Search for: All records

Chemistry Education Research has transformed how we understand and improve student learning in general and organic chemistry, but inorganic chemistry remains understudied. This gap persists even though inorganic instruction involves complex representational demands, spatial reasoning, abstract formalisms, and instructional traditions that shape how students experience the subject. Using molecular symmetry as a case study, this contribution argues that research on teaching and learning must attend more closely to inorganic chemistry. We outline how challenges in student cognition, instructional design, representational tools, and instructor assumptions interact in ways that affect learning but remain poorly understood. Drawing on frameworks from cognitive psychology and learning sciences, we highlight the need for systematic, discipline-specific investigations into how students learn and how instructors teach key inorganic concepts. Finally, we offer a research agenda that extends beyond symmetry to areas like bonding theory, coordination chemistry, and solid-state structures. By investing in a robust teaching and learning research program for inorganic chemistry, we can develop instructional strategies grounded in empirical evidence, improving student learning and supporting the evolution of the discipline. 

Symmetry is a foundational concept in inorganic chemistry, essential for understanding molecular properties and interactions. Yet, little is known about how instructors teach symmetry or what shapes their instructional and curricular choices. To investigate this, we analyzed classroom observations from fourteen inorganic chemistry instructors from various institutions, focusing on their use of student-centered practices and emphasis on symmetry content. We then conducted semi-structured interviews to explore the reasoning behind their decisions, using the Teacher-Centered Systemic Reform (TCSR) model to interpret influences from personal factors (e.g., teaching experience), teacher thinking (e.g., beliefs about teaching and learning), and contextual factors (e.g., classroom layout). Minute-by-minute analyses of teaching revealed four instructional profiles (student-centered, high-interactive, low-interactive, and instructor-centered) and four content profiles, ranging from an emphasis on symmetry fundamentals (e.g., symmetry elements and operations, point group assignment) to symmetry applications (e.g., spectroscopy, molecular orbitals, character tables). Three themes emerged: (1) instructional approaches and content emphasis vary substantially across instructors; (2) more student-centered instructors tend to focus on foundational symmetry concepts and skills, whereas more instructor-centered instructors tend to prioritize advanced applications; and (3) instructors’ beliefs and prior experiences, more than personal and contextual factors, drive instructional decisions for teaching symmetry.