Reforming a Large Foundational Course: Successes and Challenges

Abstract

The Information Technology and Innovation Foundation (ITIF) is a Washington, D.C.-based think tank at the cutting edge of designing innovation policies and exploring how advances in information technology will create new economic opportunities to improve the quality of life. Nonprofit, and nonpartisan, ITIF offers pragmatic ideas that break free of economic philosophies born in eras long before the first punch card computer and well before the rise of modern China. ITIF, founded in 2006, is dedicated to conceiving and promoting new ways of thinking about technology-driven productivity, competitiveness, and globalization for the 21st century.ITIF publishes policy reports, holds forums and policy debates, advises elected officials and their staff, and provides an active resource for the media. It develops new and creative policy proposals, analyzes existing policy issues through the lens of bolstering innovation and productivity, and advocates against policies that hinder digital transformation and innovation. The Information Technology and Innovation Foundation is a 501(c)3 nonprofit organization.

Evaluating the evidence base for evidence‐based instructional practices in chemistry through meta‐analysis

“…Five studies (Eichler & Peeples, ; He, ; Lewis, ; Robert et al, ; Tien, Roth, & Kampmeier, ) used peer leaders or teaching assistants to facilitate interactions within large classes. Of the remaining three studies, two reported class sizes of approximately 100 students (Baepler et al, ; Casadonte, ) and the remaining study (Talanquer & Pollard, ) a class size of 250 students. Two (He, ; Talanquer & Pollard, ) of the eight studies make explicit mention of the challenges in implementation with a large class describing difficulties in ensuring student preparation, promoting student engagement and providing feedback on misconceptions.…”

“…Of the remaining three studies, two reported class sizes of approximately 100 students (Baepler et al, ; Casadonte, ) and the remaining study (Talanquer & Pollard, ) a class size of 250 students. Two (He, ; Talanquer & Pollard, ) of the eight studies make explicit mention of the challenges in implementation with a large class describing difficulties in ensuring student preparation, promoting student engagement and providing feedback on misconceptions. It is also noted that He () was the only study of the five with teaching assistants to not mention the number of assistants present.…”

An online categorization task to investigate changes in students' interpretations of organic chemistry reactions

“…Science curricula that are structured by surface features do not provide opportunities to connect concepts and build expert‐like understanding (Cooper & Stowe, ). Internationally, efforts are being made toward curricular reform, especially in high school and general chemistry (Cooper & Klymkowsky, ; National Research Council, ; Sevian & Talanquer, ; Talanquer & Pollard, , ). In organic chemistry, curricula have historically been reorganized by surface features (i.e., functional groups) and assessments have rarely asked students to make mechanistic connections across a variety of reaction types.…”

Student difficulties during structure–function problem solving

“…We hypothesize that students who struggled with these foundational aspects of the problem do so because of a lack of well‐developed schemas . One potential way to help students construct organized schemas is through conceptual curriculum design such as POGIL , Chemical Thinking , or CLUE Chemistry . Each of these approaches thoughtfully scaffolds disciplinary knowledge in a meaningful progression, which can contribute to dramatic improvements in conceptual understanding .…”