What is a foundations inorganic course? Here is a great description
What is a foundations inorganic course? Here is a great description
2) Performance on the in-class activity (clicker scores or hand-graded worksheet)
Students generally score on average 70% or higher on the pre-lecdure quiz, and on average 70% or more of students correctly answer the in-class clicker questions.
This is a flipped classroom module that covers the concepts of quantum numbers, and radial and angular nodes. This activity is designed to be done at the beginning of the typical first quarter/first semester general chemistry course (for an atoms first approach; if instructors use a traditional course structure this unit is likely done towards the middle/end of the first quarter/semester). Students will be expected to have learned the following concepts prior to completing this activity:
a) quantization of energy in the atom and the Bohr model of the atom;
b) how the wave/particle duality of electrons was described by de Broglie;
c) how the wave/particle duality of electrons was used by Schrodinger to develop the quantum mechanical model of the atom;
d) how radial probability distribution was used to generate the idea of atomic orbitals, and orbital probability surfaces.
Acknowledgement: This material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant No. 1504989. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation.
a) describe the meaning of the quantum numbers n, l, and ml;
b) determine the values of the quantum numbers n, l, and ml;
c) describe the meaning of radial and angular nodes;
d) determine the number of radial and angular nodes on different types of atomic orbitals;
e) begin to understand the correlation between the quantum numbers and the total number of atomic orbitals for a given atom, and how the periodic table can be used to build up the overall orbital structure for an atom.
1) online test/quiz function in course management system
2) in-class response system (clickers)
Attached as separate file.
Rules for quantum numbers are confusing but not arbitrary. They are based on wave mathmatics, and once laid out properly are symmetric and beautiful. Within four animation-clicks of the first slide of this PowerPoint Presentation, this beauty will unfold. I do not exaggerate to say, faculty members will be agape and students will say, "Why didn't you show us this before." No other presentation shows in as elegant a way the relationship between 1) n, l and ml, 2) the ordering of orbitals in hydrogen-like atoms, and 3) the ordering of orbitals in the periodic table (along with the difficulty of assigning orbital filling in transition and f-block elements).
Beauty is in every atom. Let it loose.
A student will be able to relate the quantum numbers n, l and ml to each other.
A student will be able to correctly describe the number of subshells and number of orbitals in a shell.
A student will be able to describe the orbital energies in a hydrogen-like atom.
A student will be able to order subshells in a multi-electron system and relate this to the periodic table.
A student will realize the symmetry and beauty of quantum chemistry without ever seeing the shape of one orbtal.
In the first two slides, often use the phrase "because it's a square."
This is useful for Inorganic Chemistry students as well because it will cement in their mind long lost rules of quantum numbers.
This LO has not been implemented; however, we recommend a few options for evaluating student learning:
implement as in-class group work, collect and grade all questions
have students complete the literature discussion questions before lecture, then ask them to modify their answers in another pen color as the in-class discussion goes through each questions
hold a discussion lecture for the literature questions; then for the following lecture period begin class with a quiz that uses a slightly modified problem.
This LO has not been implemented yet.
In honor of Professor Richard Andersen’s 75th birthday, a small group of IONiC leaders submitted a paper to a special issue of Dalton Transactions about Andersen’s love of teaching with the chemical literature. To accompany the paper, this literature discussion learning object, based on one of Andersen’s recent publications in Dalton, was created. The paper examines an ytterbium-catalyzed isomerization reaction. It uses experimental and computational evidence to support a proton-transfer to a cyclopentadienyl ring mechanism versus an electron-transfer mechanism, which might have seemed more likely.
The paper is quite complex, but this learning object focuses on simpler ideas like electron counting and reaction coordinate diagrams. To aid beginning students, we have found it helpful to highlight the parts of the paper that relate to the reading questions. For copyright reasons, we cannot provide the highlighted paper here, but we have included instructions on which sections to highlight if you wish to do that.
After completing this literature discussion, students should be able to
Count the valence electrons in a lanthanide complex
Explain the difference between a stoichiometric and catalytic reaction
Predict common alkaline earth and lanthanide oxidation states based on ground state electron configurations
Describe how negative evidence can be used to support or contradict a hypothesis
Describe the energy changes involved in making and breaking bonds
On a reaction coordinate diagram, explain the difference between an intermediate and a transition state
Explain how calculated reaction coordinate energy diagrams can be used to make mechanistic arguments
This is a paper that is rich in detail and material. As such, an undergraduate might find it intimidating to pick up and read. We have provided a suggested reading guide that presents certain sections of the paper for the students to read. We suggest the instructor highlight the following sections before providing the paper to the students. While students are certainly encouraged to read the entire paper, this LO will focus on the highlighted sections.
First 5 lines ending at the word high (you may encourage students to look up exergonic if that is not a term commonly used in your department)
Line 14 starting with “In that sense,” through the end of the paragraph
From the start through the word “endoergic” in line 22
Line 31 from “oxidation of” to the word “described” in line 33
Line 40 from “These” to the word “dimethylacetylene” in line 45
From the start to the word “appears” in line 4
The words “to involve” in line 4
Starting in line 4 with “a Cp*” to “transfer” in line 5
Results and Discussion
Paragraph 3 from the start through “six hours” in line 10
From the start to “solution” in line 3
From “This exchange” in line 10 to “allene” in line 11
From “Hence” in line 19 through the end of the paragraph
Paragraph 6 from the start through “infrared spectra” in line 19
Paragraph 7 from “Hence” in line 4 through the end of the paragraph
Mechanistic aspects for the catalytic isomerisation reaction of buta-1,2-diene to but-2-yne using (Me5C5)2Yb p 2579.
Synthesis of (Me5C5)2Yb(η2-MeC≡CMe).
Synthesis of (Me5C5)2Ca(η2-MeC≡CMe).
Reaction of (Me5C5)2Yb with buta-1,2-diene
Students could be evaluated based on their participation in the in-class discussion or on their submitted written answers to assigned questions.
This LO has not been used in a class at this point. Evaluation results will be uploaded as it is used (by Spring 2018 at the latest).
This paper describes the synthesis of a stable compound of sodium and helium at very high pressures. The paper uses computational methods to predict likely compounds with helium, then describe a synthetic protocol to make the thermodynamically favored Na2He compound. The compound has a fluorite structure and is an electride with the delocalization of 2e- into the structure.
This paper would be appropriate after discussion of solid state structures and band theory.
The questions are divided into categories and have a wide range of levels.
Dong, X.; Oganov, A. R.; Goncharov, A. F.; Stavrou, E.; Lobanov, S.; Saleh, G.; Qian, G.-R.; Zhu, Q.; Gatti, C.; Deringer, V. L.; et al. A stable compound of helium and sodium at high pressure. Nature Chemistry 2017, 9 (5), 440–445 DOI: 10.1038/nchem.2716.
After reading and discussing this paper, students will be able to
The questions are divided into categories (comprehensive questions, atomic and molecular properties, solid state structure, electronic structure and other topics) that may or may not be appropriate for your class. To cover all of the questions, you will probably need at least two class periods. Adapt the assignment as you see fit.
CrystalMaker software can be used to visualize the compound. ICE model kits can also be used to build the compound using the template for a Heusler alloy.
This LO was craeted at the pre-MARM 2017 ViPER workshop and has not been used in the classroom. The authors will update the evaluation methods after it is used.
This module offers students in an introductory chemistry or foundational inorganic course exposure to recent literature work. Students will apply their knowledge of VSEPR, acid-base theory, and thermodynamics to understand the effects of addition of ligands on the stabilities of resulting SiO2-containing complexes. Students will reference results of DFT calculations and gain a basic understanding of how DFT can be used to calculate stabilities of molecules.
Students should be able to:
Apply VSEPR to determine donor and acceptor orbitals of the ligands
Identify lewis acids and lewis bases
Elucidate energy relationships
Explain how computational chemistry is beneficial to experimentalists
Characterize bond strengths based on ligand donors
Students should have access to the paper and have read the first and second paragraphs of the paper. Students should also refer to scheme 2 and table 2.
This module could be either used as a homework assignment or in-class activity. This was created during the IONiC VIPEr workshop 2017 and has not yet been implemented.
Student participation was evaluated during the in-class portion based on the questions students asked.
The formal peer review homework was evaluated based on completion, level of thought and thoroughness.
Overall, students were very interested in this topic and had not formally learned about the process before. There was a very lively discussion and a lot of questions were asked. All students received full credit for participation.
Similarly, once students received their classmate's paper for peer review, they took the process very seriously and carefully went through the paper and answered the worksheet questions.
I was very impressed by the high quality of the formal peer reviews that were turned in as homework. Students clearly spent a lot of time to carefully think about the paper and craft a reasonable response. Most students received full-credit.
This activity includes questions for students to answer to help guide them through the process of peer review. It was designed to assist students in writing peer reviews for research reports written by their classmates, but could be applied to literature articles as well.
A student will be able to:
-Explain how the peer-review process works
-Critically read through a research article
-Carefully review a research article
-Write a professional peer review
An overview of peer review was given with three powerpoint slides. Students then worked through a modified Q&A of the peer review module "Peer Review - How does it work?" posted by Michael Norris on VIPEr. This provided students with an example of real reviews, along with the resulting article revisions.
The current worksheet was then passed out to students along with a research report written by one of their classmates (I assigned these and removed names). In class, students answered the questions on the worksheet and were able to ask questions of the editor (the instructor in this case). Following the in-class peer review, students had to write a formal peer review, which was turned in as homework.
The peer review was a final component of a research report that students had been working on throughout the course. The final report was turned in after students had received the review comments back from their peers. The grade of the final report took into consideration whether or not students had made modifications based on comments by their peer reviewer.
I just stumbled on this site while refreshing myself on the use of Slater's rules for calculating Zeff for electrons. There are a variety of calculators on there including some for visualizing lattice planes and diffraction, equilibrium, pH and pKa, equation balancing, Born-Landé, radioactive decay, wavelengths, electronegativities, Curie Law, solution preparation crystal field stabilization energy, and more.
I checked and it calculated Zeff correctly but I can't vouch for the accuracy of any of the other calculators.
This is not a good teaching website but would be good for double checking math
I used this to double check my Slater's rules calculations (and found a mistake in my answer key!)
This is a great new textbook by George Luther III from the University of Delaware. The textbook represents the results of a course he has taught for graduate students in chemical oceanography, geochemistry and related disciplines. It is clear that the point of the book is to provide students with the core material from inorganic chemistry that they will need to explain inorganic processes in the environment. However the material is presented in such a clear, logical fashion and builds so directly on fundamental principles of physical inorganic chemistry that the book is actually applicable to a much broader audience. It provides a very welcome presentation of frontier orbital theory as a guide to predicting and explaining much inorganic chemical reactivity. There are numerous very helpful charts and tables and diagrams. I found myself using the book for a table of effective nuclear charges when I was teaching general chemistry last semester. The examples are much more interesting that the typical textbook examples and would be easy to embellish and structure a course around. There is also a helpful companion website that provides powerpoint slides, student exercises and answers. The book covers some topics not typically seen in inorganic textbooks like the acidity of solids but the presentation of this information makes sense in light of the coherent framework of the text. We so often tell our students "structure dictates function". This text really make good on that promise. My only complaint is that I wish the title were something more generic so that I could use it for a second semester of introductory-esque material that we teach after students have taken a single semester of intro chem and two semesters of organic chemistry. So much of what is covered in this textbook is precisely what a second semester sophomore chemistry major should know before proceeding on in the major. But the title makes the book hard to sell to chemistry majors and that is regrettable.
This LO has not been implemented, however, we recommend a few options for evaluating student learning:
● implement as in class group work, collect and grade all questions
● have students complete the literature discussion questions before lecture, then ask them to modify their answers in another pen color as the in-class discussion goes through each questions
● hold a discussion lecture for the literature questions; then for the following lecture period begin class with a quiz that uses a slightly modified problem analogous to question #6 or #8 where a comparison between two different complexes from the paper is proposed, students are asked to summarize differences in their experimental values of CO frequency and potential and chemical reasoning for these differences.
This LO was created for the 2016 TUES workshop and has not yet been tested in the classroom.
In this literature discussion, students read an Inorganic Chemistry paper (doi: 10.1021/ic503062w) about diarylamido-based PNZ pincer ligands and their Ni, Pd, and Rh complexes. Specifically, this paper uses IR and E1/2 potentials to demonstrate that the redox events occur not on the metal center but on the pincer ligands. For these non-innocent ligands, the electron donating ability of the pincer ligand towards the metal is more strongly influenced by the donors directly attached to the metal (phosphorus or nitrogen substituents) while the oxidation potential is more affected by the substituents on the diarylamine backbone. This paper also provides x-ray crystallography data, NMR spectra (including J-coupling information), and a wealth of synthetic information. This LO was created for the 2016 TUES Viper Workshop on organometallic chemistry.
In answering these questions, a student will…
● Employ textual clues to define chemical terms such as pincer ligands
● Apply CBC rules to count electrons for pincer-ligand containing complexes
● Relate v(CO) stretching frequencies to electron donating abilities of ligands
● Integrate prior knowledge of periodic trends and electrochemical data from the paper to refine their definition of non-innocent ligands.
● Correlate electrochemical potential to the “electron richness” of the complex
Students should read the paper and complete the reading guide before the literature discussion.
We hope that instructors will mix and match questions that are appropriate to their classes. In particular, instructors may want to be selective among the in-depth questions 5-19 depending on the desired emphasis.
Questions 1-4 assess scientific reading competency and foundational concepts, question 5-11 address fundamental inorganic topics related to changing electron density on the metal, wheras questions 12-19 require deeper discussion of ligand non-innocence and experimental methods to determine difference in electron richness.
Note: we envision question 4 being divided up among multiple groups with each group getting one of the rows. Then, the instructor should highlight the fact that all complexes had the same values.