An exploratory study was conducted with 23 organic chemistry educators to discover what general chemistry concepts they typically review, the concepts they believe are fundamental to introductory organic chemistry, the topics students find most difficult in the subject, and the misconceptions they observe in undergraduate organic chemistry students. The goal of the study was to generate an exploratory overview of current practice in order to spur discussion on organic chemistry curriculum and to encourage further chemical education research on students’ understandings of organic chemistry concepts. While there were some overlaps, the differences found between participant perspectives are striking. In addition, participant perceptions of fundamental concepts of organic chemistry and the concept guidelines set forth by the ACS are notably different. While a number of chemistry misconceptions were noted by the educators, not all of the participants attempted to identify or were even aware of student misconceptions in organic chemistry.

Learning goal (LG) identification can greatly inform curriculum, teaching, and evaluation practices. The complex laboratory course setting, however, presents unique obstacles in developing appropriate LGs. For example, in addition to the large quantity and variety of content supported in the general chemistry laboratory program, the interests of faculty members from various chemistry subdisciplines and the service goals of such a course should be addressed. To optimize the instructional impact of limited laboratory contact time, achieve learning gains in basic and transferable (i.e., valuable in other sciences) laboratory learning content, and establish departmental consensus, a model was created for LG and assessment development that was inspired by interdisciplinary science laboratory LGs implemented at Rice University. These newly developed processes and materials were used to enhance the introductory chemistry laboratory curriculum at the University of British Columbia, involving a large (>1700 student) laboratory program. This model has potential to guide alignment and build consensus within, and possibly across, science laboratory instructional programs.

First-year students are the primary target of support services, housing resources, and scholarships at universities. However, this can leave students who transfer in from a community college or another institution at considerable disadvantages. Furthermore, transfer students intending to pursue Science, Technology, Engineering, & Math (STEM) degrees may lack important introductory courses (prerequisites such as calculus and general chemistry) and can struggle to get courses transferred appropriately, slowing down degree progression. We are now in the second year of implementing a program that includes a peer-mentored semi-residential learning community, a co-convened seminar course, and NSFfunded scholarships (Transfers to Graduates in Engineering, Math and Sciences) to support transfer students in the College of Engineering, Forestry, and Natural Sciences at Northern Arizona University. Voluntary survey data, primarily from the first year of program implementation, is used to describe the STEM transfer student experience and examine possible qualitative and quantitative impacts of the implemented program. The current results of outreach to local community colleges are also described.

The primary area of her work is evaluating STEM education projects that focus on opportunities for, and retention of, K-20 students in STEM areas, majors and fields. She also conducts education research focusing on questions about professional development for educators and how educators support student learning in STEM.