BC Science Interactions

network . collaborate . share

MOLE Chapter - FEEDBACK from Test Drive sites

As noted previously Gary Davidson, lead author of the MOLE Chapter (BC Science Chemistry 11) is in Maui relaxing. He sent me some background information into the development of the MOLE Chapter as well as some interesting info into text book development.

Hi Everyone,


My name is Gary Davidson.  I’m the lead author of chapter 3 (The Mole) in B.C. Science – Chemistry 11.  Megan Ryan, Cheri Smith, and Chris Toth helped me on this chapter by providing invaluable insight and critical reviews.  Each of us will be the lead author of two chapters in this worktext; a sort of workbook-textbook hybrid. 

A couple of my favourite articles on the production of science textbooks were written by Bonnie Armbruster, Tom Anderson, and Kenneth Komoski in the 1980’s.  Both of these articles argued for the piloting of textbooks prior to publication.  Komoski (1985) notes that, “In most textbooks…[the] means of communication employed are not tested with learners and verified as to the materials’ ability to communicate in a clear and engaging manner to those learners – and then revised and improved as needed, on the basis of such direct learner feedback” (p.36).  He argues that teachers need to, "develop a process for improving materials using regular and systematic feedback from learners . . . " (p.37).  Armbruster and Anderson (1985) agree that, "there is an additional step which needs to be carried out in the design of texts - we need to have students use them and determine how well they work". 

This of course is what the Mole Chapter – Test Drive – Forum is all about.  Please use this forum to forward any questions, comments, or suggestions regarding the mole chapter.  I’ve already received a couple great suggestions at last week’s B.C. Science Institute:  Frank Bonvino of Burnaby North Sec. has offered some useful graphics to help clarify the reasoning in the sample problem on page 5.  Dan Wilson of North Surrey Sec. has suggested an alteration to the wheel illustrations to dissuade students from attempting to make direct conversions “around the rim” of the wheel. 


 The “Wheel Model” is obviously a prominent, if not central, feature of this chapter.  Let me provide some rationale for this model which I used successfully for 33 years in the classroom:


  1. The wheel model provides an integrated approach to solving mole conversion problems, i.e. one model fits all.  A simpler conversion will work in some situations but the wheel model will work in all situations.
  2. Every student already knows what a wheel looks like thus they don’t need to learn the model before it can be meaningful.  For example, it would be meaningless for me to tell you that “jai alai” is like “squash” (thus using squash as a model for jai alai) if you don’t know how squash is played.
  3. A wheel really does have a center or hub thus it is a genuine representation, as opposed to a false or forced analogy.
  4. The model illustrates (visually demonstrates) that every time a new chemical quantity is introduced, the student will only need to ‘connect’ that new quantity to moles which the student already knows how to ‘connect’ to the other quantities.  Thus instead of having to learn several new conversion factors, the student will only need to learn one.
  5. Every student already knows that the only functional way to connect wheels is with an axle thus illustrating that the only way to relate a quantity of one chemical to a quantity of another is by relating moles of the first to moles of the second.  Thus the model applies well to composition and reaction stoichiometry problems.
  6. The wheel model allows a student to visualize where they are to begin the problem, where they have to get to, and how many steps (conversions) that will require.
  7. A wheel model conversion may simplify to involve less conversion factors, i.e. a short-cut, but the wheel model even provides for that possibility by allowing that travel around the rim may be possible for experienced travelers. Such a conversion factor will still relate both quantities to the mole, e.g. 6.02 x 1023 atoms of carbon per 12.0 grams of carbon, recognizing a wheel’s structural dependence on its hub.  (This is the situation where Dan has a pedagogic concern with the confusion this situation causes weaker students.  I could argue that the model is still accurate, but regardless Dan is right.)

Armbruster, B.B. & Anderson, T.H. (1985). Producing considerate expository text: Or easy reading is damned hard writing. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 17, 247-74.

 

Komoski, K. (1985, April). Instructional materials will not improve until we change the system.  Educational Leadership, 31-37.

As I mentioned at the institute, I’ve already noticed that the cancellation lines are not always correct or even present in some of the sample problems.  I truly appreciate any feedback you have regarding the mole chapter.


 Gary



Views: 78

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Cheri Smith on November 2, 2010 at 8:46pm
Gary is so right on this. Feedback will be the main thing to improve the book at this point. Keep it coming, please!!
Permalink Reply by Sandy Benson on November 3, 2010 at 1:18pm
Hi all, Sandy Benson from Churchill here. I thought I would do some light reading and so one night I read through all the text portion of the mole chapter. On the whole, I like it. I like the way the historical aspects are worked in. It is interesting to me, I'm not sure how exciting the students will find it. I haven't actually worked out the problems on paper but I have read through most of them. Again, I like the references to real life aspects for a calculation practice problem. I am impressed and excited about the activities at the end of each section. I like the fact that it can be done without chemicals essentially and so the students can do it at home if neccesary. These activities seem great to get the ideas across with a model analogy that uses everyday items! I like the sample problem layout to show the student what they should be considering as they approach a problem and then the practice problem immediately after. I also think that there is a good number and variety of problems at the end of each section ( you can always find more practice questions!).
I have a couple of small comments about the book on the following pages
page 4, last bit; The mass ratio example using Mg and O could use either a sample calculation or a visual. I can understand it but it might be a bit confusing for a student to read? If the students don't get this explanation, the sample problem on the next page is not that easy to follow through ( is the 1.934 the Ba, Cl? Why is it 2 x 1.974 in the next one?)
page 5; typo in sample problem (c) BaC l I don't understand the reference in the text that the "scales" seemed to fall from my eyes. Sorry
page 11 Sample problem This is my biggest complaint. Could you choose another element than oxygen or any of the other diatomic ones? We spend a bunch of time trying to get the students to automatically thin k of these species as diatomic and then this uses single oxygen atoms.

All for now. Running out of time. Please forward this to Don as well. I hopwe this gets to you. I'm just going to hit reply
Permalink Reply by Cheri Smith on November 4, 2010 at 1:42am
WOW, Sandy! If this is a response to your quick overview of the unit, we can't wait to hear your more detailed responses. There are, for sure, some typo's, as Gary mentioned that managed to sneak their way through the editing process. I agree with you completely on the oxygen example on page 11 and this can be easily adjusted. I suggested sodium for precisely the reason you mention, but again, some things made it through without being edited in our hurry to get the unit out.
Regarding the ratio in the Sample Problem on page 5, the initial problem states the ratio as 1.934 g Ba:1.000 g Cl. Perhaps the ratio needs to be clearly stated in the "How to Do It" portion as well? That extra space between the C and l in BaCl definitely needs a fix. Thanks for the catch.
Gary and Chris were the primary authors of section 3.1. They're both huge science history buffs and as you point out, the history is fascinating, though some of the students may not appreciate it as much as we do. The line, "the scales (read covers...screens...?) seemed to fall from my eyes" is, I believe, a quote from Meyer as he read Cannizzaro's paper and thought to himself...Wow...now I get it. Meyer's idiom is not one you would often hear these days. I myself, am just about to run this unit with my standard class of Chem 11's. I certainly will be polling them for their opinions on the quantity of history included. I would love to hear more from other teachers regarding their students' feelings on the matter.
So, again, a BIG THANKS to Sandy for the comments. All piloting schools, PLEASE get involved in making this the best resource it can be. You ARE the "agents of change" so to speak, so let's go. More units should be up before long. Don and Lionel will have time lines soon, I'm sure......
Permalink Reply by Chris Toth on November 4, 2010 at 5:20pm
Thanks Sandy for all of your great input! That's exactly the sort of thing that we hoped would happen as the "test drive" began. The more comments we receive, the better this resource will end up being and the better the chemistry community (both students and teachers) will be served.

The typos will defintely be repaired and your suggestions regarding oxygen are spot on.
The history part can also be easily modfied. I expect that, given time constraints, some teachers may choose to fly through or even bypass some of the history. To the extent that we retain certain historical "gems" in the final version, we'll do our best to ensure that they hopefully spark the maximum amount of interest and/or remind students of the human element that is so unavoidably intertwined with this fascinating branch of science.

Thanks again Sandy and I'm looking forward to hearing more from as many teachers as possible. You all have a chance to contribute and to make this a remarkable resource for chemistry 11 in BC!
Permalink Reply by Megan Ryan on November 5, 2010 at 12:31pm
Hi Sandy - thank you for your detailed comments. I think a visual would help alot. As teachers, we get it, but I think students really struggle with the idea of relative masses. Quite often in class I do a "relative mass" activity with my students regarding their masses. We discuss a "student mass unit" or smu. As for the sample question on p. 11 - I think that it would be good to change it to a different non-diatomic element.

As we go through this unit, it will so valuable to hear back from teachers and students what they think. My students really like having a work book type of resource they can write in. The great thing about this resource is that it can changed and improved in later editions more easily than a textbook can. I'm looking forward to seeing this resource all come together.
Permalink Reply by Annette on November 8, 2010 at 2:57am
Hi all. I started this unit with my kids a week ago. I really like the history and I did it with my kids, and continue to refer to historical aspects throughout the unit. I really like the starters and practice problems. I also like the mole wheel. I've always done a moleville map, but I like the mole wheel so much that I'm making a large 3-d model of two wheels with the axel to keep in class as a teaching tool. (poster board and a cardboard tube!)

My students had difficulty with the calculations for relative masses. I had to do a lot of diagramming on the board, so more visuals in the text would help. I also would REALLY like to see the oxygen changed as I have the same concerns as others with respect to the diatomics.

I thought the paper clip excercises were great - easy for the students to do, and got the idea across in a simple way. They also have a real appreciation for just how big a mole is. My students like the workbook, but find the spaces are not quite large enough to write in their work for some of the questions. This may not be a concern as we move through subsequent sections, but it was for 3.1.

Anyway, so far so good. I'm going to have my students fill out an assessment of the resouce at the end of the unit. I'll pass on their comments.
Permalink Reply by Cheri Smith on November 10, 2010 at 1:49am
WOW - Annette: A 3-D model of the wheel sounds awesome. Please post a picture as soon as you finish it. Gary and I discussed the possibility of creating a poster of the wheel for teachers to use in their classrooms. Hopefully that idea will also come to fruition soon. Thanks for all your great comments.

The spaces are indeed a bit small, particularly for the kids with the really big hand-writing. Hopefully we can get space increased without a big financial impact. It's nice to hear you, too, enjoyed the history. As Chris mentioned, it really does help bring the story of the mole (and so many other scientific topics) to life. We look forward to hearing from your kids...and in the meantime, please do keep your comments coming.
Permalink Reply by Cheri Smith on November 21, 2010 at 10:32pm
We're up to 3.4 in my Chemistry 11 class. The kids are enjoying it and we're moving through the unit at a good pace (right on target with the pace set in past years). The activities have been great for breaking up calculator-based classes. They actually did go, "WOW" when they calculated the number of water molecules evaporated over a portion of the period. We threw a little variation in by using a variety of beaker sizes to change up the surface area. (Note - this necessitated a small volume of water be used as the 600 mL beakers with too much water exceed the capacity of our balances.)
A couple of observations: The students felt one of the examples on page 13/14 (preferably the first one - perhaps once it is changed from O atoms) should include the calculation of the molar mass. A few of them were shaky on this, even though it was described in the previous text. They would definitely prefer to have the review questions stacked (as opposed to two columns) as this allows more room to lay out their work in one long line. This complaint was heard loud and often. They don't need as much depth, but do need more width.
A few errors were caught by the kids (in addition to the Ba Cl space issue Sandy caught): The student print in the bottom example on page 19 is missing a negative sign on the exponent in the answer. 2.66 x 10<-23>. It is OK in the "Always check..." portion at the bottom, but is missing in the student print. A couple of other printing errors I told the kids I would pass along appear in the sample problem on the top of page 22. The second "2" in the symbols for carbon dioxide is not subscripted in "What to Think About" #1. In the same section, #2, the first conversion factor indicates ? CO in the denominator rather that ? CO2
Finally, Gary was right about the numbering in his keys being wacky for some of the units. I've attached one of my student's work (this one is legible and looks to be entirely correct) for 3.3 in case anyone can use it. Notice this young fellow elected to do the work on paper as it "didn't fit in a line" in the book. He also elected to show the molar mass calculations [I do not require this once they get going] and I thought that MIGHT be useful.
We look forward to hearing from more of you. I know we have very busy lives. I'm only getting to this on the weekend. The more feedback we get, the more we can mold the work text to make it the best possible resource for you and your students.
(As a complete aside, THANKS to John Munro for convincing me to give my students the "build a mole" pattern again. They're having a ball with it. I suggested they dissect their old "Build a Bear"s around the house for stuffing. The suggestion of using beans to stuff a "Beannie Bear" seemed to go right over their heads. How time flies!)
Attachments:
Permalink Reply by Annette on November 25, 2010 at 4:34pm
Hi everyone. Just a couple more items.
p. 27 last paragraph of text. I would like this to be highlighted or starred or something to draw students' attention to it.
p. 36 mass spectrometer. My students were fuzzy on what 'intact' molecule meant. Perhaps include the word 'whole' or 'entire' in parenthesis after the word 'intact'. Especially helpful for absent students who are catching up at home.
p. 44 Q8 My students had no idea about the relationship between atomic percentage and moles. A paragraph abut this in the text would be nice.

p. 38 Comparing empirical and molecular formulas: a chart or other visual would help to show the comparison. Quick check on same page is good. Perhaps adding a molecular that would give the same empirical as one of the others to drive the point home.

p. 42 Good activity. Students didn't see the point of #3. Perhaps moving it to the last step so that it is in front of them when they get to Q 10 would make it more worthwhile.

Final point: Not nearly enough work space. Please, please increase it. One column instead of two is preferable a already expressed by others.

I like the variety of questions and I like the ones that make them think, but the students I get at grade 11 have had 3 years of memorizing facts, not a lot of thinking. A litle extra support in the text (as noted above) would be a help.

Overall the students like the workbook idea. I am wondering about the costs. I teach in an economically depressed area with a high rate poverty/parents who did not finish grade 12/etc. Any idea on the costs yet?
Permalink Reply by Don Franklin on November 25, 2010 at 5:19pm
Hi Annette,

Thanks for the feedback. I'll let the Chemistry authors comment on the Chemistry.

We haven't set a price yet, but what I can tell you is that we developed the WorkText as a consumable "write-in"text specifically for schools or students to purchase every year. Thx also for the feedback on the amount of space. This is critical for us to ensure students can write-in. The challenge is the size of the Worktext (as you can imagine).

Of the 200+ schools implementing our new WorkTexts in Ontario this fall - the vast majority are using as a "write-in" consumable, & the feedback has been outstanding. As a new publisher for Ontario we offered a limited time introductory price of $17.50, with a School Net price eventually in the range of $22.50.

If you budget for $20 - you'd be in the ballpark. Would that work for you?

I'd love to hear some more feedback from others with regards to whether you see this as a consumable option & whether the $20 price makes this attractive for student purchasing (& school budgets). We have heard from many of you (at Catalyst & at our BC Science Institute) that $20 for a Sr Science (Chemistry) resource has value as a consumable, & could be purchased by students/schools every year.

Part of our thinking is that IF purchased by students, this could a VERY budget friendly option:)

As part of our publishing model, we also plan on updating the WorkText every few years to ensure it remains current, much like our online community.

Thoughts, suggestions, comments...?


thx again Annette
Don

RSS

Members

Groups

Events

About

Don Franklin created this Ning Network.

© 2012   Created by Don Franklin.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service