Article Cite This: J. Chem. Educ. XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX
pubs.acs.org/jchemeduc
Developing and Applying Stepped Supporting Tools in Organic Chemistry To Promote Students’ Self-Regulated Learning Jolanda Hermanns*,† and Bernd Schmidt‡ †
Zentrum für Lehrerbildung und Bildungsforschung, University of Potsdam, 14476 Potsdam, Germany Department of Chemistry, University of Potsdam, 14476 Potsdam, Germany
‡
Downloaded via TULANE UNIV on December 4, 2018 at 04:02:06 (UTC). See https://pubs.acs.org/sharingguidelines for options on how to legitimately share published articles.
S Supporting Information *
ABSTRACT: Stepped supporting tools were developed and used in the university seminar Organic Chemistry taken by nonmajor chemistry students, which supported self-regulated learning. These supporting tools were also used for accompanying homework, which included a QR code that led to additional supporting tools. The application of stepped supporting tools in the seminars was evaluated by a four-item Likert scale. The students assessed the tools as a helpful instrument for solving tasks in chemistry. KEYWORDS: High School/Introductory Chemistry, Organic Chemistry
■
INTRODUCTION Heterogeneous classes are a well-known phenomenon. Individual learning different methods should therefore be used. French philosopher Michel de Montaigne wrote in 1580 that using the same content and method for very different students is inadequate.1 C. B. Brown writes that “each fall as classes begin, those of us teaching chemistry realize that our classes are not made up of readied vessels waiting to be filled.”2 Changing the teaching method is one way of addressing heterogeneous classes. Integration of multiple teaching methods into a general chemistry classroom is described by Francisco et al.3 Students should be actively involved in the learning process. A format other than the traditional lecture format is therefore needed. Francisco et al. used a combination of cooperative learning, class discussions, concept maps, and lectures in their course. Their evaluation shows that the integration of multiple methods of teaching can enhance student participation. Freeman et al. meta-analyzed 225 studies with data on examination scores of students in courses under traditional lecturing versus active learning.4 The active learning interventions in the studies investigated included occasional group problem-solving, worksheets, or tutorials completed during class; personal response systems with or without peer instruction; and studio or workshop course designs. Active learning increased the examination performance by just under half an SD (standard deviation); lecturing increased failure rates by 55%. The use of traditional lecturing in everyday practice should therefore be questioned. A possible solution for the handling of the phenomenon “heterogeneous classes” can be cooperative learning as it was investigated in many studies.5 Improvement in academic achievement is significant if cooperative learning methods are involved for 4 weeks or longer. Heterogeneous groups that are composed of students with varying learning abilities are preferable for these learning groups. The instructor must specify the goals and realize that active intervention may be necessary. As described by Cooper, cooperative learning methods are a useful method also for large enrollment courses.6 Almost all of the students favored group © XXXX American Chemical Society and Division of Chemical Education, Inc.
work in that study. Likewise, guided discovery learning in organic chemistry was applied by Meany et al.7 The students had to carry out stepwise analyses of what happens along the reaction progress. They had also to integrate and apply prior knowledge to a new context. Hanson8 observed that only 10−20% of students participated in recitation sessions (where an instructor worked out problems and answered questions), resulting in the development of a new model of classroom instruction: the process workshop.8 Here, the students are actively engaged in learning by working in self-managed teams on activities that involve, for example, problem-solving. The students develop an understanding through guided discovery, such as by using criticalthinking questions. Learning teams are created, which engages more students in the classroom. For problem-solving, several steps in methodology and strategies are provided. The goal is the development of skills essential for success, not only in the course, but also in their careers. Critical thinking and contextrich problems are useful in this regard. The evaluation was very encouraging. For example, the attendance improved significantly (from 10−20% to 80−90%). Many learning environments can help to actively involve students in their own learning process. Wood discusses a spectrum of 32 learning environments.9 Several activities, such as pick problems or identifying the learning issues, are included. Problem-oriented, problem-assisted, and problemdriven research/inquiry approaches in an environment where students actively participate are especially significant formats for our own work. However, the differences between the learning environments are subtle. A possible solution for heterogeneous groups is to provide scaffolding for solving tasks. The question here is “what the learner could not yet do alone, but could achieve with a limited amount of support”. The support is gradually reduced as the Received: July 17, 2018 Revised: October 29, 2018
A
DOI: 10.1021/acs.jchemed.8b00565 J. Chem. Educ. XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX
Journal of Chemical Education
Article
learner masters the material.10 Hilton et al. use a range of digital and laboratory resources as well as teacher and peer interaction to scaffold the learning process of their students.11 Livengood et al.12 describe the use and evaluation of scaffolding in a course on spectroscopy methods. There the instructors provide the scaffold for the students by providing homework assistance to the students. When there is no instructor at hand, stepped supporting tools can be a good alternative.
tasks, the exercise can be solved step by step. For the seminars, these stepped supporting tools are printed on a piece of paper that is placed in a clear plastic sleeve and masked by a darker sheet of paper so that students can reveal each step one at a time (Figure 1). One at a time, the stepped supporting tools
■
STEPPED SUPPORTING TOOLS AS AN ELEMENT OF SELF-REGULATED LEARNING In this article, we present and discuss the application of stepped supporting tools in our class. We want to examine whether stepped supporting tools are suitable for self-regulated learning. The effectiveness of the tools in more complex tasks is especially the topic of our investigation, which leads to the following research question: Are the stepped supporting tools assessed helpful for complex tasks in organic chemistry? Stepped supporting tools are a method well-known in chemical education at schools.13−15 This method is especially suited to heterogeneous groups. The students independently choose the stepped supporting tools to use. They can only be designed if the solution of the tasks involves sufficient gradations. Many tasks in organic chemistry are suitable for such tools, because solutions of organic chemistry problems proceed through a sequence of steps. The stepped supporting tools presented here should not be mistaken for key questions.8 Whereas key questions consist only of questions, sequential, stepped supporting tools include answers as well. Each answer leads to another question until the task is solved. Since we observed that many students have difficulties applying problem-solving strategies (also observed by Hanson8), we decided to use stepped supporting tools in our classes and the accompanying homework. In these classes, stepped supporting tools take on the role of the instructor. We developed stepped supporting tools as an element of self-regulated learning16 (for a short manual, see Supporting Information). We wanted to enable students to choose a more deep-processing approach for their learning, in order to really understand the content of the course. Boekaerts16 describes self-regulation as “being able to develop knowledge, skills, and attitudes which can be transferred from one learning context to another and from learning situations in which this information has been acquired to a leisure and work context”. Therefore, self-regulated learning is conceptual learning for us. The basic concepts of organic chemistry, such as nucleophile−electrophile, electronic effects, homolytic vs heterolytic bond cleavage, reaction mechanisms and functional groups, for example, should be understood and then applied to new problems. Memorizing all the possible reactions and problems in organic chemistry, as often attempted by students, is an impossible task and, for effective learning, neither meaningful nor desirable. Hänze et al.17 describe stepped supporting tools as specifically suitable for the regulation of both information processing and learning processes. Fach et al.18 describe four different types of stepped supporting tools for use with stoichiometric problems: giving general instructions on how to tackle problems, showing the steps of the solution process, advising students how to carry out these steps, and, finally, providing them with a glossary of important terms. The stepped supporting tools we developed consist of sequential, concrete tasks with solutions. By completing all the
Figure 1. Stepped supporting tools in a clear plastic sleeve.
are pulled out to the dividing line, without revealing the next tool. In order to access the stepped supporting tool through the QR codes, most students use their smartphone to work on the task. Each new page contains the new supporting tool, so that they can continuously scroll to the next tool. An exemplary design for an exercise regarding the resonance energy of benzene is shown in Figure 2.
■
RESTRUCTURING AN ORGANIC CHEMISTRY COURSE The organic chemistry course consists of lectures, seminars, online tests, and optional homework. The organic chemistry lectures for nonmajor chemistry students (those studying chemistry as a minor subject) cover the basics of organic chemistry, the most important chemical families, and their synthesis, reactions, and biomolecules. In our experience, students have major difficulties solving complex chemical problems. Finding the starting point for each task can be an insuperable hindrance. On the basis of experiences with the application of stepped supporting tools in a secondary school, the idea for using the method in university courses was born. For this purpose, however, a new structure for the relevant university seminars was necessary, because the students needed to collaborate actively. In the new type of student-centered class, students are encouraged to participate in the learning process. The teacher coordinates the activities: Here, being a teacher means helping people to learn.19 A survey among the students of the first lecture of this kind contained items regarding their knowledge of organic chemistry (see Supporting Information, Table S1), as well as their knowledge of learning methods (see Supporting Information, Table S2). The evaluation of the items regarding the knowledge of organic chemistry showed only basic knowledge and no enhanced knowledge. This result was unexpected, because most of the students (71%)20 had enrolled in chemistry during their school years. As a conclusion, the newly designed courses B
DOI: 10.1021/acs.jchemed.8b00565 J. Chem. Educ. XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX
Journal of Chemical Education
Article
universities, the homework was optional. Because the students did not have to prepare for our seminar, there was likely time available for the homework. Each homework sheet contained a QR code that led to supporting learning aids such as informational texts, puzzles, games, or stepped supporting tools. The use of QR codes was also described by Shaw et al.22 The latter developed an online instructional database which could be accessed by QR codes. Their concept included the use of smartphones, owned by the students, in order to gain access to the World Wide Web or to use apps. The use of smartphones in chemistry classrooms was also described by Williams et al.23 As 89% of students possess a smartphone,24 we also included the use of smartphones in our concept.20
■
METHODOLOGY The newly designed seminars as well as the homework sheets with the QR codes were evaluated. For our study regarding the stepped supporting tools (SST), the evaluation of the methods used in the seminars and the use of the stepped supporting tools in the homework were of particular interest. For the methods used in the seminars we used a six-item Likert scale, using the German school marks, 1−6 (1 = very good and 6 = very bad). The methods used in the seminars are partner work, group work, games, and supporting tools. For the evaluation of the use of the supporting tools for the homework, we used a three-item Likert scale: unnecessary, useful, and strictly necessary (Table 1). Table 1. Comparative Student Evaluations of Using SST for the Homework Student Responses,a N = 48
Figure 2. Task for finding the resonance energy of benzene.
aimed to provide opportunities for reviewing both basic and advanced knowledge of the chemical families. Knowledge of the kind of methodology that helped them prepare for written exams was also evaluated. Notably, the most suitable methods, such as concept maps21 or the design of new exercises, were not highly rated by the students. Instead, they specifically preferred the highlighting of important issues, which indicates that they were used to a surface-level learning style emphasizing the rehearsal and memorization of the study material.16 Therefore, mind maps and concept maps were selected for application in these seminars and the accompanying homework, in order to enable an approach where students could comprehend the learning content. The seminars were previously designed for the practice of exercises in a lecture format. Students in these seminars were mostly passive; interaction was rare and laborious. In order to enhance students’ activity, therefore, the seminars (averagely 25 students per group) were redesigned. Each tutor (six in total: one professor, one Ph.D., four Ph.D. students) received a script with didactic strategies such as the preferred method to use or the time allocated for the current exercise. Methods used were partner and group work, puzzles (such as for reaction mechanisms), educational games (e.g., for training the knowledge of functional groups or for repetition), and stepped supporting tools. Model exercises were solved in a collaborative manner (teacher and students). The most suitable way for solving a chemical task was elaborated. Homework was introduced as an additional element. As is common in German
Evaluation
N
%
Unnecessary Useful Strictly necessary
6 38 4
12.5 79.2 8.3
a Students used a scale of 1−6, with 1 being “very good” and 6 being “very bad”.
The stepped supporting tools used in the seminars were evaluated in order to verify the following hypotheses: (1) Stepped supporting tools show the logical way to solve an exercise. (2) Stepped supporting tools help to focus on the essence of the exercise. (3) Stepped supporting tools are especially suitable for solving complex tasks. For the evaluation, we asked students to respond to these seven statements using a Likert scale.25 “The stepped supporting tools: • Are arranged logically • Are formulated clearly • Explain the exercise • Are scaled correctly • Help classify the exercise • Explain how to solve an exercise • Are useful for preparing for exams” We chose a four-item Likert scale26 in which students could select either “strongly disagree”, “disagree”, “agree”, or strongly agree, using the forced-choice method by removing the neutral option (“neither agree nor disagree”). The stepped supporting C
DOI: 10.1021/acs.jchemed.8b00565 J. Chem. Educ. XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX
Journal of Chemical Education
Article
tools were evaluated in relation to two different tasks: Task 1, the resonance energy of benzene (Figure 2), and Task 2, reactions of a ketone (see the Supporting Information, Task S5). The students dealt with these tasks in seminar number 10. Half of the students started with Task 1 and the other half with Task 2 to prevent the influence of the sequence while solving the tasks. To be able to verify hypothesis 3 (stepped supporting tools are especially suitable for solving complex tasks), we asked five experts in chemistry education (professors and Ph.D.s) to assess the two tasks regarding their difficulty and complexity. We chose a five-item Likert scale 1−5 (ranging from “very easy/less complex” to “very difficult/very complex”.
Table 4. Comparative Student Evaluations of Task 2 Students’ Responses by Category, N = 86 Strongly Disagree Statements for Response: The Stepped Supporting Tools Are arranged logically Are formulated clearly Explain the exercise Are scaled correctly Help classify the exercise Explain how to solve an exercise Are useful for preparing for exams
■
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION The students preferred partner work in the seminars (Table 2). All the methods used were assessed as “good”. However, the Table 2. Comparative Evaluations of the Methods Used in the Seminar (N = 103) a
Methods
Mean Scores, N = 103
Partner work Group work Games SST
1.65 1.99 1.85 2.30
The five-item Likert scale ranges from 1, “very easy/less complex”, to 5, “very difficult/very complex”.
stepped supporting tools were the least well-received in-class method. When used for homework, most students assessed them as useful. We think that, at home, the stepped supporting tools take on the role of the partner. To verify this assumption and to further investigate the use of the stepped supporting tools, we evaluated the application of the stepped supporting tools in more detail. Tables 3 and 4 show the results of this evaluation. As shown, the predominant assignment is “strongly agree”. Only the items “are scaled correctly” and “help classify the
Students’ Responses by Category, N = 86
Statements for Response: The Stepped Supporting Tools Are arranged logically Are formulated clearly Explain the exercise Are scaled correctly Help classify the exercise Explain how to solve an exercise Are useful for preparing for exams
Agree
Strongly Agree
N
%
N
%
N
%
N
%
2
2.3
2
2.3
26
30.2
56
65.1
0
0.0
13
15.1
33
38.4
40
46.5
3
3.5
18
20.9
28
32.6
37
43.0
3
3.5
16
18.6
37
43.0
30
34.9
3
3.5
16
18.6
35
40.7
32
37.2
4
4.7
8
9.3
25
29.1
49
57.0
4
4.7
16
18.6
25
29.1
41
47.7
Strongly Agree
N
%
N
%
N
%
N
%
1
1.2
5
5.8
27
31.4
53
61.6
0
0.0
15
17.4
40
46.5
31
36.0
0
0.0
11
12.8
40
46.5
35
40.7
0
0.0
15
17.4
44
51.2
27
31.4
0
0.0
8
9.3
39
45.3
39
45.3
0
0.0
12
14.0
29
33.7
45
52.3
0
0.0
14
16.3
25
29.1
47
54.7
“They are only helpful if the meaning of the specialist terms is known. If the previous knowledge is not sufficient, the tools are not able to help.” [Student 59] In order to verify our hypotheses we will also discuss the evaluation of Task 2 (Table 4) and compare these results with those of the evaluation of Task 1. The evaluation shows that the predominant assignment is also “strongly agree”. The items “are formulated clearly”, “explain the exercise”, and “are scaled correctly” show a more frequent assignment of “agree”. We assume that the addition of the item “are formulated clearly” in the “agree” assessment in the evaluation of Task 2 is due to the more complex task. The influence of the knowledge of the students should be greater. Therefore, the students assess this item not as well as in Task 1. Nevertheless, the students assessed the stepped supporting tools as being useful. Only one student assessed “strongly disagree” with one item (“are arranged logically”). Our hypotheses that stepped supporting tools show the logical way to solve an exercise (hypotheses 1) and help to focus on the essence of the exercise (hypotheses 2) are, in the opinion of the students, verified. The addition of “agree” and “strongly agree” varies for Task 1 between 75.6% and 95.3%, and for Task 2 between 82.5 and 93.0%. This result indicates that stepped supporting tools are
Table 3. Comparative Student Evaluations of Task 1
Disagree
Agree
exercise” show a more frequent assignment of “agree”. This shows that the use of stepped supporting tools requires basic knowledge of the contents of the course. When the students have only insufficient knowledge, stepped supporting tools do not support them in their goal of solving the task. We therefore assume that those students who mostly disagreed are unsure about their knowledge and are incapable of applying it to the specific task. Our observations during the seminars support this assumption. One possible solution that could enable these students to solve their tasks with stepped supporting tools might be the distribution of a summary of the necessary content before applying the stepped supporting tools. In order to check this assumption, we will prepare such summaries for our next course. A quotation from the evaluation sheet of one student supports our assumption. The student wrote:
a
Strongly Disagree
Disagree
D
DOI: 10.1021/acs.jchemed.8b00565 J. Chem. Educ. XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX
Journal of Chemical Education
Article
useful for preparing for exams” also indicates the need for some kind of scaffold, which in this case is the stepped supporting tools. In summary, we conclude that the students assessed the stepped supporting tools as suitable and, in some regards, as more suitable for complex tasks. Our third hypothesis is therefore verified.
especially suitable for solving more complex tasks. In order to verify our third hypothesis (stepped supporting tools are especially suitable for solving complex tasks) we will discuss the comparison of the arithmetic means of both evaluations and the assessment of the experts regarding both tasks. As shown in Table 5, the experts assessed Task 2 as more difficult and more complex. It should therefore be possible to
■
CONCLUSION The evaluation results indicate that stepped supporting tools are very suitable elements of self-regulated learning. The students not only rated these tools as helpful for solving tasks in chemistry but also recognized them as useful in developing learning and problem-solving strategies (items “explain the exercise” and “explain how to solve an exercise”). Our research question “Are the stepped supporting tools assessed helpful for complex tasks in organic chemistry?” can be answered with “yes”. Whether or not the students achieve better results in their written exams as a consequence of implementing the stepped supporting tools in the courses remains unclear, because participation in almost all teaching events is voluntary by law in the German higher education system. Therefore, the rate and continuity of attendance in courses strongly depends on the students’ motivation and self-assessment of their individual capabilities and personal circumstances. However, we will continue developing stepped supporting tools, especially for more complex tasks, because the students used these tools intensively during class time and rated them as useful. We recommend the implementation of stepped supporting tools in university seminars as a useful scaffold for promoting self-regulated learning.
Table 5. Comparative Expert Assessments of the SST Tasks Mean Scores,a N = 5 Task
Difficulty
Complexity
1 2
2.0 2.8
2.4 4.4
The five-item Likert scale ranges from 1, “very easy/less complex”, to 5, “very difficult/very complex”.
a
verify the third hypothesis (stepped supporting tools are especially suitable for solving complex tasks) by discussing the results of the evaluation of Task 2. The results of the evaluation of Task 2 show that a great majority (82.5−93.0%) of the students agree or strongly agree that the tasks are useful. As shown in Table 6, the arithmetic means differ only slightly. On average, as discussed above, all students agreed Table 6. Comparative Student Evaluations of the SST for Tasks 1 and 2 Students’ Scoresa by Task, N = 86 Task 1, α = 0.866 Statements for Response: The Stepped Supporting Tools Are arranged logically Are formulated clearly Explain the exercise Are scaled correctly Help classify the exercise Explain how to solve an exercise Are useful for preparing for exams
Task 2, α = 0.755
Mean
SD
Mean
SD
Cohen’s d Values
3.58 3.31 3.15 3.09 3.12 3.38
0.659 0.724 0.875 0.821 0.832 0.843
3.54 3.19 3.28 3.14 3.36 3.38
0.663 0.711 0.679 0.689 0.649 0.722
b b b b 0.32 b
3.20
0.906
3.39
0.754
0.23
■
ASSOCIATED CONTENT
S Supporting Information *
The Supporting Information is available on the ACS Publications website at DOI: 10.1021/acs.jchemed.8b00565. Appendix 1: different exercises in organic chemistry with stepped supporting tools (PDF, DOCX) Appendix 2: a short manual on the development of stepped supporting tools (PDF, DOCX) Appendix 3: results of the evaluation on the knowledge of organic chemistry and methodology (PDF, DOCX)
■
Students used a scale of 1−4, with 1 being “strongly disagree” and 4 being “strongly agree”. bEffect size is not significant.
a
AUTHOR INFORMATION
Corresponding Author
with the items. Two items were assessed differently and effectively: “help classifying the exercise” and “are useable for preparing exam”. The effect sizes are 0.32 and 0.23. Although only small effects, we assume that the reason for the different and more positive assessment is the difference in the construction of the two tasks: The task “the resonance energy of benzene” (Figure 2) consists of one problem with sequential stepped supporting tools offering solutions that lead to solving the task. The task “reactions of a ketone” (Supporting Information, Task S5) consists of various tasks starting from one central chemical compound: Different kinds of reactions are required to generate the reaction products. This task is therefore much more complex (as rated by the experts) than the task shown in Figure 2. The item “explain the exercise” was also rated slightly better than in Task 1. We conclude that the students needed the stepped supporting tools to understand the exercise. Understanding of the exercise should be the first step when solving it. The more positive rating of the item “are
*E-mail:
[email protected]. ORCID
Jolanda Hermanns: 0000-0001-7422-6350 Bernd Schmidt: 0000-0002-0224-6069 Notes
The authors declare no competing financial interest.
■ ■
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS We thank the Potsdam Graduate School (POGS) for financial support. REFERENCES
(1) de Montaigne, M. E. Essais Ü ber die Knabenerziehung [Essays on the Education of Boys]; Eichborn-Verlag: Frankfurt am Main, 1998. (2) Brown, C. B. Heterogeneous Students in Homogeneous Classrooms. J. Chem. Educ. 1985, 62, 512−513.
E
DOI: 10.1021/acs.jchemed.8b00565 J. Chem. Educ. XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX
Journal of Chemical Education
Article
Technology, Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Concept Mapping; Canas, A. J., Novak, J. D., Vanhear, J., Eds.; University of Malta: Malta, 2012; Vol. 1, pp 97−104. (22) Yip, T.; Melling, L.; Shaw, K. Evaluation of an Online Instructional Database Accessed by QR Codes To Support Biochemistry Practical Laboratory Classes. J. Chem. Educ. 2016, 93 (9), 1556−1560. (23) Williams, A. J.; Pence, H. E. Smart Phones, a Powerful Tool in the Chemistry Classroom. J. Chem. Educ. 2011, 88, 683−686. (24) Statista. Anteil der Smartphone-Nutzer in Deutschland nach Altersgruppe im Jahr 2017 [Percentage of Smartphone Users in Germany]. http://de.statista.com/statistik/daten/studie/459963/ umfrage/anteil-der-smartphone-nutzer-in-deutschland-nachaltersgruppe/ (accessed Oct 2018). (25) Likert, R. A Technique for the Measurement of Attitudes. Archives of Psychology 1932, 140, 1−55. (26) Allen, E.; Seaman, C. Likert Scales and Date Analyses. Quality Progress 2007, 7, 64−65.
(3) Francisco, J. S.; Nicoll, G.; Trautmann, M. Integrating Multiple Teaching Methods into a General Chemistry Classroom. J. Chem. Educ. 1998, 75, 210−213. (4) Freeman, S.; Eddy, S. L.; McDonough, M.; Smith, M. K.; Okoroafor, N.; Jordt, H.; Wenderoth, M. P. Active Learning Increases Student Performance in Science, Engineering, and Mathematics. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 2014, 111, 8410−8415. (5) Wenzel, T. J. Cooperative Student Activities as Learning Devices. Anal. Chem. 2000, 72, 293A−296A. (6) Cooper, M. M. Cooperative LearningAn Approach for Large Enrollment Courses. J. Chem. Educ. 1995, 72, 162−164. (7) Meany, J. E.; Minderhout, V.; Pocker, Y. Application of Hammond’s PostulateAn Activity for Guided Discovery Learning in Organic Chemistry. J. Chem. Educ. 2001, 78, 204−207. (8) Hanson, D.; Wolfskill, T. Process WorkshopsA New Model for Instruction. J. Chem. Educ. 2000, 77, 120−130. (9) Woods, D. R. Problem-Oriented Learning, Problem-Based Learning, Problem-Based Synthesis, Process-Oriented Guided Inquiry Learning, Peer-Led Team Learning, Model-Eliciting Activities, and Project-Based Learning: What Is Best for You? Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2014, 53, 5337−5354. (10) Taber, K. Chemical Misconceptions: Prevention, Diagnosis and Cure. Theoretical Background; The Royal Society of Chemistry: London, 2002; Vol. 1. (11) Hilton, A.; Nichols, K.; Gitsaki, C. Scaffolding Chemistry Students’ Learning within the Context of Emerging Scientific Research Themes through Laboratory Inquiry. https://www.aare.edu.au/ publications/aare-conference-papers/show/5673/scaffoldingchemistry-students-learning-within-the-context-of-emerging-scientificresearch-themes-through-laboratory-inquiry (accessed November 2018). (12) Livengood, K.; Lewallen, D. W.; Leatherman, J.; Maxwell, J. L. The Use and Evaluation of Scaffolding, Student Centered-Learning, Behaviorism, and Constructivism To Teach Nuclear Magnetic Resonance and IR Spectroscopy in a Two-Semester Organic Chemistry Course. J. Chem. Educ. 2012, 89, 1001−1006. (13) Freiman, T.; Schlieker, V. Abgestufte Lernhilfen [Stepped Supporting Tools]. Unterricht Chemie 2001, 82-83, 164−165. (14) Forschergruppe, K. Aufgaben mit gestuften Lernhilfen [Tasks with Stepped Supporting Tools]. Lernchancen 2004, 42, 38−43. (15) Stäudel, L.; Franke-Braun, G.; Schmidt-Weigand, F. Komplexität erhaltenauch in heterogenen Lerngruppen: Aufgaben mit gestuften Lernhilfen [To Maintain ComplexityAlso in Heterogeneous Learning Groups: Tasks with Stepped Supporting Tools]. CHEMKON 2007, 14 (3), 115−122. (16) Boekaerts, M. Self-Regulated Learning: Where We Are Today. Int. J. Educ. Res. 1999, 31, 445−457. (17) Hänze, M.; Schmidt-Weigand, F.; Stäudel, L. Gestufte Lernhilfen in der Sekundarstufe II. Einsatzmö glichkeiten und pädagogische Bedeutung [Stepped Supporting Tools in Secondary School]. In Individuelle Fö rderung durch innere Differenzierung: Praxishandbuch für Lehrerinnen; Boller, S., Lau, R., Eds.; Beltz: Weinheim, 2010; pp 63−73. (18) Fach, M.; de Boer, T.; Parchmann, I. Results of an Interview Study as Basis for the Development of Stepped Supporting Tools for Stoichiometric Problems. Chem. Educ. Res. Pract. 2007, 8 (1), 13−31. (19) Jones, L. The Student-Centered Classroom; Cambridge University Press: New York, 2007. (20) Hermanns, J.; Schmidt, B. Zur Verwendung von QR-Codes in Uni-Seminarenein Baustein in den neu konzipierten Ü bungen zur Vorlesung “Organische Chemie für Studierende im Nebenfach” [The Use of QR Codes in SeminarsA Building Block in the Newly Designed Seminars for the Course “Organic Chemistry for Minor Students”]. CHEMKON 2017, 24 (3), 139−141. (21) (a) Fürstenau, B. Concept Maps im Lehr-Lern-Kontext [Concept Maps in the Teaching-Learning Context]. DIE Zeitschrift für Erwachsenenbildung 2011, 1, 46−48. (b) Fürstenau, B.; Kneppers, L.; Dekker, R. Concept Mapping and Text Writing as Learning Tools in Problem-Oriented Learning. In Concept Maps: Theory, Methodology, F
DOI: 10.1021/acs.jchemed.8b00565 J. Chem. Educ. XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX
