Student Profilers in General and Organic Chemistry
All instructors face challenges when teaching high-enrollment courses divided
into one or more lecture/laboratory sections, but the problems are particularly
severe for learner-centered educators.
To promote meaningful learning, one must learn what is meaningful to students.
Demographics may provide some insight.
To remediate deficiencies in prerequisite knowledge, one must identify students’
misconceptions and “no conceptions.” Carefully selected content questions should
aid in this. (Nakhleh, 1992)
To understand the degree of students’ engagement in the learning process, one
must identify their need for cognition. (Cacioppo, Petty, Feinstein, & Jarvis,
1996; Cacioppo, Petty, & Kao, 1984)
To understand why students in one laboratory outperform those in another, it is
necessary to be able to compare them on a variety of traits to look for
significant differences.
For researchers, Point 4 becomes paramount; establishing a set of consistent set
of measurable traits to use as covariates facilitates the comparison of research
findings across studies. Although many instruments have been developed to
examine singular aspects of student cognition, a standardized student profiler
that allows the facile assessment of multiple traits has not been adopted in the
field of chemical education.
Our group completed two pilot tests of student profilers in Spring 2006: one in
second semester general chemistry and one in second semester organic chemistry.
Both consist of three general sections: demographics, cognitive traits (need for
cognition and meaningful learning), and prerequisite content knowledge. Those
instruments being revised for additional testing with the off-sequence courses
in Fall 2006. Meanwhile, profilers are being developed for first semester
general chemistry and first semester organic chemistry.
References
Cacioppo, J.T., Petty, R.E., Feinstein, J.A., & Jarvis, W.B.G. (1996).
Dispositional differences in cognitive motivation: The life and times of
individuals varying in need for cognition. Psychological Bulletin, 119, 197-253.
Cacioppo, J.T., Petty, R.E., & Kao, C.F. (1984). The efficient assessment of
need for cognition. Journal of Personality Assessment, 48, 306-307.
Nakhleh, M.B. (1992). Why some students don’t learn chemistry. Journal of
Chemical Education, 69, 191-196.
