Subject Index
Downloaded by 80.82.77.83 on December 24, 2017 | http://pubs.acs.org Publication Date (Web): November 22, 2016 | doi: 10.1021/bk-2016-1235.ix002
A ACS anchoring concepts content map (ACCM), 179 ACCI, development and structure, 180 ACCM, big ideas and anchoring concepts, 182t ACCM, hierarchical structure, 181f all four levels, example, 183t ACS exams, development, 183 exam development timeline, 183f create ACS exam content, ACCM, 186 methods alignment process for a general chemistry assessment, example, 185f analyzed items by exam type, distribution, 186t exam item alignment, 184 results and analysis, 187 distribution of released and unreleased items, 188f distribution of released and unreleased items, GC17, 190f energy and thermodynamics, 189 GC17 across enduring understanding statements, distribution of unreleased trial items, 190f GC17 unreleased trial items, distribution, 192f released GC12F and GC15F exam items, distribution, 191f unreleased trial items from GC17, distribution, 189f ACS general chemistry exam, use of the online version discussion and conclusion, 220 ACS Exams Institute general chemistry exam, 221 results, 214 average Z-score, hour exam and final exam scores, 217f class hour and final exams, mean and standard deviation, 220t correct for the items included, average number of items, 218f final exam, student performance, 219f hour exam and final exam scores, average Z-score, 220f online ACS exam, average difficulty, discrimination and complexity, 216f
online exam and final exam, average number of items, 218f online exam performance for higher and lower performing students, results, 215f
C Chemistry, tool to evaluate assessment items, 225 methodology, 230 results and discussion ‘four-square’ classification, five possible outcomes, 234f ‘four-square’ decision matrix, 233f assessment tasks evaluated, preliminary observations, 236 CTLOs, assessment ratings for the engaged component, 235t CTLOs, components, 240f CTLOs, laboratory work, 237 each CTLO, final tool used for evaluation, 235f evaluation of an assessment, example, 236f evaluation tool, development, 231 optimal assessment design, important insights, 238 submitter’s evaluation, comparison, 239f Chemistry classroom, student engagement incorporating technological tools, motivations, 69 observations, 74 areas of the SoftChalk module, student responses, 77f helpfulness of Clickers, SoftChalk and MyLabsPlus, view of the student opinions, 76f helpfulness of Clickers, student opinions, 75f helpfulness of SoftChalk, student opinions, 75f prepared for exams, student responses, 78f use of SoftChalk and Clickers, student opinions, 76f study, location context, 70
251 Schultz et al.; Technology and Assessment Strategies for Improving Student Learning in Chemistry ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2016.
Downloaded by 80.82.77.83 on December 24, 2017 | http://pubs.acs.org Publication Date (Web): November 22, 2016 | doi: 10.1021/bk-2016-1235.ix002
general chemistry, combining educational technologies, 73 North Carolina A&T State University, Clickers, 72 North Carolina A&T State University, SoftChalk, 72 study cycle as applied to CHEM 104, expanded version, 71f Chemistry laboratory videos, 159 introduction, 160 data informed practice, 162 effective pedagogical approach, 161 reusable digital resources, 161 laboratory videos, development, 162 developing instructional videos, challenges and successes, 174 development of instructional videos, flow chart used, 163f laboratory videos developed, categories, 164 SFU and VIU, instructional videos developed, 165t Simon Fraser University (SFU), 164 student survey for CHEM 126, summary, 169t student survey for CHEM 140/150, summary, 168t student survey for CHEM 215, summary, 171t student survey for CHEM 336, summary, 173t success/student usage, evidence, 166 Vancouver Island University (VIU), 163 video tutorial pageviews per week, number, 167f Conceptual understanding, chemistry educators, 195 mock ACS exam items, 199 survey, mock ACS exam items 5 and 6, 201t survey, mock ACS exam items 1 through 4, 200t mock ACS items, instructor impressions, 201 faculty rating each mock ACS items, percentage, 202t mock ACS item 1, instructor’ classification, 203f mock ACS item 2, instructors’ classification, 203f mock ACS item 3, instructors’ classification, 204f mock ACS item 4, instructors’ classification, 205f
mock ACS item 5, instructors’ classification, 206f mock ACS item 6, instructors’ classification, 206f one atom with two central atoms, VSEPR, 202 survey information, 197 school type among participants, distribution, 199f survey data collection and participant demographics, 198 years teaching, distribution of participants, 198t
I Introductory general chemistry classes, use of LearnSmart and Connect, 83 introduction, 84 an algorithmic problem in Connect, example, 91f connect, 90 LearnSmart and metacognition, 87 LearnSmart question, example, 88f LearnSmart question, example of a correct response, 89f online resources, 85 SmartBook, example of text as it appears, 87f SmartBook, suggestion, 90f what is SmartBook?, 86 SmartBook in a general chemistry class, preliminary evaluation, 91 future, student suggestions, 95 groupwork, 92 instructor point of view, 96 McGraw-Hill Education Canada case studies, 95 room for improvement, 94 student feedback, 93 weighted, online homework components, 92
O Open education digital textbook, 23 academic reading circles, 29 commuter students, 32 connector, 31 contextualizer, 30 highlighter, 31 leader, 30 visualizer, 30
252 Schultz et al.; Technology and Assessment Strategies for Improving Student Learning in Chemistry ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2016.
Downloaded by 80.82.77.83 on December 24, 2017 | http://pubs.acs.org Publication Date (Web): November 22, 2016 | doi: 10.1021/bk-2016-1235.ix002
product solution, connection to the blue color, 133t students’ justification, analysis in connection to the copper surface change, 127t students’ justification for choosing animation 3, analysis, 132t three key experimental features and the animations, justifying the connection, 126 video/animation exercise, 121 video showing an aqueous silver nitrate solution, still image, 122f voting bar graph, class the instructor, 125 visualization studies, 118
assessments, strengthening social collaboration, 36 open-response unit quizzes, using a team-based learning technique, 37f behavior, observed changes, 38 traditional active learning methods, each of the semesters, 38f context, 25 flipped learning, 27 open-education textbook, adopting, 25 digital textbooks, benefits, 26 text-centric classroom, role of technology, 33 initial collapsed state, ChemWiki ‘accordion’ content, 34f user triggered expanded state, ChemWiki ‘accordion’ content, 35f text-centric flipping, 28
S R Redox reaction, instructional use of contrasting molecular animations, 117 lesson challenge animation resembling the reaction equation, animation 3, 130 blue product solution, appearance, 129 class instructing students, power point slide, 126f conductivity evidence, 131 connection to the blue color of the product solution, analysis of students’ justification for choosing animation 2, 129t connection to the conductivity evidence, analysis of students’ justification for choosing animation 3, 130t connection to the copper surface change, analysis of students’ justification for choosing animation 2, 128t copper lattice, animation 3 shows silver nitrate molecules in solution, 124f copper lattice and an electron cloud overlay, animation 2 shows an aqueous solution of silver and nitrate ions, 123f copper surface change, 128 lattice of copper atoms, animation 1 portrayed silver nitrate molecules in solution, 123f participants, 120
Scaffolded online modules, development, 1 design methodology, 4 diagnostic instrument item clusters, list of topics and subtopics covered, 6t feedback and activities, iterative cycle, 5f Phase Change in ChemBytes, screenshot of a landing page, 9f Phase Change module activities, part of storyboard overview, 6f ReSOLv website, flowchart for the structure, 8f structure of online activities, categories, 5t video scaffolding students, screen shot, 7f evaluation methodology, 10 results and discussion, 11 open response items, percentage of responses, 14f typical student progress through ReSOLv, flow charts, 12f typical student responses, examples, 15t use of ChemBytes, ChemBytes Google Analytics data, 13t Students’ practical laboratory techniques, 137 laboratory techniques development, approaches British Columbia Institute of Technology (BCIT), 147 CHEM 1121 and CHEM 2204, 148 data manipulation and graphing, 149
253 Schultz et al.; Technology and Assessment Strategies for Improving Student Learning in Chemistry ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2016.
Downloaded by 80.82.77.83 on December 24, 2017 | http://pubs.acs.org Publication Date (Web): November 22, 2016 | doi: 10.1021/bk-2016-1235.ix002
final laboratory exams, 151 graphing and peer review submission, 154f laboratory exam grading scheme, 152t laboratory technique instructions, 139 Laboratory Techniques manual used in Part 2, section, 141f Manual Titration PowerPoint presentation, sample slide, 143f plan 1, laboratory techniques experiment, 140 plan 2: part 1, 142 plan 1 versus plan 2, 144 practical assessments and final laboratory exams, results, 153t practical assessments (PA), 149 results and discussion (BCIT), 152 results and discussion (SFU), 145 sample exercise sheet, 144f Simon Fraser University (SFU), 138 student results from CHEM 126 (SFU), summary, 146t technique 1, laboratory assessment rubric, 149f techniques and practice (T&P), 149 techniques assessed in week 8 and week 15, summary, 151t traditional chemistry laboratories, 150
U Undergraduate chemistry laboratory introduction, 101 learning in the undergraduate chemistry laboratory, students’ expectations, 102f methods, 103 evaluate undergraduate chemistry laboratory experiments, inquiry rubric, 105t faculty goals survey, chemistry faculty who responded, 104t instruments, 104 instruments used to collect data, trio, 103f Meaningful Learning in the Laboratory Instrument (MLLI), 105 research questions, 103 sample, 103 results and discussion faculty goals survey, 107, 111
faculty responses to FGS item, GC and OC, 109f FGS item, GC and OC faculty responses, 108f FGS item, GC faculty responses, 108f four types of courses in study 1, levels of inquiry, 106f GC I and GC II for school 02, levels of inquiry, 112f inquiry rubric, 106 laboratory instrument, faculty goals survey, 112 limitations, 113 MLLI item 3, GC I students’ experiences vs. expectations, 110f MLLI item 8, GC I students’ experiences vs. expectations, 110f MLLI item 22, GC I students’ experiences vs. expectations, 111f school 02, faculty goals survey responses, 112t schools in study 1, levels of inquiry, 107f
W Web 2.0 technology, 47 introduction, 48 learning chemistry, elements of the information processing model, 50f scholarly teaching and teaching as research, key differences, 51f learning in chemistry, using technology, 51 assessment involving applications, rationale, evaluation and dissemination, 55t chemistry learning, examples of technology-enhanced assessment, 54 elab notebooks, 57 interplay between knowledge, experience and skills of teachers, multiple dimensions, 52f mapping web 2.0 tools, 53 personal element tweets, 60 student feedback collected, themes, 58t web 2.0 tools, examples, 54t practice, summary and recommendations, 61
254 Schultz et al.; Technology and Assessment Strategies for Improving Student Learning in Chemistry ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2016.
