Calculating the pH of a Strong Acid or a Strong Base Before and After Instruction in General and Analytical Chemistry

Clark, Ted M.; Dickson‐Karn, Nicole M.; Anderson, Ellie

doi:10.1021/acs.jchemed.1c00819

Cited by 5 publications

(13 citation statements)

References 40 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Student performance on question 1 has been discussed in an earlier investigation . Prior to instruction, the students in general chemistry and analytical chemistry courses scored low on questions involving the pH of strong acid or strong base solutions (Table ).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 98%

“…Student performance on question 1 has been discussed in an earlier investigation. 37 Prior to instruction, the students in general chemistry and analytical chemistry courses scored low on questions involving the pH of strong acid or strong base solutions (Table 2). This is because the equation pH = −log[H + ] was not provided, and students either did not know, or struggled to recall, this information.…”

Section: Strong Acids and Strong Basesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Comparing the Performance of College Chemistry Students with ChatGPT for Calculations Involving Acids and Bases

Clark,

Anderson,

Dickson-Karn

et al. 2023

J. Chem. Educ.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Student performance on open-response calculations involving acid and base solutions before and after instruction in general chemistry and analytical chemistry courses was compared with the output from the artificial intelligence chatbot ChatGPT. Applying a theoretical model of expertise for problem solving that includes problem conceptualization, problem strategy, and solution, it is found that students errors following instruction primarily involved problem conceptualization and the misapplication of heuristics like the Henderson−Hasselbalch equation When the same problems were used as input to ChatGPT the responses were comparable to worked examples found in general chemistry textbooks in terms of length and detail and usually displayed strong problem conceptualization. Response accuracy of the chatbot varied greatly for different topics, being best for calculations of pH for a strong acid or strong base and much lower for more complex problems involving titrations or aqueous salts. Chatbot and student errors differed in that the chatbot did not misapply heuristics but did make mathematical errors uncommon for students. The variability in the correctness of ChatGPT's responses and the nature of its errors vis-a-vis students will influence its potential use as an instructional resource for calculations involving acids and bases.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 98%

Section: Strong Acids and Strong Basesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparing the Performance of College Chemistry Students with ChatGPT for Calculations Involving Acids and Bases

Clark,

Anderson,

Dickson-Karn

et al. 2023

J. Chem. Educ.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Analysis of errors students make when they attempt open-response calculations provides instructors with valuable insights that may inform instruction . As anticipated, the principal error was failing to account for the stoichiometric ratio in the reaction and assuming using a 1:1 molar ratio.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 94%

“…For the 52 students that had no strategy and skipped the problem, 44% used calculating moles on the post-test, and 38% used M 1 V 1 = M 2 V 2 . Overall, the fact that many students used M 1 V 1 = M 2 V 2 prior to instruction may interest instructors seeking to activate student prior knowledge when designing their lessons . Pedagogical decisions will depend, as discussed below, on how the instructor intends to include, improve, or replace the equation M 1 V 1 = M 2 V 2 in their formal instruction.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Strategies Undergraduate Students Use to Solve a Volumetric Analysis Problem before and after Instruction

2022

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study investigated the strategies students in general chemistry and analytical chemistry courses used before and after instruction to solve a volumetric analysis problem in which the molar ratio was not 1:1. Questions like this have historically been very challenging for high school and undergraduate students. Student writing on open-response problems was analyzed to determine the problem-solving approach and identify errors made during the calculation. The two most prevalent strategies on pretests and post-tests were calculating mole amounts and using the equation M 1 V 1 = M 2 V 2. Performance was significantly lower for students using the M 1 V 1 = M 2 V 2 as they often assumed a 1:1 molar ratio. The M 1 V 1 = M 2 V 2 heuristic was very popular despite its exclusion from formal instructional resources such as the textbook or lecture, and teachers seeking to improve instruction in this area must account for students using an approach not introduced in the classroom.

show abstract

“…A limitation of this study was using the ACT score as a measure of incoming preparation without also including a chemistry-specific pretest. The retention of chemical knowledge year-to-year across courses can be low 82 and using a chemistry pretest would assess student prior knowledge in ways the ACT test does not. A chemistry pretest was used by some instructors during this period, but it was not comprehensively administered and comparison data is therefore missing.…”

Section: ■ Conclusionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Narrowing Achievement Gaps in General Chemistry Courses with and without In-Class Active Learning

Clark

2023

J. Chem. Educ.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Underrepresentation of some populations in STEM fields occurs because these students experience achievement gaps with performance lower on average than their overrepresented peers. Interventions to reduce achievement gaps and increase the retention of underrepresented students in STEM courses include approaches found both inside and outside of class-time, with active learning being a leading example of an in-class intervention in which didactic instruction is replaced by student-centered activities. In this investigation, student performance was examined in reformed general chemistry classes that employed student-centered active learning strategies when taught in person but employed more didactic instruction when taught online during emergency remote teaching, along with classes using traditional instruction in both modalities. In both settings, achievement gaps for underrepresented minority students in reformed courses were significantly narrowed compared to students in classes with traditional instruction, suggesting that the course structure and teaching practices beyond in-class active learning in reformed courses are significant contributors to student success.

show abstract

Calculating the pH of a Strong Acid or a Strong Base Before and After Instruction in General and Analytical Chemistry

Cited by 5 publications

References 40 publications

Comparing the Performance of College Chemistry Students with ChatGPT for Calculations Involving Acids and Bases

Comparing the Performance of College Chemistry Students with ChatGPT for Calculations Involving Acids and Bases

Strategies Undergraduate Students Use to Solve a Volumetric Analysis Problem before and after Instruction

Narrowing Achievement Gaps in General Chemistry Courses with and without In-Class Active Learning

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About