The New AP Chemistry Exam: Its Rationale, Content, and Scoring

Science Department, Trinity Valley School, Fort Worth, Texas 76132, United States ... Publication Date (Web): July 30, 2014 ... Christian Fischer , Ba...
0 downloads 0 Views 551KB Size
Download PDF
Article pubs.acs.org/jchemeduc

The New AP Chemistry Exam: Its Rationale, Content, and Scoring Paul D. Price*,† and Roger W. Kugel‡ †

Science Department, Trinity Valley School, Fort Worth, Texas 76132, United States Department of Chemistry, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, Ohio 45221, United States

‡

ABSTRACT: The 2013−2014 academic year marks the rollout of the redesigned advanced placement (AP) chemistry course and exam. There have been many questions as to why the course was redesigned and how the new examination will differ from its legacy version. In this article we give a brief overview of the legacy course and examine why a redesign occurred in the context of best practices in chemistry education. Using specific examples, we outline changes to the exam format and content, and discuss how the scoring process (the AP Reading) and the AP score setting are carried out. This contribution is part of a special issue on teaching introductory chemistry in the context of the advanced placement chemistry course redesign. KEYWORDS: High School/Introductory Chemistry, First Year Undergraduate/General, Curriculum, Testing/Assessment

■

INTRODUCTION Since 1956, the College Board has been administering the Advanced Placement Examination in Chemistry. Originally intended to give high school students exposure to college-level content, the AP Chemistry program evolved into a very stable “equilibrium” over several decades with few changes to either content or exam design. This led to both strengths and weaknesses in the “legacy” examination, which was administered for the last time in May 2013. In this article we consider the legacy exam and outline several of its critiques that led to the creation of a redesigned AP Chemistry program, showing that many of the concerns of the legacy examination have been mirrored in the general chemistry curriculum as a whole. We then discuss the core changes made to the course and exam as a result of such concerns and additional recommendations from the National Research Council and higher education faculty, using specific examples to highlight the expectations for students in the course. Finally, we conclude with a discussion of the challenges of the AP Reading and the AP Score Setting processes.

both the breadth and depth of topics studied in an introductory college chemistry course. The topic outline for the legacy course was a high-level outline of fundamental topics, such as atomic structure and equilibrium. It was recommended that all teachers of the course have significant training in chemistry (with the formal expectation of a major in the discipline with a minimum of a year of physical chemistry), such that AP instructors would be able to “fill in the gaps” of the vague course description while maintaining the freedom and flexibility college faculty enjoyed in teaching the class.1 Figure 1 outlines the structures of both the legacy and new exams. Of the 75 multiple-choice questions, the topic outline did indicate the approximate percentage of questions that would be tied to each major area of content. In addition, to maintain a stable scoring scale for the exam that would allow score comparability over time, certain multiple-choice items (known as equaters) were reused from a previous test. Box 1

■

THE LEGACY EXAM The AP Chemistry Examination is developed by a Test Development Committee (TDC), a team of experienced college and high school faculty that, under the auspices of the College Board, was historically tasked with two charges. First, the TDC approved the Course and Exam Description, known to many as the “acorn book”1 which contained a brief overview of course content, exam information including sample test questions, and recommendations for a laboratory program in AP Chemistry. Second, the TDC built each exam by creating, evaluating, and approving the multiple-choice and free-response questions that would appear on each form of the examination. The professional experience and diversity of perspectives brought to the TDC by its members, who served on a rotating basis, allowed the Committee to develop questions that tested © 2014 American Chemical Society and Division of Chemical Education, Inc.

Figure 1. Formats of the legacy and new AP chemistry exams. Special Issue: Advanced Placement (AP) Chemistry Published: July 30, 2014 1340

dx.doi.org/10.1021/ed500034t | J. Chem. Educ. 2014, 91, 1340−1346

Journal of Chemical Education

Article

AP examinations ask less than IB exams about the application of concepts, especially with respect to new contexts or chemical systems. There is heavy emphasis on algorithmic solutions, rather than the extension or application of concepts to new, unfamiliar but equivalent situations. Few of the questions test students’ abilities to predict or explain observations. [...] The tests assess primarily the acquisition of information, as opposed to analyzing students’ understanding, application, and extension of concepts. The examinations thus do little to encourage inquiry-based learning. The NRC completed its study with several summary recommendations to improve instruction in advanced coursework. Concluding that advanced study should allow students to develop deep conceptual understanding over algorithmic approaches, the NRC recommended a curriculum that should emphasize depth over breadth. In addition, instructional approaches should emphasize advances in cognitive research and the use of inquiry to allow students to develop skills in problem solving, data analysis and validity, and critical thinking. Although it encouraged the AP Program to delineate in much greater detail both the content and skills expectations for AP Chemistry, it was recommended that best practices in advanced study would not coincide with an exact mirroring of the introductory college chemistry course. The potential loss of content alignment with general chemistry at the college level was a bold idea, as many would immediately question if students completing the new course and exam were worthy of advanced placement. However, the discussions as to best practices in the college general chemistry course have been rampant among the chemistry education community for years.9 Throughout multiple iterations of this discussion, several trends became apparent:10−13 • The current general chemistry curriculum sacrifices depth for breadth and often treats all students in the course as if they were chemistry majors. • Quantitative problem solving alone does not predict the depth of understanding of foundational ideas. • Many courses are taught without utilizing recent research on how students learn. The recommendations of the NRC for AP Chemistry mirror many of the proposed reforms of college general chemistry curricula. The NRC believed that, as the latter is designed with many constituencies in mind, a typical college course may contain too much “inertia” to undergo substantial change in response to best practices in chemistry education. The AP Program was not burdened with the same limitation, and thus, with additional support from entities such as the National Science Foundation,14 the College Board undertook a review and redesign of the entire Advanced Placement science program, resulting in a reformed curriculum and exam for chemistry beginning with the 2013−14 academic year.

Box 1. Exemplar Multiple-Choice Questions from the Legacy Exam 1. Butane gas would behave most nonideally under what conditions? (A) High temperature and high pressure (B) High temperature and low pressure (C) Low temperature and high pressure (D) Low temperature and low pressure (E) No conditions; butane behaves ideally under all conditions 2. When 50.0 mL of 2.0 M NaCl is added to 100.0 mL of 1.0 M Na2CO3, the final concentration of the Na+ cation in solution is (A) 1.0 M (B) 1.3 M (C) 1.5 M (D) 2.0 M (E) 4.0 M gives exemplar questions that might be found on the multiplechoice section, one dealing with gases and the other exploring molarity calculations. Notice that the questions themselves are heavily content driven and, in many cases, recall or an algorithmic procedure would lead students to a correct answer. Further examination also shows that the format of the multiplechoice section has remained very consistent for over a quarter of a century.2,3 In regard to the free-response section of the legacy exam, it was guaranteed that the first question would deal with quantitative aspects of equilibrium, and that in the fourth question students would demonstrate the ability to write net ionic equations. Also, one question of the free-response would focus on a laboratory experience. Beyond that, the TDC had great flexibility in designing free-response questions that would demonstrate knowledge of the major topics of introductory college chemistry. The legacy exam, through the equating process and many tests of statistical reliability, was able to group AP students’ achievement relative to that of their college peers, both in performance in college general chemistry and in subsequent advanced classes.4−6

■

A CALL FOR CHANGE Although the legacy exam was valid and had strong statistical reliability, there were shortcomings. For teachers preparing their students, the freedom in question design combined with a sparse topic outline led to uncertainty, as instructors could never “pin down” what exactly would constitute mastery of topic knowledge from year to year. Thus, many would use questions from previous exams7 almost exclusively in assessing their students to give them both a feel for the content and an understanding of the level of difficulty the exam expected. Additionally, there were always concerns about predictability of certain question types, particularly those that required algorithmic routines, which could effectively lead to students being “coached” to answer aspects of a question. In 2002 the National Research Council (NRC) gave a formal voice to these concerns with the publication of Learning and Understanding: Improving Advanced Study of Mathematics and Science in U.S. High Schools.8 The report provided both an overview and a critique of all AP science programs. Specifically for chemistry, the report concluded (ref 8, pp 361−2):

■

THE NEW AP CHEMISTRY EXAM The redesign of all AP courses follows the methodology of Understanding by Design.15 The hallmark of this methodology details both the specific skills and knowledge that a student must possess at the conclusion of the course as well as outlining the necessary evidence that illustrates that students possess these attributes. Over the course of several years, multiple committees consisting of chemistry content and learning experts in both secondary and higher education utilized this 1341

dx.doi.org/10.1021/ed500034t | J. Chem. Educ. 2014, 91, 1340−1346

Journal of Chemical Education

Article

topics such as colligative properties and quantum numbers are no longer examined.18 Decisions such as these were intentionally made throughout the redesign process as each of the major topics of general chemistry was reviewed. In every case committees weighed if the reasoning students needed to supply to illustrate understanding of the topic was indicative of higher-level critical thinking. In the specific case of colligative properties, explanations as to why vapor pressure lowering occurs in solutions at the introductory level are rife with inaccuracies.19 Consequently, students can only correctly reason about problems empirically at an algorithmic level. Thus, this topic was removed from the final content outline. The removal of content in some areas has also allowed for additional discussion of spectroscopy, which is a critical tool for both chemical analysis and developing a strong understanding of atomic and molecular structure. Another common concern of the new examination is that the loss of significant quantitative problem solving has diluted the course, meaning that students completing the new curriculum are not ready for advanced work. This is another question that has been well researched in the chemistry education literature.20−23 These studies have concluded that the ability to solve a problem does not imply understanding of the underlying chemical principles. In fact, for many students, developing algorithmic methods for solving problems comprises most of their efforts because they have not completely developed sufficient reasoning skills. What specific skills will a student develop in AP Chemistry? These are outlined in the Science Practices (Box 4): the single

methodology in concert with the recommendations of the NRC to produce the new course description for AP Chemistry.16 In this document, the expectations for both the content knowledge and skills a student should possess at the conclusion of the course are described in specific detail.17 The spectrum of content for advanced study in chemistry was distilled into six big ideas: atomic structure, molecular structure, reactions, kinetics, thermodynamics, and equilibrium (Box 2). Box 2. The Big Ideas of AP Chemistry (1) The chemical elements are fundamental building materials of matter, and all matter can be understood in terms of arrangements of atoms. The atoms retain their identity in chemical reactions. (2) Chemical and physical properties of materials can be explained by the structure and the arrangement of atoms, ions, or molecules and the forces between them. (3) Changes in matter involve the rearrangement and/or reorganization of atoms and/or the transfer of electrons. (4) Rates of chemical reactions are determined by the details of molecular collisions. (5) The laws of thermodynamics describe the essential role of energy and explain and predict the direction of changes in matter. (6) Any bond or intermolecular attraction that can be formed can be broken. These two processes are in a dynamic competition, sensitive to initial conditions and external perturbations.

Box 4. Science Practices for AP Chemistry

Required content that each student should master for each of the big ideas was further systematized with Enduring Understandings and Essential Knowledge statements. For example, Box 3 illustrates the hierarchy of content knowledge starting with

(1) The student can use representations and models to communicate scientific phenomena and solve scientific problems. (2) The student can use mathematics appropriately. (3) The student can engage in scientific questioning to extend thinking or to guide investigations within the context of the AP course. (4) The student can plan and implement data collection strategies in relation to a particular scientific question. (5) The student can perform data analysis and evaluation of evidence. (6) The student can work with scientific explanations and theories. (7) The student is able to connect and relate knowledge across various scales, concepts, and representations in and across domains.

Box 3. The Relationships among Big Ideas, Enduring Understandings, and Essential Knowledge ■ Big Idea 2Chemical and physical properties of materials can be explained by the structure and the arrangement of the atoms, ions, or molecules and the forces between them. ○ Enduring Understanding 2.CThe strong electrostatic forces of attraction holding atoms together in a unit are called chemical bonds. • Essential Knowledge 2.C.4The localized electron bonding model describes and predicts molecular geometry using Lewis diagrams and the VSEPR model.

biggest change in the redesigned AP Science curriculum. As stated in the new curriculum framework, the science practices (ref 17, p 7) “capture important aspects of the work that scientists engage in, at the level of competence expected of AP Chemistry students.” Thus, the science practices define a set of skills students should possess in order to demonstrate mastery of course material. In paraphrasing these skills, students who are prepared for advanced study can • translate among representations and models and use them to construct explanations of chemical phenomena • pose questions, collect, and quantitatively analyze data to form conclusions • utilize mathematics appropriately

big idea 2 and ending with the concept of the localized bonding model. In contrast to the skeletal outline given with the legacy exam, the combination of 25 enduring understandings coupled with 71 statements of essential knowledge (along with significant supporting commentary) removes much of the uncertainty students and teachers had with the level of knowledge and skill that must be attained to achieve subject mastery. There has been much discussion about areas of content that have been removed from the legacy exam so that more time could be devoted to deep learning. For example traditional 1342

dx.doi.org/10.1021/ed500034t | J. Chem. Educ. 2014, 91, 1340−1346

Journal of Chemical Education

Article

Figure 2. A sample of a redesigned multiple-choice set.

• appreciate the interrelationship of chemistry to other disciplines Quantitative problem solving is still an essential skill developed in the course, as emphasized by Science Practices 2 and 5. However, calculations performed in a vacuum will not be a sole discriminator of student achievement. For example, a popular discussion among AP Chemistry teachers24 is the removal of calculating the voltage of an electrochemical cell under nonstandard conditions (calculations of E0 are still a fundamental skill). However, students must still be able to predict, with justification, if a cell under specific conditions will generate a voltage greater than, less than, or equal to E0. Explaining the operation of electrochemical cells conceptually requires a much greater depth of knowledge as students can no longer “plug and chug” to an answer, as reported by several studies.25−28 Examination of question 3 from the 2014 examination illustrates this in detail7 in the context of the new curriculum. If one examines the calculations removed from the exam, the majority have been replaced with items to test for deeper conceptual understanding. In order to discriminate among student ability levels, each item on the new exam will test content knowledge in the context of a science practice. For example, consider Figure 2, which shows two multiple-choice questions that would be appropriate for the new examination. Notice that the two questions are tied to a common set of data. Unlike the legacy examination in which each multiple-choice question was a discrete item, students may now find multiple questions that explore a common theme. In this case, both questions in this set relate to data about an equilibrium reaction between CO2 and CO. Examining the first question in detail, consider all that a student must do. In order to ultimately determine the hybridization of CO2 and CO, the student must first create a representation of each molecule using Lewis diagrams and then deduce the hybridization from these models. Thus, to answer the question correctly the student must synthesize the content information given by Essential Knowledge 2.C.4 by creating the proper representations of the molecules in question, utilizing Science Practice 1.4. This union of content and skill is

characteristic of a Learning Objective (LO), in this case LO 2.21 (Figure 3).

Figure 3. Relationship between science practice and essential knowledge for LO 2.21.

The 117 learning objectives in the curriculum framework define what a student should be able to do on the AP Chemistry Exam in order to demonstrate mastery of both course content and science practice skills. Hence each question on the exam is linked to a specific LO. This is a significant departure from the legacy exam on two fronts. First, there was no explicit link between the questions on the legacy exam and the high-level content outline. In addition, as stated previously, many multiple-choice questions on the legacy exam were heavily content based and could be answered using either recall or algorithmic procedures learned by rote. The addition of science practices to all questions greatly increases the level of critical thinking and conceptual understanding needed to arrive at the correct answer. Consider the second multiple-choice question. Here the student is given a representation of the reaction mixture consisting initially of CO2 molecules and is asked to determine the composition of the reaction mixture after 4 hours has elapsed. In order to successfully answer the question, a student 1343

dx.doi.org/10.1021/ed500034t | J. Chem. Educ. 2014, 91, 1340−1346

Journal of Chemical Education

Article

question of the free response. Finally, because the question asks to determine the molar mass of the weak acid the student should report, precision of data must be taken into account. Since chemistry is an experimental science, the more opportunities students have to ask questions, collect and analyze data, and examine the strengths and weaknesses of various experimental procedures, the more comfortable they will be in examining authentic data sets. Note that these ideas also encompass the majority of the science practices. Thus, it is critical for students to engage in experimentation that allows them to hone these skills. The new curriculum requires that a minimum of 16 laboratory experiences be completed, with 6 of the experiments utilizing guided inquiry.31 Numerous studies support that the integration of inquiry laboratory work that integrates writing and student reflection improves achievement.32−35 Students who have significant exposure to this process will be better prepared for advanced coursework as well as have a greater confidence in utilizing unfamiliar data and refining and improving the design of experiments.

must relate the particulate diagram to the pressure of the system as the reaction proceeds. As the final pressure is 4/3 the initial pressure, kinetic molecular theory dictates that there must be 1.33 times as many gas particles in the system after 4 hours. Hence, choice B is the correct answer. In terms of the curriculum framework, this question is tied to two learning objectives, one involving the representations of gas samples (LO 2.5) and the other relating stoichiometric relationships to measurable data about a chemical reaction (LO 3.4). A student must apply both content and skills from several areas of chemistry to successfully answer this question. Specifically, the use of a particulate representation, which is a common discriminator for conceptual reasoning,29,30 may be new to many students. Veteran AP teachers will notice the significant differences in style of these questions relative to those shown in Box 1. In many ways, the structure of free-response questions will be familiar, with a mixture of quantitative and qualitative items to be answered in 90 min. However, the number of questions and their length have changed. The exam will begin with three “long” multipart questions, worth 10 points each. These will be followed by 4 “short” multipart questions, each worth 4 points. The length of the long questions parallels what was seen on the quantitative questions of the legacy exam, but the shorter questions will be more finely focused in terms of topics. A potential sample question is given below, with associated LOs and point distributions listed (Box 5).

■

THE AP CHEMISTRY READING PROCESS: CONSISTENCY, ACCURACY, AND FAIRNESS Scoring of the AP Chemistry Exam actually begins with the creation of the draft scoring guidelines by the TDC. The scoring guidelines consist of the rubrics for all of the freeresponse questions on the exam, and they explain in specific detail how each point is earned. The TDC and the Chief Reader (CR), assisted by several assessment experts from Educational Testing Service (ETS), produce the scoring guidelines as the exam is being written. During this process, it is typical for questions to be adjusted or rewritten to ensure that more consistent scoring can be achieved. The scoring guidelines themselves are the single most important document for the AP Chemistry reading process, and as such they are subjected to numerous reviews and possible “tweaks” before the actual reading begins. These reviews include a “fresh eyes” review by past committee cochairs and/or past CRs, a final review by the current committee cochairs and current CR, a postadministration review by the Question Leaders (QLs) who will be responsible for conducting the reading of the individual questions, and a pre-Reading review at the Reading site by the QLs and their respective Table Leaders (TLs) as they begin reading sample papers for training and benchmark purposes. All of these levels of review of the scoring guidelines are important, particularly those performed a few days before the reading, which are informed by actual student responses that may have been unanticipated: either unusually correct or unusually incorrect. The scoring guidelines are finalized and not subject to further change by Day 1 of the Reading when the scoring of actual student papers commences. When the readers arrive on Day 1 of the reading, they are assigned a question and begin the training process. The TLs go through the scoring guidelines (rubric) with their readers and discuss areas where the students seemed to have particular problems or misconceptions or gave particularly ambiguous answers. Sample papers with examples of representative errors and ambiguities are scored by the entire group until scoring consistency is achieved. When the TLs and the QLs are satisfied that scoring is consistent with the rubric, the actual reading begins some time in the late morning or early afternoon of Day 1. Readers begin reading fresh papers, and as they do so, their papers are back-read by the TLs. When the TL finds a discrepancy of more than ±1 between their score and the

Box 5. A Sample Free-Response Question A 1.22 g sample of a pure monoprotic acid, HA, was dissolved in distilled water. A student titrated the HA solution with 0.250 M NaOH. The pH was measured throughout the titration, and the equivalence point was reached when 40.0 mL of the NaOH solution had been added. The data from the titration are recorded in the table below: volume of 0.250 M NaOH Added pH of Titrated Solution (mL) 0.00 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0

2.45 3.72 4.20 4.68 8.62 12.40

(a) Explain how the data in the table above provide evidence that HA is a weak rather than a strong acid. (1 pt. LO 6.16) (b) Write the balanced net-ionic equation for the reaction that occurs when the solution of NaOH is added the solution of HA. (1 pt. LO 3.1) (c) Based on the data above, determine the molar mass of HA the student should report. (2 pts. LOs 1.20, 1.3, 1.4) Several aspects of this question are worth noting. Primarily, observe that the student must interpret laboratory data in order to solve the problem. In addition, the ability to write equations will be dispersed through both the multiple-choice and the freeresponse sections, as opposed to being localized in one 1344

dx.doi.org/10.1021/ed500034t | J. Chem. Educ. 2014, 91, 1340−1346

Journal of Chemical Education

Article

above) will set the cut scores that determine the thresholds between final AP Chemistry Exam scores of 1−5 based on the input from the standard-setting panel. Finally, although it may not seem like becoming an AP Chemistry Reader is the best way to spend a week of the summer, there are many benefits, both personal and professional, that make participating in this process a worthwhile experience. First of all, it is stimulating to discuss chemistry and chemical interpretations with like-minded people during rubric discussion and training. One’s conceptual understanding of the chemistry improves by listening to others’ perspectives, and, as a result, different ways of explaining that understanding to students become apparent. Second, it is very interesting how, through the rubric development and training efforts, ETS manages a process that makes a “science” of scoring consistency. By applying this process on a smaller scale, one can learn how to grade one’s own classroom tests more consistently and how to write test items that will grade more fairly and more quickly. Third, for AP Chemistry teachers, learning how the question rubrics are developed and applied will help them to become better AP Chemistry teachers and to better prepare their own students for future AP Chemistry Exams. Finally, and perhaps best of all, the Reading provides a chance to meet and develop relationships with chemistry educators from all over the country and even some from overseas. These relationships established in the social/ professional networks that are formed are rekindled every June as readers reconvene year after year for more scoring. Indeed, although it is difficult to explain to people on the outside, many readers would claim that the AP Chemistry reading experience not only is a positive one but may be one of their most enriching professional development experiences in chemistry education.

reader’s score, they talk to the reader and discuss the discrepancy to make sure the reader is interpreting the rubric correctly. Finally, after a full day of reading, reader statistics are monitored daily to make sure their average score is consistent with the question’s average. If a reader’s score deviates significantly from the question average, they are back-read more frequently to correct, if necessary, their application of the rubric. By the end of this process, it will not matter who, in a group of 36 or so readers, gets a given student’s paper, it will end up with the same score within ±1 point. The goal of the reading is to score 140,000 or so student papers by 300+ Readers in 7 days as consistently, accurately, and fairly as is humanly possible. The process developed by ETS statisticians and implemented at the reading ensures that the students’ scores on each of the free response questions will be consistent with the question’s rubric, regardless of which of the 300+ readers actually did the scoring. The College Board periodically carries out AP validation studies that measure the performance of successful AP students in subsequent, intermediate-level college courses in their AP discipline. The last such validation study was carried out in 2013, wherein the mean subsequent course grade for successful AP Chemistry students was measured to be significantly higher than that of their non-AP classmates (3.10 ± 0.12 vs 2.78 ± 0.13).6 The inherent consistency built into the reading process and the successful AP Chemistry validation studies carried out by the College Board lend credibility to the AP Chemistry Exam and course validity, respectively. Past experience dictates that there will undoubtedly be some unexpected surprises. Real students always seem to find creative ways to answer fairly straightforward chemistry questions. Indeed, many of these creative answers reflect student misconceptions that teachers almost never anticipate. As much time and effort as the Test Development Committee spends on writing the “perfect rubric” for each question they formulate, students always come up with new ways of interpreting a question or phrasing an answer that no one, among 300 or so chemistry educators, would have predicted. One can be fairly confident that, in the new test format, students being students will continue to re-create chemistry in unusual ways. They will write answers to questions that reach, and often exceed, the limits of their understanding, and the readers will have to consistently sort out what they know from what they thought they knew. The rigorous training and backreading process will ensure that this sorting is done in a way that is consistent with the question’s rubric. Scoring of the new exam itself (number of scorable points earned) will be determined solely by the scoring guidelines and their interpretation. Score setting (determining the final AP Exam score of 1−5) for the new exam will be conducted by the College Board in collaboration with ETS and will involve a four-step process: 1. Establishing Achievement Level Descriptors (ALDs) 2. Engaging a standard-setting panel to recommend cut scores (1 through 5) 3. Equating the main, alternate, and exception forms 4. Engaging a policy panel to set the cut scores The standard-setting panel (item 2 above), composed of 15 chemical educators, 9 from higher education institutions and 6 from high schools, will function to recommend the cut scores based on their judgment of expected student performance on each question in the exam. A different policy panel (item 4

■

CONCLUSION

■

AUTHOR INFORMATION

To conclude, perhaps Lloyd said it best as to the goal of general chemistry:36 In 90 years the main goal of the general chemistry course with respect to content has not changed: to introduce students to the most important, fundamental laws, principles, theories, and applications of chemistry. Nor have changed the goals of developing in students the ability and the spirit to investigate chemical systems in a rational, systematic way. The specific objectives needed to reach these goals have changed and, apparently, need to change again. The courses, as currently structured, are not attracting talented students nor are they providing the experiences needed to produce students who have a firm foundation of basic skills needed to think and act as a scientist. The new AP Chemistry course and examination is the first true attempt to provide the experiences Lloyd envisions on a large scale, utilizing the best practices in modern chemistry education. The deployment of the redesign gives students a deep foundation of chemistry content and skills, AP teachers a precise, balanced, vetted, framework to deliver a rigorous college-level course, and college faculty the confidence that students are prepared for advanced work in the sciences.

Corresponding Author

*E-mail: [email protected]. 1345

dx.doi.org/10.1021/ed500034t | J. Chem. Educ. 2014, 91, 1340−1346

Journal of Chemical Education

Article

Notes

(22) Nurrenbern, S. C.; Pickering, M. Concept learning versus problem solving: Is there a difference? J. Chem. Educ. 1987, 64 (6), 508−510. (23) Committee on the Status, Contributions, and Future Directions of Discipline-Based Education Research; Board on Science Education; Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education; National Research Council. Discipline-Based Education Research: Understanding and Improving Learning in Undergraduate Science and Engineering; The National Academies Press: Washington, DC, 2012. (24) The College Board. AP Chemistry Teacher Community; https:// apcommunity.collegeboard.org/web/apchem (accessed Jul 2014). (25) Garnett, P. J.; Treagust, D. F. Conceptual difficulties experienced by senior high school students of electrochemistry: Electrochemical (galvanic) and electrolytic cells. J. Res. Sci. Teach. 1992, 29 (10), 1079−1099. (26) Garnett, P. J.; Garnett, P. J.; Treagust, D. F. Implications of research on students’ understanding of electrochemistry for improving science curricula and classroom practice. Int. J. Sci. Educ. 1990, 12 (2), 147−156. (27) Sanger, M. J.; Greenbowe, T. J. Common student misconceptions in electrochemistry: Galvanic, electrolytic, and concentration cells. J. Res. Sci. Teach. 1997, 34 (4), 377−398. (28) Sanger, M. J.; Greenbowe, T. J. Addressing student misconceptions concerning electron flow in aqueous solutions with instruction including computer animations and conceptual change strategies. Int. J. Sci. Educ. 2000, 22 (5), 521−527. (29) Nakhleh, M. B. Why some students don’t learn chemistry: Chemical misconceptions. J. Chem. Educ. 1992, 69 (3), 191−196. (30) Gabel, D. L. Use of the particle nature of matter in developing conceptual understanding. J. Chem. Educ. 1993, 70 (3), 193−194. (31) The College Board. AP Chemistry Guided Laboratory Experiments: Applying the Science Practices; http://media.collegeboard.com/ digitalServices/pdf/ap/2013advances/IN120085064_ChemLabManual.pdf (accessed Jul 2014). Note that the online manual is password protected. Information on obtaining the password can be found on the AP Central website. http://apcentral.collegeboard.com/ apc/members/courses/teachers_corner/221821.html (accessed Jul 2014). (32) Committee on High School Science Laboratories; National Research Council. America’s Lab Report: Investigations in High School Science; The National Academies Press: Washington, DC, 2005. (33) Rudd, J. A., II; Greenbowe, T. J.; Hand, B. M.; Legg, M. J. Using the Science Writing Heuristic to Move toward an Inquiry-Based Laboratory Curriculum: An Example from Physical Equilibrium. J. Chem. Educ. 2001, 78 (12), 1680−1686. (34) Greenbowe, T. J.; Rudd, J. A., II; Hand, B. M. Using the Science Writing Heuristic to Improve Students’ Understanding of General Equilibrium. J. Chem. Educ. 2007, 84 (12), 2007−2011. (35) Poock, J. R.; Burke, K. A.; Greenbowe, T. J.; Hand, B. M. Using the Science Writing Heuristic in the General Chemistry Laboratory to Improve Students’ Academic Performance. J. Chem. Educ. 2007, 84 (8), 1371−1379. (36) Lloyd, B. W. A review of curricular changes in the general chemistry course during the twentieth century. J. Chem. Educ. 1992, 69 (8), 633−636.

The authors declare no competing financial interest.

■

REFERENCES

(1) The College Board. AP Chemistry Course Description Effective Fall 2012. http://apcentral.collegeboard.com/apc/public/repository/apchemistry-course-description.pdf (accessed Jul 2014). (2) Modu, C. C.; Taft, H. L. A validity study of the multiple-choice component of the advanced placement chemistry examination. J. Chem. Educ. 1982, 59 (3), 204−206. (3) Taft, H. L. Content validation studies of the AP Chemistry examination. J. Chem. Educ. 1990, 67 (3), 241−247. (4) College Board. AP Course and Exam Development. http:// aphighered.collegeboard.org/exams/course-exam (accessed Jul 2014). (5) College Board. Setting a Policy for AP Chemistry. http://www. collegeboard.com/prod_downloads/ipeAPC/apchempg060309_ 51087.pdf (accessed Jul 2014). (6) Patterson, B. F.; Ewing, M. Validating the Use of AP Exam Scores for College Course Placement; College Board Research Report No. 2013-2; The College Board: New York, 2013. http://research. collegeboard.org/sites/default/files/publications/2013/7/ researchreport-2013-2-validating-AP-exam-scores-college-courseplacement.pdf (accessed Apr 2014). (7) The College Board maintains a database of all free-response questions from 1999 to the present. http://apcentral.collegeboard. com/apc/public/exam/exam_information/221837.html (accessed Jul 2014). (8) Committee on Programs for Advanced Study of Mathematics and Science in American High Schools; Center for Education; Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education; National Research Council. Learning and Understanding: Improving Advanced Study of Mathematics and Science in U.S. High Schools. The National Academies Press: Washington, DC, 2002. (9) Cooper, M. The Case for Reform of the Undergraduate General Chemistry Curriculum. J. Chem. Educ. 2010, 87 (3), 231−232. (10) Moore, J. New Year’s Resolution: Expunge Misbeliefs. J. Chem. Educ. 2004, 81 (1), 7. (11) Johnstone, A. H. You Can’t Get There from Here. J. Chem. Educ. 2010, 87 (1), 22−29. (12) Lloyd, B. W.; Spenser, J. N. The Forum: New Directions for General Chemistry: Recommendations of the Task Force on the General Chemistry Curriculum. J. Chem. Educ. 1994, 71 (3), 206−209. (13) Spenser, J. N. New Approaches to Chemistry Teaching. J. Chem. Educ. 2006, 83 (4), 528−533. (14) NSF Press Release 06-076.http://www.nsf.gov/news/news_ summ.jsp?cntn_id=106929 (accessed Jul 2014). (15) Wiggins, G.; McTighe, J. Understanding by Design, 2nd ed.; Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development: Alexandria, VA, 2005. (16) The College Board. Advances in AP: Course and Exam Redesign; http://media.collegeboard.com/digitalServices/pdf/ap/AP_CE_ Redesign_Brochure_for_Higher_Ed.pdf (accessed Jul 2014). (17) The College Board. AP Chemistry Course and Exam Description Effective Fall 2013; http://media.collegeboard.com/digitalServices/ pdf/ap/IN120085263_ChemistryCED_Effective_Fall_2013_lkd.pdf (accessed Jul 2014). (18) For areas of the redesigned curriculum in which content was removed, exclusion statements were created to help explain the changes. See pages 8 and 16 of ref 17. (19) Peckham, G. D. Vapor Pressure Lowering by Nonvolatile Solutes. J. Chem. Educ. 1998, 75 (6), 787. (20) Lythcott, J. Problem solving and requisite knowledge of chemistry. J. Chem. Educ. 1990, 67 (3), 248−252. (21) Cracolice, M. S.; Deming, J. C.; Ehlert, B. Concept Learning versus Problem Solving: A Cognitive Difference. J. Chem. Educ. 2008, 85 (6), 873−878. 1346

dx.doi.org/10.1021/ed500034t | J. Chem. Educ. 2014, 91, 1340−1346