Core Ideas and Topics: Building Up or Drilling Down?

Abstract

In this paper we discuss how and why core ideas can serve as the framework upon which chemistry curricula and assessment items are developed. While there are a number of projects that have specified "big ideas" or "anchoring concepts", the ways that these ideas are subsequently developed may inadvertently lead to fragmentation of knowledge, rather than construction of a coherent, contextualized framework. We present four core ideas that emerged as a consequence of a transformation effort at our institution and discuss the relationships between core ideas and more recognizable topics in the context of a general chemistry course. We show how commonly taught topics can be supported and developed on the basis of the core ideas and discuss why this approach can lead to a more expertlike framework upon which students can build their future understanding.

Energy Connections and Misconnections across Chemistry and Biology

“…However, the core ideas were incorporated into these courses differently. While GC1/GC2 was redesigned from the ground up to help students understand and connect the core ideas throughout the course ( Cooper and Klymkowsky, 2013a ; Cooper et al , 2017 ), efforts to transform B1 were still in the early stages. The core ideas, negotiated by the B1 instructors, were explicitly incorporated into lecture, but the commercial textbook and homework system did not appear to reinforce them, instead focusing on particular topics around which the units were organized.…”

“…As he pointed out, if “little serious effort is made explicitly to explore relationships between these ideas, to point out significant similarities and differences, and to reconcile real or apparent inconsistencies,” students may be driven to rote learning, and “artificial barriers” may obscure common features ( Ausubel, 1968 , p. 155). Students (e.g., Lida and Priyah) who chose to memorize the correct answer in each course may have been driven to such rote learning by the “cognitive strain and confusion” associated with making the necessary connections between their chemistry and biology understanding on their own ( Ausubel, 1968 ; Cooper et al , 2017 ).…”

Connecting Structure–Property and Structure–Function Relationships across the Disciplines of Chemistry and Biology: Exploring Student Perceptions

“…Additionally, the SPF relationship can be presented as a framework for considering unfamiliar phenomena, making predictions, and constructing explanations, as noted by both the Framework ( NRC, 2012 ) and our interview participants. Finally, we believe that understanding the relationship between structure, properties, and function can support deeper understanding of other disciplinary core ideas and crosscutting concepts (e.g., emergence, cause and effect; AAAS, 2011 ; NRC, 2012 ; Cooper et al. , 2017 ).…”

“…Similarly, the curricular frameworks for AP Chemistry ( College Board, 2014 ) and AP Biology ( College Board, 2015 ) discuss structure, properties, and function alongside one another without implying that they are the same ( Table 2 ). The relationship between structure and properties has long been considered fundamental to the discipline of chemistry ( College Board, 2014 ; DeFever et al ., 2015 ; Underwood et al ., 2016 ; Cooper et al ., 2017 ) and there has been considerable focus among chemistry education researchers on students’ understanding of this relationship ( Shane and Bodner, 2006 ; Cooper et al ., 2012a , 2013 ; Meijer et al ., 2013 ; DeFever et al. , 2015 ; Underwood et al ., 2015 , 2016 ).…”

Assessment in Chemistry Education

“…Indeed, many students who would claim that bond breaking releases energy have no difficulty with bond energy calculations of this type. Unfortunately, an approach to assessment design that drills down to the smallest assessable unit sends a strong message to both students and instructors that it is the fragments that are important . This approach has serious implications for a constructivist approach to knowledge building: if students are taught only to strive to master fragmentary assessment items, then it is unlikely they will see the necessity of connecting and using their knowledge of atomic/molecular behavior to predict, explain, and model phenomena.…”