Advertisement

Assessing for Chemical Thinking

  • Vicente TalanquerEmail author
Chapter

Abstract

Current educational reform efforts emphasize the importance of developing students’ abilities to engage in a variety of science practices, including creating and using models, generating arguments, and building explanations. To achieve these goals, we need to change more than our instructional methods. It is also critical that we carefully reflect on how to modify our assessment tools to better elicit the types of understandings that we value. In this chapter, I describe a strategy we are using to develop formal formative assessments and summative assessment in a general chemistry course for science and engineering majors in the USA. These assessments seek to evaluate the extent to which students can integrate central ideas, crosscutting ways of reasoning, and core practices in making sense of relevant phenomena and in finding reasonable solutions to real problems. The benefits and challenges of our approach to the assessment of student understanding are highlighted in this chapter.

Notes

Acknowledgements

I would like to acknowledge all the general chemistry instructors, laboratory coordinators, and graduate assistants who are and have been involved in the development and implementation of the Chemical Thinking curriculum at our institution. Support from the Association of American Universities (AAU) through their Undergraduate STEM Education Initiative is also appreciated.

References

  1. Cooper, M. M., Underwood, S. M., Hilley, C. Z., & Klymkowsky, M. W. (2012). Development and assessment of a molecular structure and properties learning progression. Journal of Chemical Education, 89, 1351–1357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. European Commission (EC). (2015). Science education for responsible citizenship. Luxembourg: European Commission.Google Scholar
  3. Laverty, J. T., Underwood, S. M., Matz, R. L., Posey, L. A., Carmel, J. H., Caballero, M. D., et al. (2016). Characterizing college science assessments: The three-dimensional learning assessment protocol. PLoS ONE, 11(9), e0162333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. National Research Council (NRC). (2011). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. Washington DC: The National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  5. National Research Council (NRC). (2013). The next generation science standards. Washington DC: The National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  6. Russ, R. S., Scherr, R. E., Hammer, D., & Mikeska, J. (2008). Recognizing mechanistic reasoning in student scientific inquiry: A framework for discourse analysis developed from philosophy of science. Science Education, 92(3), 499–525.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Sevian, H., & Talanquer, V. (2014). Rethinking chemistry: A learning progression on chemical thinking. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 15(1), 10–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Smith, C., Wiser, M., Anderson, C., & Krajcik, J. (2006). Implications of research on children’s learning for standards and assessment: A proposed learning progression for matter and atomic-molecular theory. Measurement, 14(1&2), 1–98.Google Scholar
  9. Talanquer, V. (2009). On cognitive constraints and learning progressions: The case of structure of matter. International Journal of Science Education, 31(15), 2123–2136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Talanquer, V. (2016). Central ideas in chemistry: An alternative perspective. Journal of Chemical Education, 93, 3–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Talanquer, V. (2018a). Progressions in reasoning about structure-property relationships. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 19, 998–1009.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Talanquer, V. (2018b). Chemical rationales: Another triplet for chemical thinking. International Journal of Science Education, 15, 1874–1890.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Talanquer, V. (2018c). The importance of understanding fundamental chemical mechanisms. Journal of Chemical Education, 95(11), 1905–1911.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Talanquer, V., & Pollard, J. (2010). Let’s teach how we think instead of what we know. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 11(2), 74–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Talanquer, V., & Pollard, J. (2017). Reforming a large foundational course: Successes and challenges. Journal of Chemical Education, 94, 1844–1851.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Underwood, S. M., Posey, L. A., Herrington, D. G., Carmel, J. H., & Cooper, M. M. (2018). Adapting assessment tasks to support three-dimensional learning. Journal of Chemical Education, 95(2), 207–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Chemistry and BiochemistryUniversity of ArizonaTucsonUSA

Personalised recommendations