箭吗?-对英国a -level课程中如何教授机械有机化学的定性探索†

IF 3.2 2区 教育学 Q1 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH
Kristy L. Turner, Nathan Owston, Carl Poree, Colin Evans, Ali Mohammed and Maha Khan
{"title":"箭吗?-对英国a -level课程中如何教授机械有机化学的定性探索†","authors":"Kristy L. Turner, Nathan Owston, Carl Poree, Colin Evans, Ali Mohammed and Maha Khan","doi":"10.1039/D5RP00089K","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p >Student difficulties with the curly-arrow model in mechanistic organic chemistry have been the subject of a great deal of research. The inclusion of curly arrow mechanisms in an organic chemistry curriculum presents an opportunity for students to develop skills in problem solving which are useful both in higher education and employment so the topic has utility beyond content knowledge. An arrows first approach to organic mechanism has been suggested as an effective teaching strategy to prevent the development of misconceptions which may undermine a student's achievement and cause difficulties with further study. Through the lens of the A-level in chemistry, a regulated national qualification covering significant mechanistic chemistry content, we have evaluated a range of evidence to explore how mechanistic organic chemistry is taught. Taking a holistic overview of the curriculum we show that many aspects of the curriculum support an arrows first approach to teaching including the implemented and assessed curriculum, both influenced by examination boards. However we also found that a much larger proportion of teaching time, effort and assessment is devoted to case-study mechanisms, generally organised by functional group. These may be memorised by students, undermining an arrows first focus. Moreover, although we found our sample of teacher respondents were generally positive about teaching the fundamentals of the curly arrow model we also found a lack of accessible classroom resources and professional development to support teaching using an arrows first approach. In light of the published aims of the A-level in chemistry, this research has implications for policy and practice in the 16–18 chemistry curriculum for educators, examination boards and regulators.</p>","PeriodicalId":69,"journal":{"name":"Chemistry Education Research and Practice","volume":" 4","pages":" 804-820"},"PeriodicalIF":3.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-08-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Arrows first? – a qualitative exploration of how mechanistic organic chemistry is taught in the A-level curriculum in England†\",\"authors\":\"Kristy L. Turner, Nathan Owston, Carl Poree, Colin Evans, Ali Mohammed and Maha Khan\",\"doi\":\"10.1039/D5RP00089K\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p >Student difficulties with the curly-arrow model in mechanistic organic chemistry have been the subject of a great deal of research. The inclusion of curly arrow mechanisms in an organic chemistry curriculum presents an opportunity for students to develop skills in problem solving which are useful both in higher education and employment so the topic has utility beyond content knowledge. An arrows first approach to organic mechanism has been suggested as an effective teaching strategy to prevent the development of misconceptions which may undermine a student's achievement and cause difficulties with further study. Through the lens of the A-level in chemistry, a regulated national qualification covering significant mechanistic chemistry content, we have evaluated a range of evidence to explore how mechanistic organic chemistry is taught. Taking a holistic overview of the curriculum we show that many aspects of the curriculum support an arrows first approach to teaching including the implemented and assessed curriculum, both influenced by examination boards. However we also found that a much larger proportion of teaching time, effort and assessment is devoted to case-study mechanisms, generally organised by functional group. These may be memorised by students, undermining an arrows first focus. Moreover, although we found our sample of teacher respondents were generally positive about teaching the fundamentals of the curly arrow model we also found a lack of accessible classroom resources and professional development to support teaching using an arrows first approach. In light of the published aims of the A-level in chemistry, this research has implications for policy and practice in the 16–18 chemistry curriculum for educators, examination boards and regulators.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":69,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Chemistry Education Research and Practice\",\"volume\":\" 4\",\"pages\":\" 804-820\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-08-06\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Chemistry Education Research and Practice\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"95\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlelanding/2025/rp/d5rp00089k\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"教育学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Chemistry Education Research and Practice","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlelanding/2025/rp/d5rp00089k","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

在机械有机化学中,学生对卷箭头模型的理解困难一直是大量研究的主题。在有机化学课程中包含卷曲箭头机制为学生提供了一个发展解决问题技能的机会,这些技能在高等教育和就业中都很有用,因此该主题具有超越内容知识的效用。对有机机制的箭头优先方法被认为是一种有效的教学策略,以防止误解的发展,这种误解可能会破坏学生的成就并给进一步的学习带来困难。通过化学a -level(涵盖重要机械化学内容的规范国家资格考试)的视角,我们评估了一系列证据,以探索如何教授机械有机化学。通过对课程的整体概述,我们发现课程的许多方面都支持箭头优先的教学方法,包括实施和评估课程,两者都受考试委员会的影响。然而,我们也发现,更大比例的教学时间、精力和评估用于案例研究机制,通常由功能小组组织。这些可能会被学生记住,破坏了“箭头优先”的重点。此外,尽管我们发现我们的受访教师样本普遍对卷曲箭头模型的基础教学持积极态度,但我们也发现缺乏可用的课堂资源和专业发展来支持使用箭头优先方法的教学。鉴于A-level化学的公开目标,这项研究对教育工作者、考试委员会和监管机构在16-18年级化学课程的政策和实践具有启示意义。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Arrows first? – a qualitative exploration of how mechanistic organic chemistry is taught in the A-level curriculum in England†

Student difficulties with the curly-arrow model in mechanistic organic chemistry have been the subject of a great deal of research. The inclusion of curly arrow mechanisms in an organic chemistry curriculum presents an opportunity for students to develop skills in problem solving which are useful both in higher education and employment so the topic has utility beyond content knowledge. An arrows first approach to organic mechanism has been suggested as an effective teaching strategy to prevent the development of misconceptions which may undermine a student's achievement and cause difficulties with further study. Through the lens of the A-level in chemistry, a regulated national qualification covering significant mechanistic chemistry content, we have evaluated a range of evidence to explore how mechanistic organic chemistry is taught. Taking a holistic overview of the curriculum we show that many aspects of the curriculum support an arrows first approach to teaching including the implemented and assessed curriculum, both influenced by examination boards. However we also found that a much larger proportion of teaching time, effort and assessment is devoted to case-study mechanisms, generally organised by functional group. These may be memorised by students, undermining an arrows first focus. Moreover, although we found our sample of teacher respondents were generally positive about teaching the fundamentals of the curly arrow model we also found a lack of accessible classroom resources and professional development to support teaching using an arrows first approach. In light of the published aims of the A-level in chemistry, this research has implications for policy and practice in the 16–18 chemistry curriculum for educators, examination boards and regulators.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.80
自引率
26.70%
发文量
64
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: The journal for teachers, researchers and other practitioners in chemistry education.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信