Because Lewis structures provide a direct connection between molecular structure and properties, the ability to construct and use them is an integral component of many chemistry courses. Although a great deal of time and effort has been dedicated to development of “foolproof” rules, students still have problems with the skill. What is more, many students fail to connect the skill with the reasons for learning it. In fact, it appears that conventional instructional practices involved in teaching Lewis structures are in direct conflict with much of what we know about how people learn. In support of this assertion, we present the results of a mixed-methods study designed to investigate how students at all levels draw Lewis structures, and how students perceive the utility of Lewis structures. We offer suggestions for alternative methods of developing this skill in order to provide students with an approach to meaningful learning.

Much effort has been expended in developing improved methods for presenting mechanistic thinking and the curved-arrow notation to organic chemistry students; however, most of these techniques are not research-based. The little research that has been conducted has mainly focused on understanding the meaning that students associate with the curved-arrows during a single moment in time. The current research uses OrganicPad, an innovative, tablet person computer-based structure drawing program, to document our efforts to understand how second-year-level organic chemistry students’ mechanism use changes over their study of the subject. Our results reveal a dramatic evolution of mechanistic strategies during the academic year, including a large proportion of students who elect not to use the mechanistic convention in their work.

The use of the curved-arrow notation to depict electron flow during mechanistic processes is one of the most important representational conventions in the organic chemistry curriculum. Our previous research documented a disturbing trend: when asked to predict the products of a series of reactions, many students do not spontaneously engage in mechanism use even when explicitly prompted to do so. Building upon those results, this study revealed that students who engaged in mechanism use were better equipped to solve organic chemistry problems but only those that involve transfer of knowledge.

No abstract

Consensus does not exist among chemists as to the essential characteristics of inquiry in the undergraduate laboratory. A rubric developed for elementary and secondary science classrooms to distinguish among levels of inquiry was modified for the undergraduate chemistry laboratory. Both peer-reviewed experiments in the literature and commercially available experiments were evaluated using the rubric, revealing a diversity of uses for the word inquiry.The modified rubric provides a valid and reliable standard of measure for chemists to examine their laboratory curriculum. [Chem.