Extended structure

16 Jul 2012

Crystal Lattice Structures Web Site

Submitted by Chris Hamaker, Illinois State University
Description: 

A really nice site with several lattice structures indexed by several methods, and new structures are continuously being added.  I find it useful for getting images for problems sets and exams.

Topics Covered: 
Prerequisites: 
Corequisites: 
Implementation Notes: 

Mostly, I use the site to download "see the structure from several perspectives" images for exams and/or problem sets.  I, personally, have used the Jmol renderings in Firefox (make sure Java is actually enabled, sometimes Firefox disables it as an "unstable" add-on).  To date, I have mostly used the simpler structures, but there are many unique and interesting structures.  One of my favorites is the half-Heusler structure.  Below the links to the visualizations of the structures, there is information about how the structure is related to other similar structures.  I have not recommended students visit the site yet, but I plan to in future semesters.

26 Jun 2011
Evaluation Methods: 

I was most interested in assessing if this was an accessible paper for students at this level (2nd year inorganic, post general chemistry).  I collected their annotated copies of the paper and gave them a “participation” score for reading the paper.  I looked through the annotated copies, comparing what terms different students highlighted as being unfamiliar and collecting them in the attached document.

Ultimately, students were responsible for the larger “take-home” content message as there was a question on the final exam relating directly to this paper discussion.  This assessment question is also posted on VIPEr (see related activities link above).

 

Evaluation Results: 

Several students mentioned anecdotally that this paper was very understandable.  Furthermore, by highlighting what they did not know, they realized that they actually understood quite a bit! A Word file is attached that lists the terms that one or more students marked as “unfamiliar” on their annotated copy of the pdf file for this article.

While I did not collect or evaluate written responses to the discussion questions, students were better prepared to answer some questions more than others.  In particular, they were all stumped (long silence!) when I asked question 5.

Description: 

This paper from Chemistry: A European Journal by Manolis Manos and Mercouri Kanatzidis (link provided below in Web Resources) describes the ion-exchange chemistry of a layered sulfide (KMS-1) that exhibits an enhanced preference for soft metal cations (Cd2+, Pb2+, and Hg2+) replacing K+ in between the metal sulfide layers of KMS-1.  Not only does this paper provide a practical application of hard-soft acid-base theory (HSAB), but it provides an accessible introduction to the technical literature for undergraduates, particularly at the first or second-year level.  This learning object was used to illustrate hard-soft acid-base theory, the structures of extended solids, solid solution formation, ion-exchange chemistry, and the analysis of structural changes by X-ray powder diffraction.

Students in a second-year inorganic chemistry course were asked to read this paper in preparation for a class discussion (see further details in implementation notes).  For many students, this was a first or second exposure to reading the primary literature.

 

Corequisites: 
Prerequisites: 
Course Level: 
Learning Goals: 

After reading and discussing this paper, a student will be able to:

• Articulate the underlying problem and motivations driving the research presented in the paper
• Explain the collection of experimental data that lead to figures and tables presented in the paper and describe the interpretation of these results by the authors
• Discuss the relative importance of various thermodynamic factors predicting the favorability of ion-exchange reactions
• Gain confidence reading a paper from the primary literature in inorganic chemistry

 

Implementation Notes: 

Students in a second-year inorganic chemistry course read the paper "Sequestration of Heavy Metals from Water with Layered Metal Sulfides" prior to a class discussion.  The pdf file was posted to the course Moodle, and students were asked to “Annotate” their copy (either in printed or electronic form) to highlight terms or sections of text that they did not understand.  At the end of the class discussion, they turned in either a printed or an electronic copy of the annotated paper.  

A series of questions that I used to guide the discussion are attached below as a Word document.  While I typically give out these types of discussion questions in advance and ask students to answer them prior to the discussion, in this case I did not.  The timing of this literature discussion immediately followed an exam, so I was just wanted to ensure that students had read the paper prior to our class discussion.  Making them turn in the annotated copy of the article was generally successful in achieving that outcome.

A second Word document is attached below containing the list of unfamiliar terms that were marked as unfamiliar by my students.  Most of these terms were highlighted by the majority of the class.  In some cases, I explained the meaning of the term in the course of our discussion, for example energy dispersive spectroscopy, but in other cases, the concepts were not central for a basic understanding of the paper and we never addressed them.  

 

Time Required: 
50 minutes
25 Jun 2011
Evaluation Methods: 

Evaluation for the experiment is done through a worksheet-style lab report on which students report their results and answer several questions to probe their understanding of nanoparticle synthesis and powder diffraction.

Evaluation Results: 

I have piloted this experiment four times with a total of 120 students. Every partnership has successfully synthesized ZnO, with crystallite sizes mostly in the range of 20-50 nm. The lab worksheet is graded on a 10-point scale, and class averages have ranged from 8.4-9.0 out of 10. Students usually correctly interpret their results to determine whether or not they have successfully made ZnO. Some students make unit conversion errors in calculating crystallite sizes. Students sometimes get confused between d-spacings and particle sizes and incorrectly say that a structure with a larger unit cell would be expected to have narrower diffraction peaks.

Description: 

I designed this lab experiment to introduce students to the uses of powder X-ray diffraction in the context of the synthesis of a technologically relevant material. Zinc oxide nanoparticles can be synthesized readily with reagents that are inexpensive and relatively benign with regard to student use and waste disposal. Two experiments described in J. Chem. Ed. feature synthesis of ZnO nanoparticle sols and films and their characterization by UV-vis spectroscopy (see web resources below). This new experiment shows powder X-ray diffraction as a tool for characterization of nanomaterials. 

In the experiment, students use the base hydrolysis of zinc acetate in ethanol to prepare a sol of ZnO particles. Students add water to the sol to agglomerate the particles and use centrifugation and drying to isolate a solid for characterization by powder X-ray diffraction. Students identify the phase of their solids by matching to a reference from the Powder Diffraction File, and then estimate crystallite sizes by applying the Debye-Scherrer equation. 

This material is based in part upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under grant number DMR-0922588. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation.

Prerequisites: 
Corequisites: 
Course Level: 
Learning Goals: 

Students should be able to:

1) Explain how solution reaction conditions can be designed to control particle growth
2) Use powder diffraction data to identify phases and approximate crystallite sizes in a sample
3) Apply Bragg’s law to predict how diffraction peak positions compare for isostructural compounds with different unit cell dimensions
4) Explain why X-rays are dangerous and what safety features are built into a modern X-ray diffractometer

Equipment needs: 

Reagents
Absolute ethanol
Deionized water
Zn(OAc)2·2H2O (0.55 g per reaction)
LiOH·H2O (0.15 g per reaction)
Note: When exposed to humidity and CO2 over time, lithium hydroxide can convert to lithium carbonate. When partially converted material is used in the reaction, students have difficultly fully dissolving the lithium salt in ethanol, and the yield is reduced significantly. Storing the LiOH well sealed and away from humidity (for example, in a desiccator) preserves the salt.

 

Equipment (for each student or partnership):
Weighing paper or boats
Metal spatulas
two magnetic stirplates
two magnetic stirbars
two 125-mL Erlenmeyer flasks
two basins for ice baths – at least one will need to be placed on the stirplate and should be of a non-ferromagnetic material
watch glass
centrifuge
three 13 x 100 mm test tubes
Pasteur pipets
Rubber bands
Permanent marker

 

Equipment (for the entire class):
Balances
UV light
Abderhalden drying pistol or other apparatus for drying under vacuum
Oven (can be a drying oven) capable of holding a temperature of 120 oC
Access to a powder X-ray diffractometer

Implementation Notes: 

Students typically work in partnerships for the experiment. I do the experiment over two weeks. Students work full-time on the synthesis during the first week and do the characterization by powder X-ray diffraction in the second week. Because of radiation safety regulations, the students can't run the diffractometer themselves without completing safety training that is prohibitively time-consuming for the number of students involved. The diffractometer is run by a fully trained undergraduate TA or by me, and the students prepare their samples for the experiment, see the instrument working, and process their data files on the computer.

 

Each partnership spends approximately 15 minutes at the instrument for the characterization, so there is time during the second week for another activity. A good complementary activity that students can easily step in and out of is solid-state model building. I do this lab during the solid-state structures unit in my intermediate-level inorganic course. In the lecture part of the course, students are introduced to X-ray diffraction, with a focus on the Bragg law and the relationship between structures and diffraction peak positions.

Time Required: 
one three-hour lab session and 15-20 minutes per partnership during a second lab period
25 May 2011

Catalysis using functionalized mesoporous silica

Submitted by Randall Hicks, Wheaton College
Evaluation Methods: 
Unless a student has done some independent research (lab or literature) in this area previously, I expect that none of them will have any experience with this work. Therefore, I assess on the effort that students made to answer the assigned questions and on their contribution to in-class discussion. The instructor of record (for senior seminar) is also present to observe the class proceedings and can decide how to integrate that into an overall grade for the course. 
Evaluation Results: 

Without the review of unfamiliar terms and concepts on the first day of the two-day activity, I doubt that many students would be able to tackle this paper. However, after going through all that, students do a fair job of answering the questions.

The answers to most of the "general questions" can be found from web searching. The students that are motivated to do so have dug up answers for these questions. Question #6 is difficult for them, but serves as a good point to initiate conversation about why larger mesoporous materials are useful. Question #7 is also foreign, but it usually comes up in the first class and so students can piece together a response for it here. 

Answering the "characterization method" questions has proven more difficult for the students, particulalry because most if not all of them lack experience with x-ray diffraction and gas adsorption techniques. They can look up Bragg's Law and calculate a parameter given the other values (solve for x, essentially) even if they don't know exactly what that value represents. A4 is particularly difficult as they need to find the answer in the accompanying paper. Responses to questions on gas adsorption are understandably murkier yet. Again, this is where I can go into more detail on the method in class discussion. On the other hand, questions in C and D on UV-Vis and IR, respectively, are easier for them given their familiarity with those techniques. These questions are usually answered well. D1, on site-isolation, sometimes requires further explanation. And, finally, while students have NMR experience from organic, they're not usually knowledgeable on solid-state NMR. Some of these answers can be found online or in the paper, but this is another are where a short discussion is helpful.

Depending on the length of discussion in a particular class, there is not always time to fully get into the catalysis results. However, the answers to these questions can be found in the main manuscript and are correctly reported.   

Description: 

This paper, while not fundamentally groundbreaking, serves as a nice introduction to the field of mesoporous materials. I like that it covers synthesis, characterization, and an application of the materials. I have used this paper in our senior seminar course as the basis for discussion of this area of chemistry. Discussion questions cover aspects of sol-gel chemistry, powder diffraction, gas adsorption, IR, solid state NMR, UV-Vis, and catalysis.  

Prerequisites: 
Course Level: 
Learning Goals: 

Upon reading this paper, students should be able to:

• Describe at least one method by which mesoporous materials can be both synthesized and functionalized

• Explain how x-ray diffraction, gas adsorption, solid state NMR (and to a lesser extent, IR and UV-Vis) can be used to characterize mesoporous materials

Implementation Notes: 

As part of our seminar, each faculty member rotates through to present a paper for discussion in his or her area of chemistry. The class meets for 1 hr 20 minutes twice a week (Tuesday and Thursday). Students are given the paper on a Tuesday, without much preface, and are asked to briefly read over the work for Thursday. In class on that Thursday, I have them to present an overview of the paper and submit any terms with which they are unfamiliar. I spend the majority of that day giving an introduction to the field, defining unfamilair terms, and answering questions. Then I distribute a handout with specific questions for the students to answer. Some questions are to be done by all, others are assigned in groups. While the groups are evenly populated, I often assign a different number of question to each group. For instance, because students have been introduced to IR, NMR, and UV-Vis, I have one group tackle all three of these sections on the assignment. For topics with which they're not likely familiat (XRD, gas adsorption), I assign one of these per group. They have until the following Tuesday to work on the questions. At that point, I ask students to present their answers, and we resume the class discussion. (I have attached the handout that I give to students, and a version with my answers, below.) 

Related note: Although we are moving to a two-course inorganic sequence in AY 2012-13, I do not have the ability to "squeeze" materials chemistry into my (currently) one semester course; I therefore relish the opportunity to present this paper in our seminar course. If you have the time to cover materials in your normal inorganic sequence, you may be able to present this paper in one class instead of two. 

If you have faculty privileges on VIPEr, then solutions to the questions can be found in the linked learning object (see related activities).

Time Required: 
Two (2) 80-min classes
23 Aug 2010

Using Solid State Chemistry and Crystal Field Theory to Design a New Blue Solid

Submitted by Barbara Reisner, James Madison University
Evaluation Methods: 

When the literature discussion was used at Reed in Spring 2011, the discussion questions were collected and graded on a 10 point scale, 1 point for each question with the exception of #5, worth 2 points, plus an additional point for effort.

Evaluation Results: 

Of the 17 students that turned in discussion questions, 2 students (12%) earned 9.5 points out of 10, 7 students (41%) earned 8-9 points, 4 students (24%) earned 7-8 points, and 4 students (24%) earned 6-7 points.

On question 1 (ionic radii), most students did not cite the source of their data or did not specify a coordination number for the ions, and fractions of a point were deducted for these omissions.  On question 2 (bond distances), 7 of 17 (41%) students did not calculate predicted bond distances from the ionic radii.  In general, students did very well on questions 3 and 4.  Question 5 proved more of a challenge.  Common errors included no drawings of the d-orbitals in the trigonal prismatic crystal field or unsatisfactory explanations for the crystal field splitting pattern.  Only 5 of 17 students (29%) provided the correct answer of magnetism on question 6.  Other answers were incomplete or did not explain how the experiment would verify the presence of high-spin Mn3+.  On question 7, nearly all students successfully converted the energy scale to photon wavelengths, but 4 students mislabeled the electromagnetic region, as either all infrared or all ultraviolet.  Six of 17 students (35%) answered question 8 correctly.  The most common error was no explicit indication that transitions in the octahedral geometry are symmetry forbidden by the LaPorte selection rule, whereas this rule is relaxed in trigonal bipyramidal coordination.

Description: 

This communication from the Journal of the American Chemical Society (J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2009, 131, 17084-17086.  doi:10.1021/ja9080666) describes the use of classic solid state chemistry to dope Mn3+ in two different host oxide structures to create new blue pigments.  The key to the blue color is the unusual trigonal bipyramidal coordination of the Mn3+ ion in these structures.  Discussion of this paper in class provides an opportunity to discuss solid solution chemistry in extended structures, including both their synthesis and characterization as well as illustrate the application of crystal field theory to understand the color of a transition metal doped oxide.  An extensive list of discussion questions is provided so that the learning activity can be tailored to a variety of different curricular uses and student backgrounds.

Prerequisites: 
Corequisites: 
Learning Goals: 

After reading and discussing this paper, a student will be able to:

  • Describe the basic considerations in the design, synthesis, and characterization of solid solutions in extended structures.
  • Identify and describe the distinguishing features of several different mixed metal oxide structures.
  • Given structural information, apply the principles of crystal field theory to explain the color and electronic spectroscopy of a transition metal ion doped oxide.
Implementation Notes: 

An extensive list of potential discussion questions was developed by Barbara Reisner and Maggie Geselbracht, two faculty trained as solid state chemists so that other faculty would have a range to choose from and use, depending on their curricular goals.  We believe that this is an ideal paper to introduce extended solids into the inorganic curriculum with the “hook” for both faculty and students of an easy connection to coordination chemistry.
 
The first time this learning object was used in the classroom was by Barb at James Madison University in Fall 2009 in a second semester Inorganic Chemistry Course. This paper was not originally used as a literature discussion but instead turned into a lecture. The lecture was used to tie up a unit on solid state chemistry, and the figures in the paper to discuss solid state structures and ionic radii; basic crystallography, powder diffraction, and Vegard’s Law; and crystal field theory.

Maggie used this literature discussion activity as the final conference for her sophomore-level inorganic chemistry course at Reed College in Spring 2011. She selected 8 of the discussion questions from the full list and provided them to her students in advance of the conference meeting. This shortened list is available as an attachment above. Students were asked to read the paper and write out the answers to the discussion questions prior to the discussion. The solutions document to these 8 questions is available to registered faculty users on VIPEr.

 

Time Required: 
50 minutes
18 Jul 2010

Understanding Unoccupied (or empty) Space in Solid Structures

Submitted by Bridget L. Gourley, DePauw University
Evaluation Methods: 

I plan use the summary page to “spot check” that students completed the assignment.  I am hoping to ask a more involved test question to evaluate whether this is more successful than some questions we have within a lab exercise using CrystalMaker.  Some question ideas I have considered (a) are asking students to calculate the cation radii given the length of a side for another rock salt structure, (b) asking students to calculate the packing fraction for one of the cubic structures within the handout, and (c) giving a lattice an ionic lattice and asking students to identify the base structure of the cations (or anions).

Evaluation Results: 

Happy to post specifics after I actually use this exercise with students and have data to share.

Description: 

This is designed as an in-class activity that steps students through the calculation of the amount of unoccupied (or empty) space and packing fraction in cubic packing structures.  Questions imbedded in the exercise are designed to get students to “own” the concept of the empty space more effectively and then use that concept to understand how some ionic solid structures can be visualized as placing smaller ions in the holes available, for example, NaCl can be thought of as Na+ in a face-centered lattice structure with Cl- in every octahedral hole.

Learning Goals: 

A student should be able to calculate volume of a cubic unit cell given the length of a side.

A student should be able to calculate the radius of an atom given the cubic crystal structure and length of a side in a unit cell.

A student should be able to calculate hard-sphere volume of an atom knowing the length of a side of a cubic unit cell.

A student should be able to calculate the unoccupied space within a cubic unit cell.

A student should gain an understanding about the relationship between unit cells, the occupied and unoccupied volume of the cells and a use for the unoccupied volume.

Prerequisites: 
Corequisites: 
Equipment needs: 

Students need a calculator.

Not required but if had some space filling models of primitive, face-centered and body-centered cubes along with cubic and hexagonal closest packed structures they would be valuable to have available.  A model of sodium chloride would also be useful.

If you have software like CrystalMaker available with files for simple, face-centered and body centered cubes along with sodium chloride available for viewing and rotating that may helpful as well.

Topics Covered: 
Course Level: 
Implementation Notes: 

The calculation for simple cube is mapped out in a step-by-step fashion because of the breadth of skills my students bring to the 100 level course where I plan to use this activity.  Subsequent packing structures have hints provided as useful intermediate steps but do not provide an explicit scaffold in attempt to make students more independent learners.

To use in class instructors will want to decide how to edit the handout attachment to provide additional space to complete the work.  I teach using the DyKnowTM software on tablet based PC’s so I would cut and paste each step (separated by a blank line in the MSWord document) onto a separate slide in DyKnowTM.

The sections in the handout digging deeper, side distractions, and challenge questions could be completely omitted at the instructor’s discretion or assigned as homework or even extra credit.

One way to build on this exercise for upper level students would be to have students work through the geometry that justifies why the hard sphere radius for a tetrahedral hole can only be 0.225r of the atoms creating the tetrahedral hole, and 0.414r for the octahedral hole.

Time Required: 
The goal is to complete this activity in a 50 or 60-minute class period with the digging deeper, and beyond left for homework to be graded or not at the instructor’s discretion.
7 Jul 2009

Solid State Structures

Submitted by Adam Bridgeman, The University of Sydney
Evaluation Methods: 
Evaluation via post-work quiz
Description: 

JMol site http://firstyear.chem.usyd.edu.au/calculators/solid_state.shtml how common inorganic structures are built from the filling of interstitial sites in CCP and HCP lattices.

The site is used as post-work for a hands-on lab about packing (http://firstyear.chem.usyd.edu.au/LabManual/E12.pdf).

Learning Goals: 

A student should be able to:

  • explain the difference between CCP and HCP packing
  • see how many crystal structures can be built from these arrangements by different filling of the interstitial sites
Equipment needs: 
Jmol requires a Java - enabled browser.
Course Level: 
Topics Covered: 
Implementation Notes: 

There is a post-work quiz associated with the activity (see "questions" tab on website) which students complete as part of the lab mark.

Time Required: 
45 - 60 minutes
6 Jul 2009

Energy Nuggets: Engineering Viruses to Build a Better Battery

Submitted by Maggie Geselbracht, Reed College
Evaluation Methods: 
At the end of the discussion, I collected the students’ written answers to the discussion questions and evaluated them mostly on effort.
Evaluation Results: 
This activity came at the very end of the semester, so the level of effort was somewhat sporadic.  However, most students seemed to really like reading this article, even if it was challenging to figure out the science.  None of the students could figure out all of the details of how to calculate the lithium ion capacity of the anode material, although many of them had correctly completed several of the steps along the way.  So, we went though the whole calculation on the board, obtaining slightly different results than what was in the paper (either a typo or unidentified calculation error on our part). 
Description: 
This literature discussion activity is one of a series of “Energy Nuggets,” small curricular units designed to illustrate: The Role of Inorganic Chemistry in the Global Challenge for Clean Energy Production, Storage, and Use.

Renewable energy is great, but what do we do when the sun doesn’t shine and the wind doesn’t blow?  This paper describes a novel approach to building a better battery by using viruses to self-assemble nanoscale battery materials.  Angela Belcher’s group at MIT focuses in this paper on self-assembly of the anode material for rechargeable lithium ion batteries, and the improvements that are possible with the nanoscale architecture.  In a very recent paper (citation below), Belcher’s group has used virus-enabled synthesis to also assemble the cathode material, although this recent work was not yet available at the time of our class discussion.  An excellent review paper on the challenges of building a better lithium ion battery by Jean-Marie Tarascon can also be provided to give students a broader overview of the field.

Prerequisites: 
Course Level: 
Learning Goals: 

After reading these papers and working through the discussion questions, a student will be able to:

  • Describe the basic components of a rechargeable lithium ion battery and the redox reactions that occur at the anode and cathode upon cycling.
  • Discuss the motivation of Belcher’s group to use viruses and genetic engineering to build a better battery material and the variety of evidence that these scientists have achieved their goal.
  • Discuss the pros and cons of highly interdisciplinary work including bridging the challenges of language and jargon.


Implementation Notes: 
With a relatively weak background in molecular biology myself, I relied a lot on the knowledge of my students to help translate the “biospeak” in this paper.  Prior to our class discussion, a few students posted basic questions on our class discussion forum such as “what is a phage display library?” and others tried to answer them.  It was more effective to just spend a few minutes at the beginning of the class discussion defining terms.  I invited a biochemistry colleague to read the paper and sit in on the discussion also, and he was very helpful in clarifying many of the concepts.
Time Required: 
50 minutes
4 Jun 2009

Energy Nuggets: MOF’s for CO2 Sequestration

Submitted by Maggie Geselbracht, Reed College
Evaluation Methods: 
Students’ participation in the in-class discussion, the online class forum, and their level of effort finding the answers to the discussion questions prior to class all contribute to their evaluation for this assignment.
Evaluation Results: 
The in-class and online discussion of this paper was quite lively.  Students had a lot of questions on how surface area was measured and we looked at a number of different MOF structures to gain a sense of how vast the field was.  Students were fairly skeptical of whether or not this work satisfied the significance of a JACS communication, particularly because they did not believe these materials could be practically applied in the manner suggested by the authors.  This led to an active discussion of academic research vs. commercialization of a product, and the recent C&E News article on commercialization of MOF’s (see link above) was a perfect fit.  Most of the students did not buy the use of CO2 sequestration materials and thought that this area of research should be fairly low on the list of research funding priorities.
Description: 
This literature discussion activity is one of a series of “Energy Nuggets,” small curricular units designed to illustrate: The Role of Inorganic Chemistry in the Global Challenge for Clean Energy Production, Storage, and Use.

This communication is a nice introduction to the field of metal organic frameworks (MOF’s) and the characterization and potential applications of porous materials.  Rather than tackling hydrogen or methane storage, materials for carbon dioxide sequestration is an often-overlooked area that offers many opportunities to discuss the same chemistry.  And while many students want to focus only on renewable energy, realizing that we will not stop burning coal anytime in the near future is an important piece of the energy challenge.  From here, one could easily continue on in the rich field of MOF’s in numerous directions.
Course Level: 
Learning Goals: 
After reading and discussing this paper, a student will be able to:
• Describe the general structural features, properties, and potential applications of a MOF (metal-organic framework)
• Distinguish between the terms physisorb and chemisorb and describe in qualitative terms how the surface areas of porous materials are characterized
• List the important factors in designing materials for hydrogen storage and/or carbon dioxide sequestration
• Understand the significance of a JACS communication including the criteria for publication
• Engage in a discussion relating a very specific area of academic research to the larger needs and challenges facing the global community
Implementation Notes: 
Out of a class of 14 students, I divided up and assigned the discussion questions so that each question was answered by 4-5 students and each student had 2-3 questions to prepare in addition to the ones assigned to everyone.  I also asked the students to begin discussing the paper online in the course Moodle forum before we met for class.
Time Required: 
1 hour discussion
13 Apr 2009
Description: 

The Interdisciplinary Education Group at the University of Wisconsin Madison Materials Research Science and Engineering Center (MRSEC) has a fabulous website with a wide variety of great resources for teaching about materials and the nanoworld at all levels.  A favorite "corner" of this website that I refer to a lot in my own teaching is the library of so-called Resource Slides on a variety of topics.  These Resource Slides are divided up into 36 topical Slide Shows and include wonderful graphics to use in class presentations.   Slide Shows include:

  • Amorphous Metal
  • Defects
  • DNA Barcode Methods
  • Electrorheology
  • LED applications
  • Metals
  • Nanowire Sensors
  • oLED
  • Piezoelectricity
  • Scanning Microscopies
  • Societal Implications
  • Structure and Properties
  • CD & DVD
  • Diffraction
  • Electronic Structure
  • Ferrofluid
  • Liquid Crystals
  • The Nanoscale
  • Nickel Nanowire Synthesis
  • Periodic Properties and LEDs
  • p-n junctions
  • Semiconductor
  • Solar Power
  • Thermoelectric Devices
  • Computer Technology
  • DNA
  • Electrons and magnetism
  • Gold
  • Lithography
  • Nanotubes
  • NiTi Memory Metal
  • Photonics
  • Quantum Dots
  • Semiconductor Sensors
  • Spectroscopy
  • Unit Cells and Stoichiometry
Prerequisites: 
Corequisites: 
Learning Goals: 

Implementation Notes: 
I use the graphics in many of these Slide Shows during class to illustrate the applications of many materials in working devices or more often to supplement the textbook I am using with more in-depth information on the structure and bonding in metals and semiconductors.  Some of these slide shows are aimed at a very general audience and so could be used in a general chemistry course.  But in other cases, I think they are more appropriate for an inorganic chemistry course in which the electronic structure of solids follows naturally from an in-depth discussion of molecular orbitals.

Pages

Subscribe to RSS - Extended structure