Effects of instructional changes on student learning of electrochemistry in an IB chemistry course

This study investigated the effectiveness of incorporating several new instructional strategies into an International Baccalaureate (IB) chemistry course in terms of how they supported high school seniors’ understanding of electrochemistry. The three new methods used were (a) providing opportunities for visualization of particle movement by student manipulation of physical models and interactive computer simulations, (b) explicitly addressing common misconceptions identified in the literature, and (c) teaching an algorithmic, step-wise approach for determining the products of an aqueous solution electrolysis. Changes in student understanding were assessed through test scores on both internally and externally administered exams over a two-year period. It was found that visualization practice and explicit misconception instruction improved student understanding, but the effect was more apparent in the short-term. The data suggested that instruction time spent on algorithm practice was insufficient to cause significant test score improvement. There was, however, a substantial increase in the percentage of the experimental group students who chose to answer an optional electrochemistry-related external exam question, indicating an increase in student confidence. Implications for future instruction are discussed.

Subverting the subject position : toward a new discourse about students as writers and engineering students as technical communicators

There is ample evidence of a longstanding and pervasive discourse positioning students, and engineering students in particular, as “bad writers.” This is a discourse perpetuated within the academy, the workplace, and society at large. But what are the effects of this discourse? Are students aware faculty harbor the belief students can’t write? Is student writing or confidence in their writing influenced by the negative tone of the discourse? This dissertation attempts to demonstrate that a discourse disparaging student writing exists among faculty, across disciplines, but particularly within the engineering disciplines, as well as to identify the reach of that discourse through the deployment of two attitudinal surveys—one for students, across disciplines, at Michigan Technological University and one for faculty, across disciplines at universities and colleges both within the United States and internationally. This project seeks to contribute to a more accurate and productive discourse about engineering students, and more broadly, all students, as writers—one that focuses on competencies rather than incompetence, one that encourages faculty to find new ways to characterize students as writers, and encourages faculty to recognize the limits of the utility of practitioner lore.