No Corequisites

20 Jun 2009
Description: 

All VIPEr learning objects are supposed to include clear student learning goals and a suggested way to assess the learning. This "five slides about" provides a brief introduction to the "Understanding by Design" or "backward design" approach to curriculum development and will help you develop your VIPEr learning object.

Prerequisites: 
Course Level: 
Corequisites: 
Learning Goals: 

Faculty will

  • understand the "backward design" concept
  • learn to write learning outcomes and assessments using the verbs ("activities") and "products" provided
  • learn how a rubric can be used to discriminate students' levels of achievement
Implementation Notes: 

These slides are a quick and dirty summary of a longer hands-on faculty development workshop I do. They provide an introduction to the Understanding by Design process, help in writing learning goals, suggestions for developing assessments of student learning, and helpful hints for preparing a VIPEr learning object.

Time Required: 
15 minutes to read the slides; a lifetime to practice the skill :)
Evaluation
Evaluation Methods: 

I hope that faculty will use these slides to aid their writing of learning goals and assessments for the VIPEr site.

22 Jan 2018

Streamlining Lab Report Grading: Errors Checklists

Submitted by Sabrina G. Sobel, Hofstra University
Evaluation Methods: 

Errors Checklists are most effective when you list the most common errors with explanations. You will see if you are successful if you use the items on the checklist repeatedly in your grading. Students will better understand their grades because of the clear communication of their errors. You should see a reduction of student inquiries as to why a certain grade was assigned on lab work.

Evaluation Results: 

My students really appreciate the errors checklists because my expectations and my grading choices are made clear. I have found that the formulation of Errors Checklists cause me to focus on and articulate the most common students errors; I subsequently pay more attention to the items in my pre-lab lectures, and student misunderstanding has decreased.

Description: 

I present a format for more effective communiction of errors in lab reports to students that I term Errors Checklists. Grading lab reports are one of the banes of our existence as professors. They are endless, unremitting papers that need to be scrutinized for accuracy, precision and understanding. Instead of tearing your hair out at the fifteenth report in which the student failed to use to proper number of significant figures, or failed to produce a readable graph, why not just breezily check a box on your Errors Checklist (in which you have provided a complete and thoughtful explanation), and staple to the student report?

I have created and used Errors Checklists for General Chemistry and Foundations of Inorganic Chemistry lab classes for almost two decades. I have passed them on to junior colleagues in my department, which they have modified to suit their needs. Errors Checklists lower my anxiety and anger when grading multiple lab reports, and provide clearer communication with students.

Corequisites: 
Prerequisites: 
Learning Goals: 

1. More effective communication of student errors on lab reports.

2. Streamline lab report grading to enable quick turnaround to students.

3. Better communicate expectations on lab reports to enable students to improve performance during the semester.

Topics Covered: 
Equipment needs: 

None.

Implementation Notes: 

You need to develop your own Errors Checklists customized for the experiments in your curriculum. A template is provided. I have included two example checklists; the first is for a Chemical Kinetics lab in which students determine the orders WRT iodide and peroxide for the iodine clock reaction. The second is for the synthesis of potassium alum from aluminum foil, with supplemental analysis of the unit cell (available online).

Time Required: 
not applicable
17 Jan 2018

Metal Tropocoronand Complexes

Submitted by Anthony L. Fernandez, Merrimack College
Evaluation Methods: 

I assess the student learning by the quality of the discussion generated by this exercise.

Evaluation Results: 

I have used this exercise several times, but I am reporting the results from the Fall 2017 semester.

Students accessed the structures, measured the bond angles using Mercury, and calculated the tau4' values without any difficulties (questions 1 and 2).

When they got to the third question, they could describe what they observed, but struggled with the language. They were very concerned about how to name the observed structures. They were not satisfied with using the terms "distorted square planar" and "distorted tetrahedral" to describe the structures. (This then led into the discussion of the tau4' values and why focusing on the names of the strucutres was limiting.)

All of my students were also able to calculate the LFSE values for the Ni(II) center in the four geometries. They asked about the spin state, but I prodded them to talk it through themselves and think back to previous discussions. They quickly realized that for some of the geometries there is no difference between the HS and LS configurations. They decided to calculate the LFSE for both configuations when they were different. Once their calculations were complete, the students determined that square planar should be the preferred geometry based upon the LFSE.

The last question is the one that threw a monkey wrench into what they thought they knew. They were surprised that a d8 metal center would adopt a tetrahedral geometry since this was contrary to what they had originally learned. I then asked about what other influences would impact the observed geometry. About half of my students said that the steric repulsion of the four donor atoms (and other atoms in the tropocoronand ligand) in a square planar arrangement was greater than that in a tetrahedral arrangement. These students were then able to make the connection to the fact that this must outweigh the LFSE value and favor the geometric transition of  the nickel center.

Description: 

This exercise looks at the metal complexes of tropocoronand ligands, which were first studied by Nakanishi, Lippard, and coworkers in the 1980s. The size of the metal binding cavity in these macrocyclic ligands can be varied by changing the number of atoms in the linker chains between the aminotroponeimine rings, similar to crown ethers. These tetradentate ligands bind a number of +2 metal centers (Cd, Co, Cu, Ni, and Zn) and the geometry of the donor atoms around the metal center changes with the number of atoms in the linker chains. This exercise focuses on the tropocoronand complexes of Ni(II) and students are asked to quantitatively describe the geometry around the metal using the tau4' geometric parameter. This then leads to a discussion of the factors that influence the geometric arrangement of ligands adopted by a metal center. This exercise is used to introduce the concept of flexible metal coordination geometries in preparation of the discussion of metal binding to biological macromolecules and the entatic effect.

Learning Goals: 

After completing this exercise, a student should be able to:

  • access structures from the CCDC using their online form,
  • measure bond angles in a crystal structure using appropriate tools,
  • calculate the tau4' value for a four-coordinate metal center,
  • calculate the ligand field stabilization energy for a complex in a number of different geometries,
  • identify the factors that influence the geometry arrangment of ligands around a metal center, and 
  • explain how the interplay of these factors favor the observed geometry. 
Equipment needs: 

Students will need to have access to the CIF files containing the structural data. These files are part of the Cambridge Structural Database and can be accessed through that if an institutional subscription has been purchased. 

Students can also access these CIF files by requesting the structures from the Cambridge Crystallographic Data Centre (CCDC). The identifiers provided in the faculty-only files can be submitted using the "Access Structures" page (https://www.ccdc.cam.ac.uk/structures/) and the associated CIF files can be viewed or downloaded. Students can then measure the bond angles in the JSmol viewer or in Mercury (which is freely available from the CCDC) after downloading the files.

The CIF files for the copper complexes were not available in the CSD, so I created those CIF files from data found in the linked article.

Subdiscipline: 
Corequisites: 
Prerequisites: 
Implementation Notes: 

I have used this activity in a two different ways.

  • In the past, I have assigned this as a homework assignment and have had students complete questions 1-4 outside of our class meeting time. They requested the structures from the CCDC or used our copy of the CSD on their own time. I then facilitated a dicussion of their answers before discussing the last question as a group in class. This approach worked well.
  • This year, I decided to use this exercise as an in-class group activity. I began class with a discussion of geometric indices using the presentation that is also available on the VIPEr site and is included in the "Related activities" section. I then broke my class up into groups of three students and had each group work through the activity. After the students completed the exercise, I then shared the calculations that I did for the zinc complexes so that they could remove the complication of the LFSE values from the discussion. I was much happier with this approach because I was able to focus the discussion a bit more and use the zinc data to reinforce the overall point of the exercise.

Note that in the original articles, the dihedral angle "between the two sets of planes defined by the nickel and two nitrogen atoms of the troponeiminate 5-membered chelate rings" was reported. I have decided to use the more current tau4' parameter in this exercise.

Time Required: 
45-60 minutes
10 Sep 2017

Inclusive Pedagogy: A Misidentified Molecule and Paper Retraction

Submitted by Sibrina Nichelle Collins, Lawrence Technological University
Evaluation Methods: 

This LO has various options for evaluation. First, a rubric should be prepared based on criteria identified by the student teams for evaluating the team posters. The students will be evaluated based on their ideas and attention to detail for their individual  reponses to the discussion questions. In addition, a 7-question survey is included in the handout for the students. Four of the questions address self-efficacy questions for chemistry majors. These questions were modified from a self-efficacy instrument developed by Baldwin et al for biology students. I have included a link to the model. We should be developing assessment tools that address science identity, sense of belonging, and self-efficacy for chemistry majors. If a student does not feel comfortable in a chemistry course, they will likely not pursue a career as a chemist.

Evaluation Results: 

Will be reported later.

Description: 

This learning object focuses on teaching students how to read and use Chemical and Engineering News for class discussions and critically evaluate the scientific literature. Recently, Chemical and Engineering News published an article about the retraction of a 15-year old paper, which had misidentified a multidentate ligand, which is central to the paper (Ritter, S.K. “Chemist Retract 15-year old paper and publish a revised version.” Chem. Eng. News, 2017, 95, (36), p6). The authors published a revised paper to the journal in 2017, with the correct structure of the ligand along with an x-ray crystal structure. This activity consists of two components, namely the students working in teams to discuss the C &E News article, retracted Inorganic Chemistry paper (DOI:10.1021/acs.inorgchem.7b01932) and the revised paper (DOI:10.1021/acs.inorgchem.7b01117) and preparing a poster for a “Gallery Walk.”

Learning Goals: 

An important learning goal for this learning object is to incorporate practices for creating an inclusive learning environment for students (inclusive pedagogy). The goals for this LO are for students to:

  • Read and use C&E News for student-led discussions
  • Critically evaluate experimental evidence published in the scientific literature
  • Apply concepts learned in previous chemistry courses
  • Gain a better understanding of the peer-review process for publication and retraction
  • Appreciate the importance of structural analysis tools such as X-ray crystallography
  • Prepare a team poster to communicate scientific ideas
Prerequisites: 
Equipment needs: 

The students will need 3M Post-IT paper and markers to prepare a poster for the "Gallery Walk."

Corequisites: 
Course Level: 
Implementation Notes: 

You will need to provide access to the Chemical and Engineering News article, and the two Inorganic Chemistry articles before class. This activity will likely take two class periods The first class period should focus on discussion of the articles and developing a rubric for evaluating the posters with the class. The second class period, the students will be allowed 30 min to prepare a poster for a "Gallery Walk."

Time Required: 
Two 50 min class periods
14 Aug 2017

Chapter 21--Stanley Organometallics

Submitted by George G. Stanley, Louisiana State University
Description: 

Chapter 21 from George Stanley's organometallics course, Polymerization

 

this chapter covers the history of polymerization reactions.

Unlike the vast majority of the chapters in this series, there are no powerpoint slides for this chapter.

Everyone is more than welcome to edit the materials to suit their own uses, and I would appreciate being notified of any mistakes that are found.


Course Level: 
Subdiscipline: 
Corequisites: 
14 Aug 2017

Chapter 20--Stanley Organometallics

Submitted by George G. Stanley, Louisiana State University
Description: 

Chapter 20 from George Stanley's organometallics course, Metathesis

 

this chapter covers the history of metathesis reactions.

Unlike the vast majority of the chapters in this series, there are no powerpoint slides for this chapter.

Everyone is more than welcome to edit the materials to suit their own uses, and I would appreciate being notified of any mistakes that are found.


Course Level: 
Subdiscipline: 
Corequisites: 
14 Aug 2017

Chapter 19--Stanley Organometaliics

Submitted by George G. Stanley, Louisiana State University
Description: 

Chapter 19 from George Stanley's organometallics course, Polymerization and Metathesis

 

this chapter covers polymerization catalysis and olefin metathesis.

The powerpoint slides contain answers to some of the in-class exercises, so those are behind the "faculty only" wall. I share these with students after the class, but not before.

Everyone is more than welcome to edit the materials to suit their own uses, and I would appreciate being notified of any mistakes that are found.


Course Level: 
Subdiscipline: 
Corequisites: 

Pages

Subscribe to RSS - No Corequisites