Contributors

Contributors to the Chemistry Education Research Focus Group at OSU include faculty & staff from the Departments of Chemistry & Biochemistry at the central and regional campuses.  Collectively these individuals teach thousands students every year and have diverse educational interests.

Contributor (alphabetical)

Areas of Chemistry Instruction

Educational Interests

Chris Callam

Organic chemistry lecture and laboratory

 Laboratory and inquiry, conceptual learning, in-class research, technology, video production, problem-based learning.

Michael Chang

General and Organic chemistry

Ted Clark

General and Analytical chemistry lecture and laboratory

Laboratory inquiry, Nature of Science, conceptual learning, in-class research, computer simulations.

James Coe

General and Physical chemistry

Ewan Hamilton

General chemistry

Clay Harris

Analytical chemistry lecture and laboratory

Chemical metrology, authentic in-class research, epistemology.

Ruth Kinder

General chemistry

Steven Kroner

General and Physical chemistry lecture and laboratory

Student engagement, homework.

Anne McCoy

General and Physical chemistry

Susan Olesik

General and Analytical chemistry

             Science outreach and education.

Noel Paul

Organic chemistry lecture and laboratory

Rebecca Ricciardo

General chemistry

Richard Spinney

General, Organic, and Computational chemistry

Technology, on-line exercises, and STEM retention.

Matthew Stoltzfus

General and Inorganic chemistry lecture and laboratory

Clickers, video-production, student engagement, on-line exercises, laboratory  & inquiry, in-class research, computer simulations.

Patrick Woodward

General and Inorganic chemistry lecture and laboratory

Faith Wyzgoski

General chemistry

 

 

Recent Posts

Hello world!

Posted on by

Have you tried these chemistry simulations from PhET and Tom Greenbowe?

Have you browsed any of these resources for improving your teaching, managing the first day of class, designing better exams, using clickers to understand concepts (a short video), assessing student learning, or keeping students engaged?

Have you read any of these articles describing research based instruction?  The May 2011 article from Science (volume 332, pages 862-864) is extremely provocative.

Must universities change?  The author thinks that “a substantial body of research demonstrates conclusively that the problem (shortcomings at the university-level) is frequently caused by poor undergraduate teaching in physics, chemistry, biology, math, and engineering, particularly in the freshman and sophomore years. Students are consigned to large lecture courses that offer almost no engagement, no monitoring, and little support and personal attention.  The combination of poor high school preparation and uninspiring freshman and sophomore pedagogy has produced a stunning dearth of science and engineering majors in the U.S.”.  Needed changes include…“to alter faculty incentives by making undergraduate teaching at least equal to research and graduate teaching in prestige, evaluation, and reward. And we need to do research-based teaching that takes account and advantage of the latest findings of cognitive science, which are extensive, on how students learn. In brief, they learn by doing, not by just listening to someone else; they learn by solving problems, not by passively absorbing concepts; they learn best in groups of peers working things out together.“