primarily on upper division undergraduate and first year-general chemistry students (Figure 4a). JCE in particular has enabled the dissemination of laboratory initiatives and classroom activities, in the form of action research or instructional design evident in Figure 4b. Inquiry-based learning has also received substantial attention in the past decade with authors also focusing on internet-based, computer-based and collaborative activities (Figure 4a). The recognition and value of the scholarship of teaching and learning across the tertiary sector in Australia increased within the same time period encouraging faculty to evaluate and disseminate their teaching practices. Indeed, many Australian CER authors opt to publish their research in either science education (Table 1) or higher education journals for a broader audience, the current analysis has likely only identified a fraction of actual published research.


Figure 4. Frequency of cited authors’ keywords in JCE and CERP in the categories of (a) audience and (b) pedagogy.


Table 1. Number of publications with Australian authors from the top tier science education research journals, and the most highly cited works

181

Journal

Total number of publications with Australian authors

Number of chemistryrelated publications with Australian authors

Most highly cited chemistry-related publication with Australian authors

WoS cites

Google Scholar cites

Research in Science Education

90

4

Chittleborough and Treagust (7)

29

72

International Journal of Science Education

84

8

Othman, Treagust and Chandrasegaran (8)

51

120

Journal of Research in Science Teaching

28

1

Bellocchi & Ritchie (9)

12

26

Science Education

20

4

Niebert, Marsch and Treagust (10)

32

76

Cox and Schatzberg; International Perspectives on Chemistry Education Research and Practice ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2018.

Communities of Practice and Professional Development There is no doubt that Australian tertiary chemistry education has been fertile in enabling the growth of communities of practice in part facilitated by the funding structures. Academics were actively encouraged to develop project teams that spanned multiple institutions to secure competitive national grants (11). This has resulted in several major initiatives sustained over several years. Laboratory Learning Undergraduate chemistry courses in Australia typically have compulsory laboratory components comprising 30 to 50% of the contact time and 10 to 50% of the assessment weighting (12). The laboratory is viewed as a central learning environment within a broader curriculum for students pursuing a major in chemistry (13) but this purpose is not always consistently understood or communicated (14). The reviews of research into laboratory learning by Hofstein and Lunetta (15, 16) call for continued examination of the role and purpose of laboratory learning in chemistry curriculum, and Australian authors have made significant contributions to research on teaching in laboratories (17), the role of curriculum (18), the activities undertaken (19, 20), and the learning environment (21, 22). There have been long-term coordinated national projects to explore the role and purpose of practical experiments in chemistry curriculum. The Australian Physical Chemistry Enhanced Laboratory Learning (APCELL) project was established in 1999 with an explicit aim to improve laboratory learning in physical chemistry, which was achieved by establishing a community of practice of educators and students who collaborated to scientifically and educationally test experiments and share the resulting outcomes (23). This project was funded by the Committee for University Teaching and Staff Development to allow faculty and undergraduate students to travel to workshops with an experiment in mind, where they would learn about how to frame this experiment to maximise opportunities for learning (24). In the APCELL formalism, the educator would return from a workshop to implement the improved experiment in their home institution, and explore the student perceptions of their experiences using a common set of instruments (25). After peer review, the experiment would be shared by publication in a journal, most often the Australian Journal of Education in Chemistry. There were ten experiments published in this period on spectroscopy (26–30), solution chemistry (31–33), kinetics (34), and electrochemistry (35). It was quickly recognised that the challenges faced in improving student experience in a physical chemistry laboratory were common problems faced in laboratory instruction across all of chemistry (36), with experiments in analytical chemistry trialled in later APCELL workshops (37). APCELL became Advancing Chemistry by Enhancing Learning in the Laboratory and was funded by the Higher Education Innovation Program (38). The formalism was largely the same, but less emphasis was placed on peer-review and dissemination of experiments as a principal outcome. 182 Cox and Schatzberg; International Perspectives on Chemistry Education Research and Practice ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2018.

The workshop gained greater prominence for the professional learning opportunities it provided for faculty (39) and in turn the faculty gained a greater understanding of the role of student feedback in making a good laboratory experience (40). Student feedback was vital developing experiments to improve conceptual understanding of challenging concepts (41), how students may have a different perception of an experiment (42), why timing of an experiment is crucial in the student perception of an experiment (43), and the role of assessment in promotion of engagement (44). The ACELL approach was found to be equally applicable to physics experiments (45) and Advancing Science by Enhancing Learning in the Laboratory received funding from the Australian Learning and Teaching Council and the Australian Council of Deans of Science to expand to physics and biology (46). By the end of its funded period, ASELL had involved 100 faculty and students, with 39 experiments trialled, and 15,000 student surveys completed. The ASELL workshop format was trialled in the Philippines, Ireland, USA and Thailand (47). The last step in the evolution of this project is the outreach to schools as the Advancing Science and Engineering through Laboratory Learning project, funded by the Australian Maths and Science Partnerships Program. This regional program has connected middle and high school science teachers and their students with faculty and researchers in institutions across Australia. Together they develop and test experiments aligned to the Australian Curriculum, which has an emphasis on scientific inquiry (48), in a modified workshop format where the outcomes are disseminated to colleagues through its community of practice. Consequentially, there is an unsurprising prevalence of research from the Australian discipline-based education community on laboratory instruction, development of experiments, and associated research. In the period 2008 to present there were 25 articles in the Journal of Chemical Education and 4 articles in Chemistry Education Research and Practice relating to these themes. Student-Centered Research and Practice The practice of chemistry higher education in Australia has undergone a profound shift from a primary concern for ontological matters of the discipline and its influence on education, to instead focus on students and their interactions during learning of chemistry (49). This mirrors a similar, and much earlier shift, in schools-based research and practice (50). The locus of research has also moved from optimisation of subject matter, to understanding the nature of students and the factors that promote and facilitate learning. In the period 2008 until now, the most commonly encountered term from Australian authors’ works in both the Journal of Chemical Education and Chemistry Education Research and Practice was “students”, with 2232 and 4334 occurrences respectively. The second most encountered term was “chemistry”. A student-centred approach to meta-analysis of the extant student-centred research from Australia elicits three primary domains: students and their variable individual characteristics; the teaching practices employed to learn chemistry, and; the environments within which learning of chemistry takes place. 183 Cox and Schatzberg; International Perspectives on Chemistry Education Research and Practice ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2018.

In Australia over the period of this review, there was substantial government support to drive paradigm shifts in higher education, for example the Active Learning in University Science (ALIUS) project (51) was established to support faculty professional development in implementing evidence-based pedagogies, while the Chemistry Discipline Network of Educators aimed to build communities of practice (52). Both have demonstrated considerable impact on chemistry education research and practice (11). A general dissatisfaction with current teacher-student paradigm often drives a teacher in higher education to seek alternative practices to improve student engagement, attitude, and/or motivation (53) and ultimately student learning (54). In higher education this is driven by a lack of attendance at traditional lectures, somewhat coupled to the prevalence in Australia of automated lecture capture technology (55). In re-imaging the teacher-student relationship during learning it often pushes the teacher to seek new methods to engage with students, and there is ample evidence from the literature to support implementation of alternative teaching practices and their efficacy. These practices typically activate students in their learning, through inquiry- and problem-oriented pedagogies. The role of contexts in learning chemistry has been shown to provide new pedagogical insights for teachers (56, 57) leading to academic success for students (58). As a subset of context-based learning, problem-based learning in chemistry has shown to have impact on student learning (53) which in turn leads to developing critical thinking through practical and inquiry-oriented activities (59). These types of pedagogies lead to interventions to target students at-risk of failure (60), to utilise novel technology for engagement (61), or contextualize learning with industry-oriented videos (62). The ALIUS project brought Process Oriented Guided Inquiry Learning (POGIL) to Australia, with a number of institutions reporting findings from implementation of POGIL in introductory (63–65) and upper-division (66, 67) chemistry classes. Research in Australia has shown how student attitudes (68, 69), self-efficacy, (64), learning gains (63), and information processing (70) improves as a consequence of POGIL classes, and has furthered the cross-cultural relevance of the pedagogy (71). Assessment and Feedback External influences often have substantial impact on the activities of educators and the tertiary chemistry education community in Australia was faced with creation of a suite of discipline threshold learning outcomes (TLOs) to respond to a national process for benchmarking the quality of graduates from an institutions’ degree programs. This process was initiated as part of the higher education standards framework administered by the tertiary education quality and standards agency (TEQSA). The chemistry TLOs subsequently underpinned the professional accreditation of majors or related course in tertiary programs by the Royal Australian Chemistry Institute (RACI). The process of defining and implementing these TLOs brought together large numbers of chemistry faculty across multiple venues who represented the majority of Australian tertiary institutions. To facilitate this process, a community of practice was established 184 Cox and Schatzberg; International Perspectives on Chemistry Education Research and Practice ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2018.

and is sustained virtually (72). The evaluation and identification of exemplar assessment tasks that evidenced student achievement of chemistry TLOs has formed the basis a collaborative project involving team members representing eight institutions across five states (73). Assessment should always be considered to be coupled to feedback (in a way analogous with the concept of redox) and between 2012-15, ten faculty who coordinate and teach first year general chemistry courses representing 5 institutions collaborated to develop mechanisms for the delivery of formative feedback to students based on concept diagnostics (IAMMIC). This feedback was coupled to self-regulated blended learning interventions to support students’ awareness of their own thinking (74, 75) and built on work considering transfer of chemistry concepts between the secondary-tertiary transition (76).

Leadership, Mentoring, and Role Models in the Australian Context A measure of impact is the adaptation, translation or transfer of education research findings beyond the boundaries of the context – there are a large number of Australian chemistry education researchers who practice at different levels of the learning continuum and who are internationally recognized for their impact on the field. However, one of the most remarkable examples of high-impact research collaborations spanning two Western Australian Universities has involved David Treagust, Robert (Bob) Bucat and Mauro Mocerino (Table 2). Well regarded in their own right as individual researchers, they have had a major influence on international research and practice in chemistry education. Their success can perhaps be attributed to the fact that their work integrates across the secondary-tertiary boundaries enabling transfer of outcomes into both contexts. David Treagust must be regarded as the most influential chemistry and science educator known in Australia having generated over 182 peer-reviewed publications that have been cited over 22500 times (Google Scholar). His graduate students and postdoctoral collaborators have themselves become influential researchers and are internationally recognized. This is evident through his collaborative partnership with Allan Harrison which contributes three articles to his top five cited publications. The Australian chemistry education community has been deeply influenced by the highly regarded, and seminal, work of Australian science education researchers, Russell Tytler and Vaughan Prain set in the secondary and primary contexts (92–94). Their research into the role of multiple representations in learning, in particular student drawn representations, has catalyzed tertiary educators to also focus on student-generated representations as part of their assessment practices (95–97). A common intention of raising students’ awareness of their own thinking (metacognition) and their conceptual understanding, particularly through combined multiple external representations provided by the instructor, in the form of multimodal representations (98) can be observed in recent publications. 185 Cox and Schatzberg; International Perspectives on Chemistry Education Research and Practice ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2018.

Table 2. Impact measured through citation of publications for members of the Western Australian chemistry education hub Researcher

Publication

Citations (Google Scholar)

David Treagust

Duit & Treagust (2003) (77)

1260

Treagust (1988) (78)

857

Harrison & Treagust (1996) (79)

540

Harrison & Treagust (2000a) (80)

542

Harrison & Treagust (2000b) (81)

462

Tyson, Treagust & Bucat (1999) (82)

179

Bucat (2004) (83)

124

Baddock & Bucat (2008) (84)

51

Bucat & Cole (1988) (85)

14

Head & Bucat (2002) (86)

7

Chandrasegaran, Treagust & Mocerino (2007) (87)

203

Chandrasegaran, Treagust & Mocerino (2008) (88)

83

Chittleborough, et. al. (2005) (89)

78

Bucat & Mocerino (2009) (90)

65

Chittleborough, Treagust & Mocerino (2002) (91)

47

Robert Bucat

Mauro Mocerino

Roy Tasker has been a role model leading the design of innovative dynamic representational resources through a related lens in chemistry education research and practice, he has achieved widespread national and international impact in the design and evaluation of visualization animations to support learning of chemistry concepts (99, 100). The principle article describing the evaluation of Roy’s VisChem initiative (99) has been cited 255 times of which 144 citations have been since 2013 demonstrating the current relevance and impact of this work. His carefully constructed animations of the molecular world are instantly recognized by chemistry educators around the world and, since becoming freely accessible (http://www.vischem.com.au/online-resources) have become adopted and embedded by teachers across multiple curricula and contexts.


Emerging Directions in Australian Chemistry Education Research The framework shared in Figure 1 highlighted the emerging themes in the broader field of DBER aligning with a shift from ontological to epistemologicalbased research (101) as academics move their focus from what students do to how and where students learn. This change in focus is also evident in publications deriving from in the Australian context in the past 5 years. Individual attributes of students can play an important direct or mediating role in students’ learning, and increasingly these characteristics factor into the measures of success for pedagogical or curricular interventions. These may be affective dimensions, such as attitude (102), confidence (103) or self-efficacy (71, 104), but may also include cognitive aspects of learning — especially metacognition (105–107). Technology-enhanced learning has become more prevalent including the use of new media in teaching such as Twitter (108), podcasting (109), and wikis (54). These environments encourage students to create explanations and representations as well as engage with the language and symbolism of chemistry. Blended learning environments have triggered research to support visualization of concepts in selfdirected inquiry (110) problem-solving (111) and particulate level explanations (112). As tertiary chemistry learning environments shift further towards being student-centered, blending virtual and face-to-face interactions between students and their instructor, it is anticipated that the role of technology as a platform for learning will become increasingly more prevalent in chemistry education research publications.

Conclusion Despite being a relatively small community in terms of the number of active chemistry education researchers in Australia, their teaching and research activities present a rich landscape that is diverse and is growing rapidly. There is a history of excellence through many researchers, in both the tertiary and secondary contexts, becoming internationally reputed leaders in their domains of research providing a strong foundation and culture of excellence. The field of chemistry education research thrives on collaborations and the unique Australian context enables researchers to complete comparative cross-cultural studies that will advance our understanding of student learning of chemistry concepts.

References 1. 2.

3.

Bodner, G. M.; Orgill, M. Theoretical Frameworks for Research in Chemistry/Science Education; Prentice-Hall: Upper Saddle River, NJ, 2007. Cole, R. S.; Bunce, D. M. In Tools of Chemistry Education Research; ACS Symposium Series 1166; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2014; pp 1–7. Department of Education and Training. 187 Cox and Schatzberg; International Perspectives on Chemistry Education Research and Practice ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2018.

4.

5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12.

13. 14. 15. 16. 17.

18.

19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25.

26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31.

Discipline-Based Education Research: Understanding and Improving Learning in Undergraduate Science and Engineering; Singer, S. R., Nielsen, N. R., Schweingruber, H. A., Eds.; National Research Council, 2012. Towns, M. H.; Kraft, A. National Academies 2011. Teo, T. W.; Goh, M. T.; Yeo, L. W. Chem. Educ. Res. Pract. 2014, 15, 470–487. Chittleborough, G.; Treagust, D. Res. Sci. Educ. 2008, 38, 463–482. Othman, J.; Treagust, D. F.; Chandrasegaran, A. L. Int. J. Sci. Educ. 2008, 30, 1531–1550. Bellocchi, A.; Ritchie, S. M. J. Res. Sci. Teach. 2011, 48, 771–792. Niebert, K.; Marsch, S.; Treagust, D. F. Sci. Educ. 2012, 96, 849–877. Schultz, M. Aust. J. Educ. Chem. 2018, 76, 1–6. The Royal Australian Chemical Institute. The Future of Chemistry Study: Supply and Demand of Chemists; The Royal Australian Chemical Institute: Melbourne, 2005. Elliott, M. J.; Stewart, K. K.; Lagowski, J. J. J. Chem. Educ. 2008, 85, 145–149. Rice, J. W.; Thomas, S. M.; O’Toole, P. Tertiary Science Education in the 21st Century; Australian Learning and Teaching Council, 2009. Hofstein, A.; Lunetta, V. N. Review of Educational Research 1982, 52, 201–217. Hofstein, A.; Lunetta, V. N. 2004, 88, 28–54. Boud, D. J.; Dunn, J.; Hegarty-Hazel, E. Teaching in Laboratories; Society for Research into Higher Education and NFER-Nelson: Guildford, England, 1986. Hegarty-Hazel, E. In Research on Laboratory Work; Boud, D. J., Dunn, J., Hegarty-Hazel, E., Eds.; Society for Research into Higher Education and NFER-Nelson: Guildford, England, 1986; pp 129–152. Burke, K. A.; Greenbowe, T. J.; Hand, B. M. J. Chem. Educ. 2006, 83. Tobin, K. G. School Science and Mathematics 1990, 90, 403–418. Fisher, D.; Harrison, A.; Henderson, D.; Hofstein, A. Res. Sci. Educ. 1998, 28, 353–363. Fraser, B. J.; McRobbie, C. J. Educ. Res. Eval. 1995, 1, 289–317. Barrie, S. C.; Buntine, M. A.; Jamie, I. M.; Kable, S. H. Aust. J. Educ. Chem. 2001, 57, 6–12. Barrie, S. C.; Buntine, M. A.; Jamie, I. M.; Kable, S. H. Chem. Aust. 2001, 68, 36–37. Barrie, S. C.; Bucat, R. B.; Buntine, M. A.; da Silva, K. B.; Crisp, G. T.; George, A. V.; Jamie, I. M.; Kable, S. H.; Lim, K. F.; Pyke, S. M.; Read, J. R.; Sharma, M. D.; Yeung, A. Int. J. Sci. Educ. 2015, 37, 1795–1814. Buntine, M. A.; Kable, S. H.; Metha, G. Aust. J. Educ. Chem. 2004, 63, 21–25. Lim, K. F. Aust. J. Educ. Chem. 2004, 64, 24–28. McNaughton, D. Aust. J. Educ. Chem. 2002, 60, 5–8. Shapter, J.; Gascooke, J. Aust. J. Educ. Chem. 2003, 61, 26–29. Williamson, B. E.; Taylor, K. C. L. Aust. J. Educ. Chem. 2002, 58, 13–20. Barnett, V. G. Aust. J. Educ. Chem. 2002, 59, 5–10. 188


32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38.

39. 40.

41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46.

47.

48. 49. 50. 51.

52. 53. 54. 55. 56. 57. 58. 59.

Barnett, V. G. Aust. J. Educ. Chem. 2003, 62, 5–8. O’Grady, B. V. Aust. J. Educ. Chem. 2001, 57, 13–17. Lim, K. F. Aust. J. Educ. Chem. 2002, 59, 11–16. Wajrak, M.; Rummey, J. Aust. J. Educ. Chem. 2004, 63, 26–30. Jamie, I. M.; Read, J. R.; Barrie, S. C.; Bucat, R. B.; Buntine, M. A.; Crisp, G. T.; George, A. V.; Kable, S. H. Aust. J. Educ. Chem. 2007, 67, 7–23. Wajrak, M.; Boyce, M. Aust. J. Educ. Chem. 2005, 65, 20–23. Buntine, M. A.; Read, J. R.; Barrie, S. C.; Bucat, R. B.; Crisp, G. T.; George, A. V.; Jamie, I. M.; Kable, S. H. Chem. Educ. Res. Pract. 2007, 8, 232–254. Read, J. R.; Barrie, S. C.; Bucat, R. B.; Buntine, M. A.; Crisp, G. T.; George, A. V.; Jamie, I. M.; Kable, S. H. Chem. Aust. 2006, 73, 17–20. George, A. V.; Read, J. R.; Barrie, S. C.; Bucat, R. B.; Buntine, M. A.; Crisp, G. T.; Jamie, I. M.; Kable, S. H. In Chemistry Education in the ICT Age; Springer Netherlands: Dordrecht, 2009; pp 363–376. Read, J. R.; Kable, S. H. Chem. Educ. Res. Pract. 2007, 8, 255–273. Crisp, M. G.; Kable, S. H.; Read, J. R.; Buntine, M. A. Chem. Educ. Res. Pract. 2011, 12, 469–477. Southam, D. C.; Shand, B.; Buntine, M. A.; Kable, S. H.; Read, J. R.; Morris, J. C. Chem. Educ. Res. Pract. 2013, 14, 476–484. Burgess, C.; Yeung, A.; Sharma, M. D. Int. J. Innov. Sci. Math. Educ. 2015, 23, 74–91. Bhathal, R.; Sharma, M. D.; Mendez, A. Eur. J. Phys. 2010, 31, 23–35. Yeung, A.; Pyke, S. M.; Sharma, M. D.; Barrie, S. C.; Buntine, M. A.; Burke da Silva, K.; Kable, S. H.; Lim, K. F. Int. J. Innov. Sci. Math. Educ. 2011, 19, 51–72. Kable, S. H.; Buntine, M. A.; Yeung, A.; Sharma, M. D.; Lim, K. F.; Pyke, S. M.; Burke da Silva, K.; Barrie, S. C. Advancing Science by Enhanching Learning in the Laboratory (ASELL); Australian Learning and Teaching Council, 2012. Lupton, M. Access 2012, 26, 12–18. Fensham, P. J. Quim. Nova 2002, 25, 335–339. Harrison, A. G.; Treagust, D. F. Instr. Sci. 2001, 29, 45–85. Bedgood, D. R.; Bridgeman, A. J.; Buntine, M. A.; Mocerino, M.; Southam, D. C.; Lim, K. F.; Gardiner, M.; Yates, B.; Morris, G.; Pyke, S. M.; Zadnik, M. 2010, 3, 10–19. Mitchell Crow, J.; O’Brien, G.; Schultz, M. Aust. J. Educ. Chem. 2012, 72, 6–8. Overton, T. L.; Randles, C. A. Chem. Educ. Res. Pract. 2015, 16, 251–259. Lawrie, G. A.; Grondahl, L.; Boman, S.; Andrews, T. J. Sci. Educ. Technol. 2016, 25, 394–409. KonskyVon, B. R.; Ivins, J.; Gribble, S. J. AJET 2009, 25, 581–595. King, D.; Bellocchi, A.; Ritchie, S. M. Res. Sci. Educ. 2008, 38, 365–384. King, D. Stud. Sci. Educ. 2012, 48, 51–87. King, D. T.; Ritchie, S. M. Int. J. Sci. Educ. 2013, 35, 1159–1182. Danczak, S. M.; Thompson, C. D.; Overton, T. L. Chem. Educ. Res. Pract. 2017, 18, 420–434. 189


60. Brown, S.; White, S.; Wakeling, L.; Naiker, M. J. Univ. Teach. Learn. Pract. 2015, 12, 6. 61. Urban, S. J. Chem. Educ. 2017, 94, 1051–1059. 62. Urban, S.; Brkljača, R.; Cockman, R.; Rook, T. J. Chem. Educ. 2017, 94, 873–878. 63. Vishnumolakala, V. R.; Southam, D. C.; Treagust, D. F.; Mocerino, M. Chem. Educ. Res. Pract. 2016, 17, 309–319. 64. Vishnumolakala, V. R.; Southam, D. C.; Treagust, D. F.; Mocerino, M.; Qureshi, S. Chem. Educ. Res. Pract. 2017, 18, 340–352. 65. Williamson, N.; Metha, G.; Willison, J.; Pyke, S. Int. J. Innov. Sci. Math. Educ. 2013, 21, 27–41. 66. Bridgeman, A. J.; Schmidt, T. W.; Young, N. A. J. Chem. Educ. 2013, 90, 889–893. 67. Southam, D. C.; Lewis, J. E. J. Chem. Educ. 2013, 90, 1425–1432. 68. Xu, X.; Southam, D. C.; Lewis, J. E. Aust. J. Educ. Chem. 2012, 72, 32–36. 69. Xu, X.; Alhooshani, K.; Southam, D.; Lewis, J. E. In Gathering Psychometric Evidence for ASCIv2 to Support Cross-Cultural Attitudinal Studies for College Chemistry Programs; Springer Berlin Heidelberg: Berlin, Heidelberg, 2014; pp 177–194. 70. Vanags, T.; Pammer, K.; Brinker, J. Adv. Physiol. Educ. 2013, 37, 233–241. 71. Qureshi, S.; Vishnumolakala, V. R.; Southam, D. C.; Treagust, D. F. Int. J. Sci. Math. Educ. 2017, 15, 1017–1038. 72. Schultz, M.; O’Brien, G. In Implementing Communities of Practice in Higher Education; Springer Singapore: Singapore, 2016; Vol. 5, pp 501–530. 73. Schmid, S.; Schultz, M.; Priest, S. J.; O’Brien, G.; Pyke, S. M.; Bridgeman, A.; Lim, K. F.; Southam, D. C.; Bedford, S. B.; Jamie, I. M. In Tools of Chemistry Education Research; ACS Symposium Series 1235; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2016; pp 225–244. 74. Lawrie, G. A.; Schultz, M.; Bailey, C. H.; Mamun, Al, M. A.; Micallef, A. S.; Williams, M.; Wright, A. H. In Tools of Chemistry Education Research; ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2016; Vol. 1235, pp 1–21. 75. Schultz, M.; Lawrie, G. A.; Bailey, C. H.; Bedford, S. B.; Dargaville, T. R.; O’Brien, G.; Tasker, R.; Thompson, C. D.; Williams, M.; Wright, A. H. Int. J. Sci. Educ. 2017, 39, 565–586. 76. Lawrie, G. A.; Schultz, M.; Wright, A. H. Int. J. Sci. Math. Educ. 2017, 34, 513. 77. Duit, R.; Treagust, D. F. Int. J. Sci. Educ. 2003, 25, 671–688. 78. Treagust, D. F. Int. J. Sci. Educ. 1988, 10, 159–169. 79. Harrison, A. G.; Treagust, D. F. Sci. Educ. 1996, 80, 509–534. 80. Harrison, A. G.; Treagust, D. F. Int. J. Sci. Educ. 2000, 22, 1011–1026. 81. Harrison, A. G.; Treagust, D. F. Sci. Educ. 2000, 84, 352–381. 82. Tyson, L.; Treagust, D. F.; Bucat, R. B. J. Chem. Educ. 1999, 76, 554. 83. Bucat, R. Chem. Educ. Res. Pract. 2004, 5, 215–228. 84. Baddock, M.; Bucat, R. Int. J. Sci. Educ. 2008, 30, 1115–1128. 85. Bucat, R. B.; Cole, A. R. H. J. Chem. Educ. 1988, 65–777. 86. Head, J.; Bucat, R. B. Aust. J. Educ. Chem. 2002, 59, 25–29. 190 Cox and Schatzberg; International Perspectives on Chemistry Education Research and Practice ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2018.

87. Chandrasegaran, A. L.; Treagust, D. F.; Mocerino, M. Chem. Educ. Res. Pract. 2007, 8, 293–307. 88. Chandrasegaran, A. L.; Treagust, D. F.; Mocerino, M. Res. Sci. Educ. 2008, 38, 237–248. 89. Chittleborough, G. D.; Treagust, D. F.; Mamiala, T. L.; Mocerino, M. Research in Science & Technological Education 2005, 23, 195–212. 90. Bucat, B.; Mocerino, M. In Multiple Representations in Chemical Education; Models and Modeling in Science Education; Springer Netherlands: Dordrecht, 2009; Vol. 4, pp 11–29. 91. Chittleborough, G. D.; Treagust, D. F.; Mocerino, M. Perth, Western Australia, 2002. 92. Prain, V.; Tytler, R. Int. J. Sci. Educ. 2012, 34 (17), 2751–2773. 93. Ainsworth, S.; Prain, V.; Tytler, R. Science 2011, 333, 1096–1097. 94. Prain, V.; Tytler, R.; Peterson, S. Int. J. Sci. Educ. 2009, 31, 787–808. 95. Nielsen, W.; Hoban, G.; Hyland, C. J. T. Chem. Educ. Res. Pract. 2017, 18, 329–339. 96. Dickson, H.; Thompson, C. D.; O’Toole, P. Int. J. Innov. Sci. Math. Educ. 2016, 24, 12–23. 97. Lawrie, G.; Bartle, E. Int. J. Innov. Sci. Math. Educ. 2013, 21, 27–45. 98. Hilton, A.; Nichols, K. Int. J. Sci. Educ. 2011, 33 (16), 2215–2246. 99. Tasker, R.; Dalton, R. Chem. Educ. Res. Pract. 2006, 7, 141–159. 100. Tasker, R.; Dalton, R. In Visualization: Theory and Practice in Science Education; Springer Netherlands: Dordrecht, 2008; pp 103–131. 101. Taber, K. S.; Towns, M. H.; Treagust, D. F. In Tools of Chemistry Education Research; ACS Symposium Series 1166; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2014; pp 299–332. 102. Bartle, E. K.; Dook, J.; Mocerino, M. Chem. Educ. Res. Pract. 2011, 12, 303–311. 103. Atherton, M. Iss. Educ. Res. 2017, 27, 19–30. 104. Schmid, S.; Youl, D. J.; George, A. V.; Read, J. R. Int. J. Sci. Educ. 2012, 34, 1211–1234. 105. Thomas, G. P.; McRobbie, C. J. J. Res. Sci. Teach. 2001, 38, 222–259. 106. Thomas, G. P.; McRobbie, C. J. J. Sci. Educ. Technol. 2013, 22, 300–313. 107. Yuriev, E.; Naidu, S.; Schembri, L. S.; Short, J. L. Chem. Educ. Res. Pract. 2017, 18, 486–504. 108. Cole, M. L.; Hibbert, D. B.; Kehoe, E. J. J. Chem. Educ. 2013, 90, 671–672. 109. Pegrum, M.; Bartle, E.; Longnecker, N. Br. J. Educ. Technol. 2015, 46, 142–152. 110. Mamun, Al, M. A.; Lawrie, G.; Wright, T. 2016, 381–386. 111. McRae, C.; Karuso, P.; Liu, F. J. Chem. Educ. 2012, 89, 878–883. 112. Williamson, V. M.; Lane, S. M.; Gilbreath, T.; Tasker, R.; Ashkenazi, G.; Williamson, K. C.; Macfarlane, R. D. J. Chem. Educ. 2012, 89, 979–987.


Australian Chemistry Education Research and Practice: A Dynamic

Recommend Documents