Report Cite This: J. Chem. Educ. XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX
pubs.acs.org/jchemeduc
ConfChem Conference on Mathematics in Undergraduate Chemistry Instruction: Introduction to the Fall 2017 ConfChem Jennifer L. Muzyka,*,† Eric A. Nelson,‡,# W. Cary Kilner,§ Robert Belford,∥ and Richard Spinney⊥ †
Chemistry Department, Centre College, Danville, Kentucky 40422, United States Fairfax County Public Schools, Falls Church, Virginia 22042, United States § Chemistry Department, University of New Hampshire, Durham, New Hampshire 03824, United States ∥ Chemistry Department, University of Arkansas, Little Rock, Arkansas 72022, United States ⊥ Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio 43210, United States
Downloaded via 193.93.194.25 on July 26, 2018 at 17:00:50 (UTC). See https://pubs.acs.org/sharingguidelines for options on how to legitimately share published articles.
‡
ABSTRACT: Student success in both general chemistry and upper-level chemistry courses requires the application of previously learned skills for carrying out calculations in exercises and problem solving. Students with weaknesses in mathematics often struggle in their chemistry courses. The Fall 2017 ConfChem conference, Mathematics in Undergraduate Chemistry Instruction, was held from October 26 through November 27, 2017, and contained eight papers that discussed a variety of approaches developed by instructors to facilitate student success with using mathematics in their chemistry courses. This report provides an introduction to the ConfChem 2017 conference and invites readers to participate in future discussions about how chemistry faculty members can empower student success with the mathematical skills needed for their chemistry courses. KEYWORDS: High School/Introductory Chemistry, First-Year Undergraduate/General, Upper-Division Undergraduate, Chemical Engineering, Physical Chemistry, Calculator-Based Learning, Problem Solving/Decision Making, Mathematics/Symbolic Mathematics, Professional Development, Computer-Based Learning
■
RATIONALE FOR THIS CONFERENCE
1. EstimationAn Empowering Skill for Students in Chemistry and Chemical Engineering: Lynn S. Penn, Drexel University 2. MUST-Know PilotMath Preparation Study from Texas: Amy Petros, Rebecca Weber, Sue Broadway, Robyn Ford, and Diana Mason, University of North Texas; Cynthia Powell, Abilene Christian University; Kirk Hunter, Texas State Technical College; Vickie Williamson, Texas A&M; Deborah Walker, University of Texas at Austin; Blain Mamiya, Texas State University; Joselyn Del Pilar, G. Robert Shelton, Texas A&M, San Antonio 3. Impact of Quick Review of Math Concepts in General Chemistry Courses: Engaged Student Learning: Jayashree S. Ranga, Salem State University 4. Strengthening Students’ Math Fluencies through Calculator-Free Chemistry Calculations: Doreen Geller Leopold, University of Minnesota 5. Building Student Confidence with Chemistry Computation: Peter R. Craig, McDaniel College 6. The Chem-Math Project: W. Cary Kilner, University of New Hampshire 7. Applied Mathematics for Chemistry Majors: Rachel Neville, Math Department, University of Arizona; Amber T. Krummel, Nancy E. Levinger, Chemistry
1
The Committee on Computers in Chemical Education recently sponsored an online ConfChem conference on Mathematics in the Undergraduate Chemistry Curriculum.2 Competence in mathematics is important for students to succeed in courses required for the chemistry major; both mathematics and chemistry educators recognize the critical importance of mathematics skills for student success.3,4 A number of supplemental books are available to support students who struggle with math in general chemistry5−7 as well as upper-level chemistry courses.8−11 The previous literature describes instructors’ use of diagnostic tests to assess student readiness for chemistry courses.12,13 On the basis of their performance in these diagnostic tests, students will perhaps be more aware of their need to access available supplemental resources, and for the instructors to use these to resources to facilitate student success in their chemistry courses.
■
OVERVIEW OF PAPERS PRESENTED AND DISCUSSED IN THE CONFERENCE
This report introduces the papers of the Fall 2017 ConfChem on Mathematics in Undergraduate Chemistry Instruction; the following eight reports describe the associated papers, with the actual papers and discussions provided as Supporting Information for each Report. The Fall 2017 ConfChem conference papers are listed below in the order in which they were presented, along with information about the authors. © XXXX American Chemical Society and Division of Chemical Education, Inc.
Received: February 5, 2018 Revised: May 25, 2018
A
DOI: 10.1021/acs.jchemed.8b00077 J. Chem. Educ. XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX
Journal of Chemical Education
Report
4,900 page loads per article. This topic inspired such interest among chemical educators that there were more submissions than could be accommodated in the conference. Three papers were shared in the Spring 2018 Committee on Computers in Chemical Education Newsletter, which ran from April 23 through May 11, 2018.15 The annual ConfChem sponsored by the Committee on Computers in Chemical Education provides an opportunity for chemical educators and other interested individuals to participate in an online conference that provides an opportunity for broad discussions without the need for travel or registration fees. The online conference format requires experts in technology to manage, and we are grateful to have volunteers who donate their time to this effort in the midst of the many duties which arise during the teaching semester.
Department, Colorado State University; Patrick D. Shipman, Math Department, Colorado State University 8. Addressing Math Deficits with Cognitive Science: Eric A. Nelson, Fairfax County, Virginia Public Schools, retired Six of the eight papers presented were related to math in first-year chemistry courses. Leopold’s work (paper 4) served as an update to her previous article in the Journal of Chemical Education,13 describing results from more recent student testing. She shared student reactions to a computationally intense test that restricted students from calculator use. Attached to her paper are a wealth of resources for use by other instructors that encourage mental math. The Texas team led by Diana Mason (paper 2) described the use of the MUST (Math-Up Skills Test) test14 to determine which math skills best predict student success in chemistry courses. One surprising finding was that students who were not successful in their courses (D’s and F’s) had the highest average scores on the calculator-based MUST test and the lowest average scores on the noncalculator version of the test. Ranga (paper 3) described her as-needed quick reviews of math concepts, reporting that her students often struggle with the correct use of their calculators. Craig (paper 5) describes methods he used to help students build confidence in math and strengthen their read-only memory, enabling them to solve problems more easily. Kilner (paper 6) described the ChemMath Project, which also helps students develop confidence as they enhance the math skills they need to solve chemistry problems. Kilner highlighted the differences in terminology that students learn in their math classes and the terminology used commonly by chemistry instructors. These variations can seem like discrepancies when they lead to student confusion in chemistry classes. Nelson (paper 8) reviewed the cognitive science literature, which finds that weaknesses in recall of math facts can lead to cognitive overload for students who are trying to solve even routine chemistry exercises. He introduced the approach that has been successful with his students, encouraging others to assess whether math automaticity is an issue for their students. Two of the papers related to mathematics used in physical chemistry courses. Penn (paper 1) described how she trains her students to apply mental math and step-by-step algebra to estimate answers before using a calculator. Her approach led to improved student grades in physical chemistry. The Colorado State team (paper 7) described a two-semester Mathematicsfor-Chemistry (MfC) course sequence that some students take rather than second- and third-semester calculus, as the MfC courses contain specific skills required in physical chemistry. In these MfC courses, students encounter topics they would not normally see in the traditional calculus sequence.
■
AUTHOR INFORMATION
Corresponding Author
*E-mail:
[email protected]. ORCID
Jennifer L. Muzyka: 0000-0003-3948-3540 Eric A. Nelson: 0000-0003-2909-8892 W. Cary Kilner: 0000-0002-3777-7695 Robert Belford: 0000-0002-4933-6379 Richard Spinney: 0000-0002-8074-3386 Notes
The authors declare no competing financial interest. # E.A.N.: Retired.
■
REFERENCES
(1) DivCHED CCCE: Committee on Computers in Chemical Education. https://confchem.ccce.divched.org/ (accessed May 2018). (2) DivCHED CCCE: Committee on Computers in Chemical Education. 2017 Fall ConfChem: Mathematics in Undergraduate Chemistry Instruction. https://confchem.ccce.divched.org/ 2017FallConfChem (accessed May 2018). (3) Bressoud, D. M. What’s Been Happening to Undergraduate Mathematics. J. Chem. Educ. 2001, 78 (5), 578−581. (4) Moore, J. W. Mathematics Education. J. Chem. Educ. 2008, 85 (8), 1019. (5) Dahm, D. J.; Nelson, E. A. Calculations in Chemistry: An Introduction, 2nd ed.; W. W. Norton & Co.: New York, 2017. (6) Monk, P.; Munro, L. Maths for Chemistry: A Chemist’s Toolkit of Calculations, 2nd ed.; Oxford University Press: Oxford, 2010. (7) Obimakinde, J. O.; Obimakinde, S. O. Calculations in Chemistry; I. K. International Publishing House: New Delhi, 2014. (8) Steiner, E. The Chemistry Maths Book, 2nd ed.; Oxford University Press: Oxford, 2008. (9) McQuarrie, D. Mathematics for Physical Chemistry: Opening Doors; University Science Books: Herndon, VA, 2008. (10) Mortimer, R. G. Mathematics for Physical Chemistry, 4th ed.; Elsevier: Amsterdam, 2013. (11) Turrell, G. Mathematics for Chemistry and Physics, 1st ed.; Academic Press: San Diego, 2002. (12) Pienta, N. J. A Placement Examination and Mathematics Tutorial for General Chemistry. J. Chem. Educ. 2003, 80 (11), 1244− 1246. (13) Leopold, D. G.; Edgar, B. Degree of Mathematics Fluency and Success in Second-Semester Introductory Chemistry. J. Chem. Educ. 2008, 85 (5), 724−731. (14) Hartman, J. A. R.; Nelson, E. A. Automaticity in Computation and Student Success in Introductory Physical Science Courses. arXiv:1608.05006v2 [physics.ed-ph]. https://arxiv.org/abs/1608. 05006 (accessed May 2018).
■
CONCLUSION The online conference was very active throughout the full 5 weeks. Two papers were discussed each week with a final week for general discussion. There were over 18,000 page loads on conference pages during this five-week period. The registered participants generated 305 comments that were posted and shared with a list of 908 subscribers. Conference discussions concluded in November 2017. In the five months since the conference concluded, chemical educators have continued accessing the ConfChem site. To date, there have been over 48,000 page loads on conference pages, with an average over B
DOI: 10.1021/acs.jchemed.8b00077 J. Chem. Educ. XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX
Journal of Chemical Education
Report
(15) 2018 Spring Committee on Computers in Chemical Education Newsletter articles and discussion, https://confchem.ccce.divched. org/2018SpringCCCENL (accessed May 2018).
C
DOI: 10.1021/acs.jchemed.8b00077 J. Chem. Educ. XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX
