Using Writing Assignments as an Intervention to Strengthen Acid

Article pubs.acs.org/jchemeduc

Cite This: J. Chem. Educ. XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX

Using Writing Assignments as an Intervention to Strengthen Acid−Base Skills Charles T. Cox, Jr.,*,† Jennifer Schwartz Poehlmann,† Caitlin Ortega, and Julio C. Lopez

Downloaded via UNIV OF TOLEDO on June 19, 2018 at 06:20:07 (UTC). See https://pubs.acs.org/sharingguidelines for options on how to legitimately share published articles.

Department of Chemistry, Stanford University, 333 Campus Drive, Stanford, California 94305, United States ABSTRACT: Problem solving and critical thinking are buzzwords used in defining general chemistry learning goals. Assessments including well-structured homework, quizzes, and exams are designed and incorporated to build these skills. Our research expanded upon the types of assessments and analyzed the effect of writing assignments for promoting problem solving, critical thinking, and retention in acid−base chemistry. Calibrated Peer Review (CPR) was used to implement writing assignments in a large enrollment two-quarter introductory sequence with the writing activities strongly emphasizing qualitative and quantitative problems in acid−base chemistry. To measure the effectiveness of assigning small writing assignments, students in the treatment course were compared to the honors students (control group) who have historically demonstrated stronger abilities in acid−base chemistry, especially in subsequent organic chemistry courses. Data was collected using interviews in which students verbally explained their answers and rationale for a set of six questions on acid−base chemistry. The control group was interviewed 10 weeks after instruction, and the treatment group was interviewed immediately after instruction (prior to the writing assignment) and 10 weeks following instruction and the writing assignment. Both the treatment and control groups were completing organic chemistry during the post-10-week interview. The treatment group was interviewed twice to gauge retention and make a comparison with the control group. Statistical differences in performance (using a 95% level of confidence) were not observed between the 10-week post-treatment and instruction interviews between the control and treatment groups, supporting the conclusion that the writing assignment aided in closing the gap in student abilities between the honors and introductory courses. KEYWORDS: Chemical Education Research, Communication/Writing, First-Year Undergraduate/General, Acids/Bases FEATURE: Chemical Education Research

A

up with written exam questions.16,20 However, providing the necessary feedback to students can be daunting especially in large enrollment courses. Without a mechanism for review and feedback, students’ quality of writing is often poor and shows little improvement over a course.21 Furthermore, feedback and reflection are paramount to enabling students to identify and confront misconceptions.21 For our experiment, we used Calibrated Peer Review22 to implement short writing assignments because the software provides assessment and feedback using student review of peer writing.23 To ensure reliable peer feedback is provided, all peer reviewers first grade a panel of “calibration” essays of known quality using a predesigned rubric. The calibration score is calculated by comparing reviewers’ responses with expected responses using the same rubric. The program then asks each student to review answers from three other students in the class. Thus, each student receives feedback from three anonymous student reviewers, where the grade contribution of a given peer review is directly proportional to the calibration score (i.e., lower calibration scores are weighted less in the overall review process). Because everything is automated, the CPR web-based tool provides an efficient mechanism for giving individualized writing feedback to large groups of students with minimal time on the part of the instructor. Several institutions have used CPR in both introductory and more advanced writing

cid−base chemistry is a central topic discussed across all divisions of chemistry. The concepts are first introduced in general chemistry, then reinforced, and applied further in organic chemistry, analytical chemistry, and biochemistry. An estimated 85% of organic reactions require a sophisticated understanding of Brønsted−Lowry definitions; therefore, success in organic chemistry can partially be attributed to understanding acid−base chemistry.1 Studies regarding misconceptions2−4 and interventions5−10 for acid−base chemistry have been widely researched and disseminated. This article looks at using writing as a formal intervention for promoting acid−base qualitative and quantitative reasoning. Because research has reported difficulties in identifying acids and bases from structures beyond a very superficial level,11 we specifically incorporated questions that address students’ abilities to recognize structures as acids or bases. Writing is seen both as an important skill and a useful tool in formative assessment. Research supports writing assignments for fostering stronger conceptual understanding12 and providing reflective and metacognitive opportunities for identifying and overcoming misconceptions.13 When implemented effectively, writing can assist students in the development of their technical writing skills14,15 and promote a better understanding of content by “writing-to-learn”.16−18 The process of writing about and explaining concepts serves as an effective intervention by forcing students to confront misconceptions in a way that quantitative word problems cannot fully develop.19 Several universities have found success through inclusion of short summary writing assignments within their courses, followed © XXXX American Chemical Society and Division of Chemical Education, Inc.

Received: January 8, 2018 Revised: May 24, 2018

A

DOI: 10.1021/acs.jchemed.8b00018 J. Chem. Educ. XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX

Journal of Chemical Education

Article

courses24−26 and have generally shown a positive impact on the quality of student writing within that course. However, few research studies have assessed the long-term impact on student retention of the information learned within the CPR peer review activity, and these studies have not been conclusive regarding the positive impact.27

■

10 weeks after their instruction on acid−base chemistry. These students were selected as the control, since past comparisons in the subsequent organic chemistry course had shown that 31X students were found to have greater ability to apply concepts from acid−base chemistry to organic mechanisms. Organic chemistry grades for the control and treatment groups were compared prior to the implementation of CPR. Using ANOVA, a statistical difference between the control and treatment group (p < 0.01) grades was observed with the control earning approximately half a letter grade higher than the treatment group. Treatment Group: Two Interview Sessions. Pretreatment Interview. A sample of 26 students from the treatment group (Chem 31A/B) immediately following instruction of acid−base chemistry but prior to the assignment of the CPR writing activity. Post-Treatment Interview. A sample of 8 students from the initial 26 interviewed in the treatment group were able to return for a second round of interviews. As with the control group, the second-round interviews were conducted at exactly 10 weeks after instruction and treatment. To validate that students interviewed provide a representative sample of the class at large, several statistical analyses were completed. No statistical differences (p > 0.05) were observed, using ANOVA, when comparing final course grades in general chemistry for students in the pretreatment and post-treatment groups. Furthermore, using a t test, no statistical differences (p > 0.05) were observed when comparing course grades between the pre- and postinterview participants and among all students enrolled in the two courses. This data supports that the pretreatment and post-treatment groups had abilities comparable to each other and to those of the class at large. Study Limitations. Because significant differences between students from 31X (control group) and 31A/B (treatment group) students had previously been observed during the subsequent organic chemistry course, the control group and posttreatment group interviews were conducted after completion of their respective general chemistry courses, during their first quarter of organic chemistry. Not all students continue into the organic sequence (course no longer required for major, poor performance in general chemistry, etc.), and students tend to be overcommitted on campus in general; therefore, recruiting a large number of students for the second interview from our original pool proved to be quite challenging. Additionally, only students who completed both CPR assignments in the treatment group were selected to participate. Despite these challenges, we collected sufficient data to compare the control and treatment groups.

RESEARCH QUESTIONS AND DESIGN

Research Motivation

There are two general chemistry tracks at Stanford University. The first track, Chem 31X, is a one-quarter (10-week) course designed for students who have a very strong background in chemistry; these students have either taken college chemistry, earned a 5 on the AP Chemistry Exam, earned a 5 on the IB Chem exam, or passed a placement test. Chem 31X requires calculus and generally skips over most introductory topics utilizing a more theoretical approach for discussing topics in quantum mechanics, thermodynamics, equilibria, and kinetics. The second track, Chem 31A/B, is a two-quarter (20-week) sequence designed for students who have a weaker background in chemistry, having only taken high school chemistry, having earned a lower score on the AP Chemistry Exam, or having never taken chemistry previously. The sequence covers all general chemistry topics, without calculus. Despite Chem 31A/B students having more lecture and laboratory time on acid−base chemistry, differences in student performances were apparent in the corresponding organic chemistry course taken after completing Chem 31X or Chem 31A/B. The same instructor taught students from both tracks, and noted 31X students have a stronger conceptual understanding of basic acid−base chemistry, which promoted a stronger performance in organic chemistry particularly regarding reactivity. Given the concerns expressed from the organic instructor, we sought to identify an approach for boosting understanding, retention, and ability to apply acid−base chemistry. Given previous successes attributed with writing assignments,16−21 we proposed a set of short writing assignments using Calibrated Peer Review (CPR) software as an intervention designed to normalize the abilities in acid−base chemistry across the two chemistry tracks. Research Questions

We identified three research questions to address, to measure the efficacy of the short writing assignments. (1) Will writing assignments normalize the differences observed between students within the two tracks of general chemistry courses? (2) Will writing assignments boost student confidence in their understanding of acid−base chemistry? (3) Will writing assignments improve retention of material beyond the course in which the activity is introduced?

Calibrated Peer Review Assignments

The CPR assignments incorporated case-based scenarios to improve student motivation and learning20 by contextualizing the concepts. The first CPR assignment focused upon the structure and protonation state of amino acids at physiological pH. The learning objectives for the assignment were 2-fold: (1) Describe the factors influencing proton acidity and (2) demonstrate an understanding of how the relationship between pH and pKa influences protonation state. Box 1 provides an overview of the prompt given to students. The second CPR assignment, which emphasized multiple equilibria, focused upon both acid−base and solubility equilibria. The learning outcomes were to (1) demonstrate an understanding of how acid−base reactions influence solubility and

Research Design

To measure the efficacy, we used three rounds of individual interviews to assess student understanding of content. The interviews were each 45 min in length. Students were selected at random to participate and received an Amazon.com gift card for full participation. All interviews were recorded and coded by multiple undergraduate researchers. Results were then collated to create a final set of codes that were internally consistent. The following interviews were conducted. Control Group: One Interview Session. A sample of 20 students from the control group (Chem 31X) who received no treatment (i.e., CPR writing assignment) were interviewed B



Article

Box 2. Calibrated Peer Review Prompt for Solubility−pH Relationships The tooth enamel is about 2 mm thick and is composed of a strong mineral called hydroxyapatite, Ca5(PO4)3OH. When hydroxyapatite dissolves, it dissociates into calcium, phosphate, and hydroxide ions. Using this information respond in 250 words or less to the following items: • When sugar ferments on teeth, hydronium ions are produced. Explain how this phenomenon causes tooth decay. • Some Web sites recommend making your own toothpaste using baking soda. Based on the equilibria you discussed above, could baking soda be an effective ingredient in toothpaste to help prevent tooth decay? Box 3. Sample Rubric for the CPR Assignments Example Rubric Used for Student Feedback (1) The response identifies the equilibrium for the dissolution of tooth enamel. (2 points) 1.A The dissociation equilibrium is explicitly identified (2) 1.B The dissociation equilibrium is implicitly identified (1) 1.C The dissociation equilibrium is not mentioned (0) (2) The response identifies the neutralization reaction between OH− and H3O+ and explains how this drives the dissolution equilibrium forward. (4 points) 2.A Does both exceptionally (4) 2.B Does one or the other adequately (2−3) 2.C Marginally explains one aspect or the other (0−1) (3) The response identifies and explains the property of baking soda that reverses the dissolution reaction. (2 points: exceptional, adequate, poor) (4) The response is clear, concise, and logically ordered (2 points: exceptional, adequate, poor) understanding required for organic chemistry. Comparatively, the pretreatment and post-treatment group interviews were designed to gauge the level of retention and application of content following instruction and writing assignments. The same questions were used in all three interviews (the pretreatment, the control, and the post-treatment). Only students who completed both CPR assignments in the treatment group were selected to participate. Finally, students who participated received a gift card and signed a waiver approved by the institutional review board (IRB-26429) for their data from the interviews to be compared. The interview consisted of a series of definitional and recognition type control questions presented at the beginning to ensure comparable groups for testing the hypotheses. When comparing the post-treatment to the control group, there were no statistical differences observed between the two groups on these items. Throughout the interview, students were encouraged to provide both their answers along with their reasoning using a “think-aloud” tactic. If students incorrectly answered the first part of a question, the explanation was not coded and not analyzed. Figure 1 illustrates a schematic displaying the focus of these questions, which move to progressively higher order thinking skills.21 Students were first asked to identify the correct representation of a strong and weak acid given frames 1−4. These items were designed to ensure that all students compared had a similar baseline knowledge of acid/base chemistry, allowing us to focus specifically on the high order learning

(2) explain the significance of the common ion effect when predicting equilibrium positions. Box 2 provides the prompt given to students: Each writing assignment was assessed out of 10 points broken down by their written answer (30%), their calibration performance (30%), their average peer assessment (30%), and the match of their self-assessment compared to those of their peers (10%). To minimize concerns and anxiety affiliated with the peer-grading approach, such as fairness or inconsistency, student responses were assessed by peers using a very detailed rubric (example shown in Box 3). Interview Format and Questions

The control group and post-treatment interview questions were designed to gauge the differences between the two groups as students were completing organic chemistry. Questions focused on explanation of concepts and comparisons rather than computations, to provide deeper insight into the level of conceptual C



Article

Figure 1. Interview questions covering foundational acid−base items.

corresponding pKa values was provided, and students were asked to discuss the significance of points 1−5 indicated on the titration curve in Figure 4, as well as discuss the structure that would be observed at each point. To conclude the interview, students were asked specific questions regarding their opinions about writing. Specifically, students were asked whether they felt writing facilitated their understanding of chemistry, and for those in the treatment section, students were asked whether they felt CPR activities aided in their understanding of chemistry. During the first round of interviews with the treatment group, students were not informed of the connection between the content and the writing within the CPR assignments. Interview audio was recorded, and responses were coded on a scale of 1−3 regarding three categories: (1) correctness, (2) explanation, and (3) confidence. Box 4 summarizes the metrics used to score each category during the interview. The same two research assistants (RAs) who completed the interviews did the coding. To ensure internal consistency, both RAs separately coded four interview transcripts, and their scores were compared. The internal consistency was 0.97; therefore, subsequent coding was completed by the respective interviewer. The coded scores were analyzed using the Mann− Whitney U-test for nonparametric data. Ott and Longnecker were used as a reference in selecting the appropriate statistical test.28

processes of the treatment versus control groups. Statistical differences observed among these knowledge/recall items would indicate the presence of an outlier; however, statistical differences from student participants across the cohorts were not observed (p > 0.05). Therefore, all the data points were included in the analysis. These were followed by more detailed questions emphasizing applications of acid−base chemistry and structural consideration. Figures 2−4 illustrate the three application type questions

Figure 2. Structure used in the interview to assess students’ understanding of pH effects on structure.

Figure 3. Dissociation of calcium hydroxide was used in the interview to assess students’ understanding of the common ion effect and pH dependence of reactions.

■

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION During the post-treatment and control group interviews, students in both cohorts were completing the first quarter of organic chemistry and using acid−base chemistry concepts for rationalizing the structure and reactivity of organic molecules. The concepts of polyprotic acids and titrations are not emphasized within the organic sequence, but these ideas are prevalent in organic chemistry when considering dominant structures at various pH values. Being able to identify the dominant forms and, hence, charge separation is paramount in rationalizing electrostatic interactions and hence reactivity.

used in the interview. Given the structure in Figure 2, students were asked to describe the primary structure observed at a pH of 3, 4, and 12. They were then asked to identify the most acidic proton and explain their rationale. The course content for both the control and treatment groups heavily emphasized structural characteristics influencing acidity, but students were only asked to write about these concepts within the treatment course through the CPR assignments. To explore understanding of other mixed equilibria, the third interview item focused upon solubility (Figure 3) and asked how an increase and decrease in pH would change the solubility of calcium hydroxide. Verbal cues were provided to prompt students to discuss specifically how pH changes influence hydroxide ion concentration and likewise the solubility, probing their understanding of the common ion effect. The final concept-based interview item focused upon the titration of a polyprotic acid. The amino acid structure with

Control versus Treatment Group

We sought first to validate our assumption that the treatment group (students of a limited background in the two-quarter Chem31A/B) did indeed have a weaker grasp of the material than the control group (from the accelerated one-quarter general chemistry class). Upon comparison of the answers of the control (N = 20) with those of the pretreatment group (N = 26), D



Article

Figure 4. Titration curve for the indicated amino acid.

see a statistical difference between the control and pretreatment interviews. Indeed, the control group performed statistically higher on items 1, 2, and 4, despite the control interview being performed 10 weeks after instruction. An anomaly was observed with the pretreatment group and control group for item 3 above. The pretreatment group more successively identified the structure specifically at a pH of 3 compared to the control group. This anomaly is likely attributed to the specific lecture and homework problems that were being completed concurrently during the interviews. Figure 5 summarizes the pretreatment and control group comparisons.

Box 4. Metrics Used To Define Scores of 1−3 During the Interviews Correctness: 3, Answer is entirely or almost entirely correct 2, Answer is partially correct 1, Answer is incorrect Explanation Quality: 3, Student demonstrates clear and correct understanding of underlying reasons behind an answer 2, Student demonstrates partially correct understanding 1, Student does not demonstrate understanding, or demonstrates incorrect understanding NA, Student was not prompted to expand explanation Def, Definition (no explanation necessary; applied for the foundation items) Confidence: 3, Student gives concise response without any indicators of doubt 2, Student second-guesses self or shows uncertainty 1, Student admits they do not know an answer/has no confidence in correctness of answer

Research Question 1: Will Writing Assignments Normalize Differences Observed between Students within the Two Tracks of General Chemistry Courses?

Of the 26 students in the pretreatment interview group, eight students returned for the second post-treatment interview 10 weeks after the initial acid−base instruction. The purpose of the second interview was to gauge retention and compare responses and performance with students in the control group. The interviews occurred 10 weeks after the treatment; therefore, the same amount of time had lapsed between the treatment and control groups, and comparable instruction in organic chemistry had taken place. In the initial comparison of the control and treatment groups (prior to intervention), the control group had demonstrated an overall stronger understanding of acid−base concepts. However, in the post-treatment comparison, there was no longer a statistical difference in student responses between the control and posttreatment groups for questions 1, 2, and 4 from the questions with initial differences between the pretreatment and control groups. For question 3, the treatment group more successfully identified the dominant form of the structure in Figure 2 at pH = 3 during the pretreatment vs control group interview (p = 0.018). These differences were expanded with additional differences demonstrating statistically stronger abilities of the post-treatment group not only to identify the dominant form at a pH = 3 (p = 0.049) but also to identify the dominant structure at a pH of 4 (p = 0.041). A statistical difference in the quality of the explanations was observed between the treatment and control

statistically significant differences (>95% confidence) were observed for items 1−4 below. 1. What is the relationship between acid strength and pKa (p = 0.013)? 2. Identify compounds that can act as acids (p = 0.026) and identify compounds that can act as bases (p = 0.047). 3. Using the structure in Figure 2, identify the dominant form at pH = 3 (p = 0.018). 4. Using the reaction in Figure 3, explain the effect of adding sodium hydroxide (p = 0.040). Topics in questions 1−4 highlight common issues that pose difficulty for students1 when they first learn acid−base chemistry. Therefore, if the control group students were truly stronger than those of the treatment group, we would expect to E



Article

Figure 5. Summary of the pretreatment and control group comparisons.

Figure 6. Summary of the control vs post-treatment group data.

group with the treatment providing stronger, more scientifically based explanations. Figure 6 summarizes the control and posttreatment group comparisons.

the control and treatment groups was not observed, and the students in the treatment group demonstrated a continued mastery of the material supporting retention after 10 weeks had passed for instruction. Furthermore, after the implementation of CPR assignments, when comparing organic chemistry course grades between the control and treatment group, a statistical difference was no longer observed (p = 0.08). Given the results of this initial examination, we feel that further research is warranted to determine the depth and retention of material across other courses including analytical chemistry and biochemistry. Previously, the control and treatment groups performed statistically differently with the control earning half a grade higher on average than the treatment group in organic chemistry.

Research Question 2: Will Writing Assignments Boost Student Confidence in Their Understanding of Acid−Base Chemistry?

Significant differences in confidence (p < 0.05) were observed in the pretreatment and control groups. This was expected, given that students in the pretreatment group had just received their instruction, had generally weaker backgrounds, and had scored more poorly on the majority of interview answers. However, there were no statistical differences (p > 0.05) between the control and post-treatment group interviews regarding the confidence in their answers. This suggests that the writing exercises not only served to boost understanding of material but also student confidence in their explanations of it.

Student Perceptions of Writing and CPR

Despite the improvements observed from the writing assignments, students in the treatment group did not value writing more significantly. Specifically, students did not reflect that their understanding and ability to apply acid−base chemistry concepts were attributed to writing activities. There was no difference between the two groups (control average = 2.18, treatment average = 2.15) regarding the value of writing assignments within their chemistry courses. Interestingly, the control group did not have writing assignments in their course, and writing was not emphasized, yet the perception of writing was minimally higher in the control group. The lower treatment group opinions may be in part be attributed to the frustrations with the CPR process used to implement the writing assignments. Comments from students include the following.

Research Question 3: Will Writing Assignments Improve Retention of Material beyond the Course in Which the Activity Is Introduced?

Because of the difficulty in recruiting student participants after the initial quarter in which they participated, this is a challenging question to answer. However, the fact that students in the post-treatment groups were not only able to improve their understanding of the acid−base material but also able to reach parity with the control group that had previously outperformed these students in the subsequent class suggests that the writing assignments promoted both better understanding and retention of acid−base concepts. The conceptual gap expected between F



■

“The CPR exercises were useful, but the calibrations/peer review was frustrating.” “Calibrations are very subjective, and makes the student feel like a terrible grader, which in turn causes them not to feel comfortable grading other people’s work.” (anonymous students, 2010) The CPR activities were used during both quarters of the general chemistry course taken by the treatment group. It was noted that, over these two quarters, the reviewer competency index (i.e., accuracy of student reviews) showed improvement, likely due to revisions within the grading rubrics to include more scaffolding. Despite these improvements, student distrust of peer grading, a phenomenon noted at other institutions implementing CPR,26 remained a major hindrance to the student perceptions of CPR and writing activities. Other reviews of peer grading have shown that while students can provide useful feedback on basic questions, when asked to review higher order levels of thinking (such as the questions in these assignments) students were generally less critical than professional graders.29 If there was increased oversight over the review process and accountability within the overall grade for providing effective feedback, student effort and comments may be improved as shown by Zare et al.30 Overall, we can conclude that writing did have a positive impact on student performance and retention. We cannot specifically comment on whether the success should be attributed to the CPR software or the writing activities themselves. There is potential merit in both aspects of this intervention. On face value, having students simply write out more detailed explanations for a given problem would certainly help deepen their understanding of the phenomenon and allow them to identify areas of weakness they need to address. We would expect this to be similar to gains seen in students verbally explaining a solution to a peer. Additionally, these particular exercises intentionally chose more applied topics that sought to engage students and better motivate learning the material. As up to 80% of students in these courses report some interest in biology, the discussion of amino acid structure and tooth decay could help improve student desire to learn the material, thus driving the improvement in understanding. The addition of the structure brought through CPR adds several new dimensions to this activity to consider. In reviewing other students’ work, the student is confronted with multiple explanations and potentially misconceptions that they must evaluate. If the student takes the time to engage in this process, it should provide them with additional insight into a problem. Unfortunately, this task proved to be too onerous for some, and a significant portion of students did not complete all three of their peer reviews. This issue further fueled student discontent, as some students would not receive full feedback. Those that did receive feedback, however, benefited from a more detailed analysis of their work. This is a huge advantage for instructors of larger courses, as when you are reaching enrollments of 100+ students, providing individual feedback on regular in-depth writing activities becomes a daunting, if not impossible, task. Finally, students must carry out their own review of their work, forcing them to confront any errors in their own understanding head-on. This opportunity to correct their own explanation could be instrumental in cementing a longer-term understanding of the material. Additional research is needed to assess the metacognitive aspects associated with the peer review process to fully rationalize gains observed in critical thinking and problem solving skills.

Article

AUTHOR INFORMATION

Corresponding Author

*E-mail: [email protected]. ORCID

Charles T. Cox Jr.: 0000-0001-7169-9777 Author Contributions †

C.T.C. and J.S.P. contributed equally.

Notes

The authors declare no competing financial interest.

■

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS We would like to thank the general chemistry students who participated in the calibrated peer review activities, as well as, the Hoagland Foundation for funding.

■

REFERENCES

(1) Stoyanovich, C.; Gandhi, C. A.; Flynn, A. B. Acid-Base Learning Outcomes for Students in an Introductory Organic Chemistry Course. J. Chem. Educ. 2015, 92 (2), 220−229. (2) Nakhleh, M. B.; Krajcik, J. S. Influence of Levels of Information as Presented by Different Technologies on Students’ Understanding of Acid, Base, and pH Concepts. J. Res. Sci. Teach. 1994, 31 (10), 1077− 1096. (3) Maeyer, J.; Talanquer, V. The Role of Intuitive Heuristics in Students’ Thinking: Ranking Chemical Substances. Sci. Educ. 2010, 94 (6), 963−984. (4) McClary, L.; Talanquer, V. College Chemistry Students’ Mental Models of Acids and Acid Strength. J. Res. Sci. Teach. 2011, 48 (4), 396−413. (5) Demircioglu, G.; Ayas, A.; Demircioglu, H. Conceptual Change Achieved through a New Teaching Program on Acids and Bases. Chem. Educ. Res. Pract. 2005, 6 (1), 36−51. (6) Ç entingül, I.; Geban, Ö . Understanding of Acid−Base Concept by Using Conceptual Change Approach. Hacettepe Ü niversitesi Journal of Education 2005, 29, 69−74. http://www.efdergi.hacettepe.edu.tr/ yonetim/icerik/makaleler/766-published.pdf (accessed Apr 2018). (7) Cooper, M. M.; Kouyoumdjian, H.; Underwood, S. Investigating Students’ Reasoning about Acid-Base Reactions. J. Chem. Educ. 2016, 93 (10), 1703−1712. (8) Ultay, N.; Calik, M. A Comparison of Different Teaching Designs of ‘Acids and Bases’ Subject. Eurasia J. Math., Sci., & Technol. Educ. 2016, 12 (1), 57−86. (9) Sesen, B. A.; Tarhan, L. Active Learning versus Teacher-Centered Instruction for Learning Acids and Bases. Res. Sci. & Technol. Educ 2011, 29 (2), 205−226. (10) Ö zmen, H.; DemIṙ cIȯ Ğ lu, G.; Coll, R. K. A comparative study of the effect of a concept mapping enhance laboratory experience on Turkish high school students’ understanding of acid-base chemistry. Int. J. Sci. & Math. Educ 2009, 7, 1−24. (11) Furió-Maś, C.; LuisaCalatayud, M.; Guisasola, J.; Furió-Goḿ ez, C. How Are the Concepts and Theories of Acid−base Reactions Presented? Chemistry in Textbooks and as Presented by Teachers. Int. J. Sci. Educ. 2005, 27 (11), 1337−1358. (12) Ambrose, S. A.; Bridges, M. W.; DiPietro, M.; Lovett, M. C.; Norman, M. K.; Mayer, R. E. How Learning Works: 7 Research-based Principles for Smart Teaching; Jossey-Bass: San Francisco, CA, 2010. (13) Hein, T. L. Using Writing to Confront Student Misconceptions in Physics. Eur. J. Phys. 1999, 20, 137−141. (14) Shires, N. P. Teaching Writing in College Chemistry − A Practical Bibliography 1980−1990. J. Chem. Educ. 1991, 68 (6), 494− 495. (15) Gragson, D. E.; Hagen, J. P. Developing Technical Writing Skills in the Physical Chemistry Laboratory: A Progressive Approach Employing Peer Review. J. Chem. Educ. 2010, 87 (1), 62−65. G



Article

(16) Reynolds, J. A.; Thaiss, C.; Katkin, W.; Thompson, R. J. Writing-to-Learn in Undergraduate Science Education: A CommunityBased, Conceptually Driven Approach. Cbe-Life Sci. Educ. 2012, 11 (1), 17−25. (17) Horton, P. B.; Fronk, R. H.; Walton, R. W. The Effect of Writing Assignments on Achievement in College General Chemistry. J. Res. Sci. Teach. 1985, 22 (6), 535−541. (18) Bangert-Drowns, R. L.; Hurley, M. M.; Wilkinson, B. The effects of school-based writing-to-learn interventions on academic achievement: A meta-analysis. Rev. Educ. Res. 2004, 74 (1), 29−58. (19) Madigan, C. Writing as a means, Not an end. J. Coll. Sci. Teach 1987, 16, 245−249. (20) Niaz, M. Cognitive Conflict as a Teaching Strategy in Solving Chemistry Problems − A Diaelectric-Constructivist Perspective. J. Res. Sci. Teach. 1995, 32 (9), 959−970. (21) Meislieh, E. K. Requiring Good Writing in Chemistry Courses. J. Chem. Educ. 1987, 64, 505−506. (22) Calibrated peer review. http://cpr.molsci.ucla.edu/Home.aspx (accessed Apr 2018). (23) Burkett, A. R.; Dunkle, S. B. Technical Writing in the Undergraduate Curriculum. J. Chem. Educ. 1983, 60 (6), 469−470. (24) Russell, A. A. The Evolution of Calibrated Peer Review. In Trajectories of Chemistry Education Innovation and Reform; ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2013; Vol. 1145, Chapter 9, pp 129−143. DOI: 10.1021/bk-20131145.ch009 (25) Hartberg, Y.; Guernsel, A. B.; Simpson, N. J.; Balaster, V. Development of Student Writing in Biochemistry Using Calibrated Peer Review. J. Sch. Teach. Learn. 2008, 8 (1), 29−44. (26) Clase, K. L.; Gundlach, E.; Pelaez, N. J. Calibrated Peer Review for Computer-Assisted Learning of Biological Research Competencies. Biochem. Mol. Biol. Educ. 2010, 38 (5), 290−295. (27) Margerum, L. D.; Gulsrud, M.; Manlapez, R.; Rebong, R.; Love, A. Application of calibrated peer review (CPR) writing assignments to enhance experiments with an environmental chemistry focus. J. Chem. Educ. 2007, 84 (2), 292−295. (28) Ott, L.; Longnecker, M. An Introduction to Statistical Methods and Data Analysis, 7th ed.; Brookes-Cole Publishing: Belmont, CA, 2015. (29) Rivard, L. P. A Review of Writing to Learn in Science − Implications for Practice and Research. J. Res. Sci. Teach. 1994, 31 (9), 969−983. (30) Zare, R. N.; Cox, C. T., Jr.; Murphy, K.; Bayas, C. Implementation of Peer-Reviewed Homework Assignments. J. Coll. Sci. Teach. 2017, 46 (3), 40−46.

H


Using Writing Assignments as an Intervention to Strengthen Acid

Recommend Documents