Click for Text-Only version
Back to CUA Home
CUA
 

 
Collage of Pictures

About Us

Faculty

Undergraduate Program

Chemistry, BS

Biochemistry BS/BA

Environmental Chemistry

Chemical Physics

Chemistry & Secondary Education 

Courses CHEM 101- 492 

Courses CHEM 500 - 998

Examples of Papers -Comp Exam


Master of Science in ChemED

MS Faculty

MS Degree

Course Schedule


Financial

About CUA

Chemistry Home Page

CUA Home Page

Search this Website:

Click here to search all CUA
CUA Home    Home    Site Map    Contact Us    Text Only     Calendar

 

 

Department of Chemistry

Chemical Education

 

 

 

 

 

 

Diane M. Bunce

 

Chemistry Department

The Catholic University of America

620 Michigan Ave., NE

Washington, DC 20064

(202) 319-5390 (Voice)

(202) 319-5381 (Fax)

Bunce@cua.edu

 

 

Curriculum Vitae

Publications

Chemical Education Research Links

Research Group

Courses

 

Summary of research interests

Chemical education research at Catholic University deals primarily with the application of cognitive psychology to the learning and teaching of chemistry. Our current research has focused on two main areas, namely, 1) the effectiveness of technological approaches to teaching on student understanding and 2) explorations of the learning process itself and the factors that can affect it.

Research on the technological approaches includes studies on the effectiveness and student-use patterns of Student Response Systems (clickers) vs. WebCT quizzes on student achievement. A new study will look at novice vs. expertsÕ use of particulate computer animations on student understanding in chemistry. Both of these studies evaluate the impact of current technology on both conceptual and traditional (algorithmic) chemistry understanding.

Our research on the learning process itself has investigated what students do while trying to learn chemistry. An in-depth exploration of the small group interaction within Process Orientated Guided Inquiry (POGIL) classes revealed four levels of student interaction leading to understanding. This study was expanded to investigate the effect of teacher interactions with the groups. The results suggest that different types of teacher interactions are more effective with some subgroups of students than with others.  A smaller study looked at student understanding of what  teachers expect when they ask for explanations of chemical phenomena. Many students do not initially grasp what the terms √íexplain√ì or √ídefend√ì mean in terms of building a logical argument to a chemistry problem. Purposeful practice can help student understanding of this issue.

Additional work has led to the creation of a paired-question General Chemistry Exam for the ACS Exam Institute. This test will serve as a useful instrument in the evaluation of teaching/learning innovations for chemical education researchers. The results of this test can be divided into conceptual and traditional subscores. Other work has emphasized the inservice training of chemists in the practices and tools of chemical education research. The ÒNuts and BoltsÓ Series of chemical education research workshops presented at ACS national and biennial chemical education conferences addresses this issue. Outreach activities for elementary, middle, and high school teacher audiences have included presentations on the chemical principles underlying everyday experiences. Some of these presentations focus on the chemistry behind such typical occurrences as Thanksgiving dinner, egg dying, over the counter drugs, nutrition, forensics, cosmetics and environmental issues. The emphasis is on the fact that chemistry is all around us and everyone should be able to understand chemistry if they choose to learn.