skip to main content

Title: You Are What You Assess: The Case for Emphasizing Chemistry on Chemistry Assessments
Authors:
; ; ; ;
Award ID(s):
1725520
Publication Date:
NSF-PAR ID:
10290158
Journal Name:
Journal of Chemical Education
Volume:
98
Issue:
8
Page Range or eLocation-ID:
2490 to 2495
ISSN:
0021-9584
Sponsoring Org:
National Science Foundation
More Like this
  1. What we emphasize and reward on assessments signals to students what matters to us. Accordingly, a great deal of scholarship in chemistry education has focused on defining the sorts of performances worth assessing. Here, we unpack observations we made while analyzing what “success” meant across three large-enrollment general chemistry environments. We observed that students enrolled in two of the three environments could succeed without ever connecting atomic/molecular behavior to how and why phenomena happen. These environments, we argue, were not really “chemistry classes” but rather opportunities for students to gain proficiency with a jumble of skills and factual recall. However, one of the three environments dedicated 14–57% of points on exams to items with the potential to engage students in using core ideas (e.g., energy, bonding interactions) to predict, explain, or model observable events. This course, we argue, is more aligned with the intellectual work of the chemical sciences than the other two. If our courses assess solely (or largely) decontextualized skills and factual recall we risk (1) gating access to STEM careers on the basis of facility with skills most students will never use outside the classroom and (2) never allowing students to experience the tremendous predictive and explanatorymore »power of atomic/molecular models. We implore the community to reflect on whether “what counts” in the courses we teach aligns with the performances we actually value.« less
  2. Findings from embodied cognition suggest that our whole body (not just our eyes) plays an important role in how we make sense of data when we interact with data visualizations. In this paper, we present the results of a study that explores how different designs of the ”interaction” (with a data visualization) alter the way in which people report and discuss correlation and causation in data. We conducted a lab study with two experimental conditions: Full body (participants interacted with a 65” display showing geo-referenced data using gestures and body movements); and, Gamepad (people used a joypad to control the system). Participants tended to agree less with statements that portray correlation and causation in data after using the Gamepad system. Additionally, discourse analysis based on Conceptual Metaphor Theory revealed that users made fewer remarks based on FORCE schemata in Gamepad than in Full-Body.