ACS Publications. Most Trusted. Most Cited. Most Read
Exploring the Concept of Valence and the Nature of Science via Generative Artificial Intelligence and General Chemistry Textbooks
More

OR SEARCH CITATIONS

My Activity
Publications

Figure 1Loading Img
Download Hi-Res ImageDownload to MS-PowerPointCite This:J. Chem. Educ. 2024, 101, 8, 3276-3283
  • Open Access
Article

Exploring the Concept of Valence and the Nature of Science via Generative Artificial Intelligence and General Chemistry Textbooks
Click to copy article linkArticle link copied!

  • Rebecca M. Jones*
    Rebecca M. Jones
    Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry, George Mason University, 4400 University Drive, Fairfax, Virginia 22030, United States
    *E-mail: [email protected]
    More by Rebecca M. Jones
    Orcidhttps://orcid.org/0000-0002-8896-0529
  • Eva-Maria Rudler
    Eva-Maria Rudler
    Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry, George Mason University, 4400 University Drive, Fairfax, Virginia 22030, United States
    More by Eva-Maria Rudler
  • Conner Preston
    Conner Preston
    Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry, George Mason University, 4400 University Drive, Fairfax, Virginia 22030, United States
    More by Conner Preston
Open PDFSupporting Information (2)

Journal of Chemical Education

Cite this: J. Chem. Educ. 2024, 101, 8, 3276–3283
Click to copy citationCitation copied!
https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jchemed.4c00271
Published July 29, 2024

Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by American Chemical Society and Division of Chemical Education, Inc. This publication is licensed under

CC-BY 4.0 .

Abstract

Click to copy section linkSection link copied!
High Resolution Image
Download MS PowerPoint Slide

Like science itself, our understanding of chemical concepts and the way we teach them change over time. This paper explores historical and modern perspectives of the concept of valence in the context of collegiate general chemistry and draws comparisons to responses from generative artificial intelligence (genAI) tools such as ChatGPT. A fundamental concept in chemistry, valence in the early and mid-20th century was primarily defined as the “combining capacity” of atoms. Twenty-first century textbooks do not include this historical definition but rather use valence as an adjective to modify other nouns, e.g., valence electron or valence orbital. To explore these different perspectives in other information sources that could be used by students, we used a systematic series of prompts about valence to analyze the responses from ChatGPT, Bard, Liner, and ChatSonic from September and December 2023. Our findings show the historical definition is very common in responses to prompts which use valence or valency as a noun but less common when prompts include valence as an adjective. Regarding this concept, the state-of-the-art genAI tools are more consistent with textbooks from the 1950s than modern collegiate general chemistry textbooks. These findings present an opportunity for chemistry educators to observe and discuss with students the nature of science and how our understanding of chemistry changes. Including implications for educators, we present an example activity that may be deployed in general chemistry classes.

This publication is licensed under

CC-BY 4.0 .
  • cc licence
  • by licence
Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by American Chemical Society and Division of Chemical Education, Inc.

Subjects

what are subjects

Keywords

what are keywords

Special Issue

Published as part of Journal of Chemical Education virtual special issue “Investigating the Uses and Impacts of Generative Artificial Intelligence in Chemistry Education”.

Introduction

Click to copy section linkSection link copied!
Conceptual understanding is a core goal of chemistry education. As educators, we can use various methods and tools to present concepts and assess competencies. Besides instructor curated materials, students can also seek supplemental and alternative resources (e.g., YouTube, Wikipedia, or ChatGPT) which may be easier to access and appear more helpful. In 2023, Lawrie observed “students have transitioned from resources that were 100% text-based printed matter including images to 100% digital resources, often multimodal, dynamic and interactive”. (1) This shift in how chemistry concepts are experienced and learned reflects the nature of the science itself. In this paper, we explore how generative artificial intelligence (genAI) tools, like ChatGPT, can demonstrate the nature of science as it relates to the concept of valence.
The nature of science refers to how scientific knowledge is created: curiosity and scientific inquiry lead to experiments and empirical data, which may be interpreted and synthesized into new models and concepts, thereby increasing our understanding of the topic being explored. A vital component of scientific literacy, understanding the nature of science has been an implicit learning outcome in science classrooms for over 100 years (2) and, more recently, has been considered important enough to merit explicit inclusion into science curricula. (3) The National Science Teachers Association explain that “understanding of the nature of science enhances students’ understandings of science concepts and enables them to make informed decisions about scientifically-based personal and societal issues.” (4) An appreciation of the nature of science can help students grasp how scientific knowledge changes over time and why scholars do not always agree. The nature of science provides a framework for comprehending how scientific knowledge can be concurrently trustworthy and open to revision. (5)
Historical examples have been used to effectively demonstrate how chemistry concepts have changed over time, providing students an opportunity to learn about the nature of science. Schultz and Gere developed a writing-to-learn activity which demonstrates the changeability of the nature of science. (6) In their activity, students read a historical article written by Lewis and compared it to the ideas taught in their class. Making connections to the nature of science and the human component, Aparicio and Elizalde describe the historical story related to the structure of water and use the human dimension to demonstrate basic tenets of the nature of science. (7)
For this project, we consider the concept of valence, an idea often taught in the first semester of college general chemistry classes. The manner in which valence is explained to college chemistry students has changed significantly over the last 130 years. In the 19th century, Elijah Paddock Harris, a professor of chemistry at Amherst College described valency as ″the quantitative value in chemical force of the different atoms···shown, by uniting elementary substances and decomposing compounds, that each kind of atom has, under the same circumstances, a certain quantity of combining power”. (8) The perspective of valence as “combining power” or “combining capacity” is connected to the etymology of the term from the Latin valentia, which means vigor or capacity. In 1917, after the subatomic particles had been discovered, the definition of valence began to change, as seen in the writings of Henry Carlton Smith; valence was described as ″a property of atoms and represents their combining power relative to hydrogen measured, perhaps, by loss or gain of electrons”. (9) In the writings of American chemists and educators G.N. Lewis (10,11) and Linus Pauling (12,13) and in other works from the 20th century, we see connections being made to (presumably valence) electrons. Table 1 includes five quotes related to this concept from select general chemistry textbooks published from 1950 to 1980. The preelectron concept of “combining capacity” endures in textbooks well into the 20th century.
Table 1. Selected Quotes Regarding the Concept of Valence from 20th Century Textbooks Published in the United States
Book TitleAuthor(s)YearQuote regarding valence
College chemistry: an introductory textbook of general chemistryLinus Pauling (14)1950“some elements have a definite combining power or valence, from Latin valentia for vigor or capacity”
College ChemistryScarlett (15)1956″the capacity of the atom of an element to hold hydrogen atoms in combination″
General ChemistryNebergall and Schmidt (16)1959″combining capacity″ or valence determines the number of others atoms with which an atom of an element can combine.”
General ChemistryBrown (17)1963“the capacity of an atom to enter into chemical combination with other atoms”
General College ChemistryKeenan (18)1980valence is ″combining capacity″, also discusses ″valence electrons″ as “those electrons in the outermost energy levels”
In contrast to these historical texts, modern textbooks from the 21st century use the word valence only as an adjective coupled with a noun, as in “valence electrons”, “valence orbitals”, “valence shell”, and “valence-bond theory”. (19−23) Textbooks now include detailed examples of how valence electrons can be used to sketch Lewis structures, and valence bond theory can be used to explain the equivalent bonds in methane. Textbooks from the 21st century do not include the definition of “combining power”, but rather the concept of valence is connected to the “outermost electrons” in an atom.
Similar to modern collegiate general chemistry textbooks, we use the term valence to refer to the outermost or valence electrons of an atom, which are able to participate in bonding. We recognize the term valency, common in British English, as being synonymous with “valence”. We define a valence electron as one in the outer shell or orbital of an atom that can participate in chemical bonding with other atoms. The valence shell is the outermost layer of orbitals in an atom (often with highest n quantum number, e.g., 2s and 2p for O) where valence electrons are located. Valence orbitals describe the probable region around the atom where the valence electrons are located. From our research of historical chemistry textbooks and sources, we define “combining power” or “combining capacity” as a numerical quantity ascribed to a particular element on the basis of empirical data regarding how it has been shown to combine chemically with other elements. Over the last 120 years, the concept of valence has progressed from being a fixed value for an element defining its “combining capacity” to a descriptive adjective regarding shells, orbitals, electrons, bond theory, and more.
While examining the shifts of the concept of valence in textbooks, we also explored alternative digital resources that students may use to study and learn chemistry, taking particular interest in generative AI. For the purposes of this project, generative AI (genAI) refers to the recently released large language models, such as ChatGPT, which use statistical analysis of source material to generate probabilistic plain language responses to user prompts or questions. These models are receiving increasing attention, and educators have begun to assess how they might impact chemistry education. West et al. analyzed the ability for ChatGPT to write a lab report and collected data on student awareness of genAI. (24) Leon and Vidhani explored the accuracy of ChatGPT in answering chemical questions, observing that it generally struggles with complex concepts and produces caried answers regardless of the prompt. (25) In their paper evaluating ChatGPT responses, Fergus et al. conclude this “disruptive technology” could be useful for catalyzing change in assessment practices. (26) Watts et al. present a detailed quantitative analysis of how genAI responses compare to student responses in a writing-to-learn assignment. (27) In exploring how ChatGPT might be leveraged to promote critical thinking, Guo and Lee identify the need for training of educators to effectively incorporate these tools. (28)
In this study, we used multiple genAI tools to explore the concept of valence and related terms. We assessed the responses from multiple prompts over two different times and compared those responses to modern and historical perspectives on the concept. For the purposes of our analysis, a historical definition is one that includes “combining power” or “combining capacity”, phrases that are not present in any of the 21st century textbooks we reviewed. A modern definition is also one which uses valence in combination with another term, such as valence electron. We acknowledge the concept of valence is very nuanced and these modern and historical definitions of valence are, in fact, not mutually exclusive. Our labels of the various definitions of valence are meant to enable critical comparison of the genAI output and not imply one is more correct than another.

Methods

Click to copy section linkSection link copied!

Selection of genAI Tools

To assess the comparative performance of various genAI sources, comprehensive research was conducted to identify the most frequently used genAI tools in late 2023. Four distinct tools─ChatGPT, Liner, ChatSonic, and Bard─were chosen for the study. We understand that these tools are changing over time and respond differently to prompts, so we collected data from multiple prompts and over two separate times; the date, version type, input, and complete exact output of each genAI tool were documented each time they were utilized.

Collection and Analysis of Responses

Table 2 shows the two main prompts and the variable terms we used in our investigation. The prompts selected for this project were inspired by direct observation and communication with undergraduate general chemistry students, who have anecdotally indicated regular use of genAI tools to help with various tasks, such as lab reports, homework, and preparing for exams. Considering these experiences, we developed prompts that are very simple and straightforward to mirror potential inquiries that a novice general chemistry student might pose about valence. We acknowledge that this approach restricts the output of the genAI tools and that more specific or fully developed prompts would yield different results. However, this condition was acceptable, as we aimed to replicate potential queries of an average student and approximate how general chemistry students might typically utilize such resources.
Table 2. Summary of Prompts
General prompt A:“define ______ as it relates to chemistry”
Variable termFull prompt
valence“define valence as it relates to chemistry”
valency“define valency as it relates to chemistry”
valence electron“define valence electron as it relates to chemistry”
valence orbital“define valence orbital as it relates to chemistry”
valence shell“define valence shell as it relates to chemistry”
General prompt B:″define valence from a _______ perspective
Variable termFull prompt
general chemistry″define valence from a general chemistry perspective″
biochemistry″define valence from a biochemistry perspective
physical chemistry″define valence from a physical chemistry perspective″
organic chemistry″define valence from an organic chemistry perspective″
inorganic chemistry″define valence from an inorganic chemistry perspective″
Each iteration (September 2023 and December 2023) was completed within a single day, hopefully mitigating the impact of changes in sampled text or version updates across different days. The generated responses were then systematically copied and pasted into a spreadsheet for subsequent analysis. This procedure was replicated three months later to investigate whether there were any alterations in the responses over time. Upon completion of data collection, the responses were thoroughly reviewed and compared. Specific phrases and concepts of interest were identified, and their frequency across each response was documented. This quantitative approach provided insights into the variations and consistencies in the genAI responses, contributing to a comprehensive analysis of the selected genAI sources in relation to the chemistry concepts surrounding valence.

Results

Click to copy section linkSection link copied!

Comparison of Responses to Prompt A

The responses to prompts requesting definitions of valence, valency, valence electron, valence orbital, and valence shell reveal intriguing patterns and distinctions. When focusing on the singular concept of valence, we observe frequent reference to the historical definitions (Table 3). The responses highlight the significance of valence in structural arrangements and bonding, with a recurring theme of combining power. The relationship between valence number and the potential for bond formation is also observed, elevating the intrinsic “combining power” value of valence as a distinct characteristic. Similarly, the investigation into “valency” yields parallel results, with definitions consistently revolving around outermost electrons and their role in shaping structure and bonding. The interchangeable use of terms valence and valency aligns with our perceived synonymity of the two terms.
Table 3. Examples of responses From genAI tools to General Prompt A
Variable TermRepresentative quote from genAI responses
valence or valency“In chemistry, valence (US spelling) or valency (British spelling) is a measure of the combining capacity of an atom with other atoms when it forms chemical compounds or molecules.” (29)
“Valency in chemistry is a term used to describe the combining power or the number of chemical bonds an atom of a particular element can form with other atoms.” (30)
“In chemistry, ″valency″ (sometimes spelled ″valence″) refers to the combining capacity or the number of chemical bonds that an atom of a particular element can form when it reacts with other atoms.” (31)
valence electron“In chemistry, a valence electron is an electron that is located in the outermost energy level or shell of an atom.” (31)
“In chemistry, a valence electron refers to an electron that is located in the outermost energy level or shell of an atom. These electrons are involved in the formation of chemical bonds and determine the reactivity and bonding behavior of an element. The valence electrons are crucial in determining the valency, or combining power, of an atom.” (32)
valence orbital“a valence orbital refers to the specific region or space around an atom where its valence electrons are most likely to be found. It is also known as the outermost electron shell or the highest energy level of an atom.” (33)
valence shell“the valence shell refers to the outermost energy level or electron shell of an atom. It is the shell where valence electrons, which are involved in the formation of chemical bonds, are found. The valence shell determines the chemical properties and reactivity of an atom. The valence shell is also known as the outermost shell or the highest energy level.” (32)
“The valence shell determines the chemical behavior and reactivity of an atom. The number of electrons in the valence shell determines the atom’s valence, or combining capacity, and influences its ability to form chemical bonds.” (34)
When comparing the results obtained three months apart, we observe discernible disparities concerning the historical versus modern definitions of valence. Figure 1 illustrates the frequency of the appearance of the historical definitions. Across all the genAI tools sampled, responses to the variable terms valence and valency consistently incorporate references to either combining power or combining capacity. When the prompt included “valence” as an adjective in the variable term (e.g., “valence electron,″), the responses become more consistent with our modern understanding. They incorporate modern concepts such as electron configuration and stability, with only one source mentioning combining power. Responses regarding valence orbital are similarly modern and also incorporate concepts like hybridization. In the case of valence shell, the responses encompass bonding, stability, and electron gain or loss, with a subtle mention of combining power in only one source. The responses take the modern perspective relating valence shell to the outermost electron shell in the context of chemical interactions.

Figure 1

Figure 1. Comparison of appearance frequency of the historical definition (combining power or combining capacity) across the four sampled GenAI tools with respect to the variable term in the prompt. Data are shown from the two collection times: September 2023 (blue) and December 2023 (orange).

High Resolution Image
Download MS PowerPoint Slide
One noteworthy exception is observed in the December data from Liner, which does not use the historical definition at all in relation to valence. Interestingly, this response still encapsulates the essence of atoms combining, asserting that ″the valence of an element determines the number of other atoms with which an atom of that element can combine, influencing chemical bonding and molecular structure.″ In the response from September, (33) we do not see the phrase “combining capacity”, but the phrase was observed in the December response: “The number of valence electrons an atom possesses determines its valence, or combining capacity, and influences the types of bonds it can form.” Additionally, when the more specific and modern phrases─valence electron, valence orbital, and valence shell─are used as the variable term in the prompt, we see the incorporation of the historical definition much less frequently, with valence orbital notably never directly referencing “combining power” or “combining capacity and the other two only observed in one out of four responses.

Changes in Responses over Time

Table 4 summarizes the word counts for the full genAI responses to Prompt A, where only a single word in the prompt was altered, and the prompt was deployed across multiple genAI sources. Responses connected to the noun terms valence and valency are generally shorter than those for their modern counterparts, where valence is used as an adjective─valence orbital, valence shell, and valence electron. Additionally, a distinct pattern is evident when evaluating results by individual genAI sources. Notably, ChatSonic consistently exhibits a markedly lower word count in its responses compared to any other AI source. Furthermore, a temporal analysis reveals that responses generated by ChatGPT became shorter overall in the December data, suggesting some shift in its generative patterns. Conversely, responses from Bard exhibited a significant increase in word count over the same period. These findings illuminate variations in word counts across different genAI sources and highlight some dynamic shifts in response lengths over time.
Table 4. Summary of Word Counts for genAI Responses to Prompt A
 ChatGPTLinerChatSonicBard
PromptSept (31)Dec (30)Sept (32)Dec (35)Sept (33)Dec (36)Sept (29)Dec (34)
“define valence as it relates to chemistry”1651421013269898244298
“define valency as it relates to chemistry”10819116416698100220316
“define valence electron as it relates to chemistry17510929323410699206356
define valence orbital as it relates to chemistry35520130332110297239368
define valence shell as it relates to chemistry2091573011809596243398
Average Count20216023224510098230347

Comparison of Responses to Prompt B

We further explored the term valence in relation to different subdivisions of chemistry typically encountered by students: general, biochemistry, organic, inorganic, and physical. The ChatGPT responses shed light on the variation of perspectives on this term (Table 5) and generally show consistent use of the historical definition.
Table 5. Selections from ChatGPT Responses to Prompts Related to Different Divisions of Chemistry
PromptResponse from September 2023 (31)Response from December 2023 (30)
″define valence from a general perspective”“In general chemistry, ″valence″ refers to the combining capacity or the number of chemical bonds that an atom of a particular element can form when it participates in the formation of compounds.”“In general chemistry, valence refers to the combining capacity of an element.”
″define valence from a biochemistry perspective”“In biochemistry, ″valence″ is not typically used as a central concept in the same way it is in general or inorganic chemistry··· Valence is a fundamental concept that helps explain how elements interact with each other to create molecules and compounds.”“in biochemistry, valence refers to the combining capacity of an atom”
″define valence from an organic chemistry perspective”“In organic chemistry, ″valence″ refers to the combining capacity or the number of covalent bonds that an atom of a particular element can form when it participates in organic compounds.”“In organic chemistry, valence refers to the number of covalent bonds that an atom of a particular element typically forms when it participates in organic compounds.”
″define valence from an inorganic chemistry perspective”“In inorganic chemistry, ″valence″ refers to the combining capacity or the number of chemical bonds that an atom of a particular element can form in the context of chemical compounds”“In inorganic chemistry, valence refers to the combining capacity of an element, specifically in the context of its ability to form chemical bonds.”
″define valence from a physical chemistry perspective”“In physical chemistry, ″valence″ refers to the number of chemical bonds that an atom of a particular element can form with other atoms”“In physical chemistry, valence encompasses various theoretical and experimental concepts related to the electronic structure and bonding of atoms and molecules.”
Every response to Prompt B collected in September incorporates a version of the historical definition. For example, in general chemistry, the responses encompass combining capacity and highlight the fundamental role of valence in understanding chemical interactions. In relation to organic chemistry, ChatGPT provides a very brief definition, again referencing the combination of capacity and framing valence in the context of carbon interactions. The definition of valence in relation to inorganic chemistry closely resembles that of general chemistry but shifts the perspective to “complex ions” and “coordination compounds.″ Lacking the phrase “combining capacity” or “combining power”, both responses related to biochemistry and physical chemistry in September seem to deviate from the trend. However, upon careful scrutiny, these responses still implicitly reference the ability to form bonds with other atoms, indicating a connection to the historical definition centered around combining.
The December data consistently includes the explicit phrase “combining capacity” (or general idea) but also highlights the link between oxidation state and valence and provides concrete examples rooted in periodic trends. The responses related to physical chemistry emphasize the “number of chemical bonds” an atom can form. The responses also imply the complicated nature of this term and its connections to both theoretical and experimental concepts. Notably, the physical chemistry response in December does not mention the historical definition, aligning more closely with a modern definition; these observations suggest differences in the genAI algorithm or text being sampled over the two collection periods.

Discussion

Click to copy section linkSection link copied!
General chemistry students in the 21st century can encounter chemical concepts in multiple ways beyond the classroom. In this project, we aimed to understand how students might encounter the concept of valence by using generative AI tools. We also aimed to compare those genAI responses to various historical and modern perspectives of valence. Our results show a clear trend to define valence as “combining capacity” or “combining power”, which we describe as a historical perspective. Definitions more closely match our modern perspective when we use valence as an adjective, modifying the terms shell, orbital, etc. Generally, the historical definition was less prevalent as the variable terms became more specific, with only a few prompts returning any mention of it. Results where the variable term was “valence orbital” and “valence shell” were broader and less delineated than our perception of the terms, but they did encompass more details and separation than responses to prompts for the single terms valence or valency. The responses sometimes used terms in a circular fashion (i.e., using valence to define valence electrons), but this was not necessarily something we were immune to in developing our own definitions of the terms. From these results, we recognize the importance of prompt specificity when asking genAI for definitions to obtain the most accurate and current relevant results. Future work may explore genAI responses to more specified or detailed prompts.
Considering the different perspectives of the subdivisions of chemistry, we see a similar adherence to the historical definition. It is possible that the frequency of the historical definition in these responses was a product of the simple prompt itself, as we have observed that when valence was treated as a noun, the historical definition is frequently observed. There was also an interesting result in the responses to Prompt B; the responses often included concepts that were specifically applied to the relevant division. For example, responses to the prompt “define valence in relation to inorganic chemistry” include the concepts of complex ions and coordination compounds, which are common topics of inorganic chemistry. Even throughout the divisions, we found varying levels of cohesion and refinement toward a more ideal definition that aligned with our own modern definitions; the responses related to physical chemistry in December provided the most comprehensive and holistic definition from any prompt. For these prompts, there was surprisingly little change in the responses over time.
Despite many of the definitions growing larger in word count, there was not a significant change in meaning and depth. Usually, the responses were scientifically accurate, albeit sometimes presented in a confusing manner. We also observed some major errors, e.g. “each p orbital can hold up to six electrons”, (32) and occasional anthropomorphisms, e.g. “atoms typically strive to achieve a stable electron configuration” (31) in the responses. While the interval between the trials was not a conventionally large amount of time, we know that generative AI is rapidly changing. This is indicated through the changes and additions in the responses, even though they are sometimes not in the direction we were expecting. In fact, the responses to one of the prompts that had no mention of combining power in September included the historical definition three months later.
Considering the modern definitions outlined in our introduction, the genAI tool with the closest alignment to our modern definition was Bard, now known as Gemini. (37) This genAI tool provided sources for some of its key information, which could potentially assist students in assessing the accuracy of the responses they receive. For all the other tools, the responses were presented without citation, and we are unable to determine the sources being used; the prevalence of the historical definition suggests that the genAI tools were sampling from sources much older than modern textbooks. Consequently, we observe that the historical definition is particularly “sticky”, in that it is not easily forgotten despite the decades that have passed since it was used in General Chemistry textbooks.
From our study of historical chemistry texts, we see how over time, the meaning of the term valence has slowly changed in the landscape of general chemistry education. In modern General Chemistry textbooks, the idea of “combining power” is not included, but rather, valence is used as an adjective to describe those electrons involved in forming compounds. Pauling seemed to foresee this transition, when he wrote in 1947 in one of his first General Chemistry textbooks about the shifts in meaning of this term. (38)

“The effort to obtain a clear understanding of the nature of valence and of chemical combination in general, has led in recent years to the disassociation of the concept of valence into several new concepts···of ionic valence, oxidation number, covalence, coordination number, corresponding to different modes of interaction of the atoms. Some chemists have felt that the word valence might well be allowed to drop into disuse in favor of these more precise terms in practice, however, valence continues to be used as a general expression of the combining powers of the elements, or as a synonym for one or another of the more precise terms.” Pauling 1947, General Chemistry, Chapter 8, p.120

In this quote, Pauling’s affinity for the “combining power” definition is clear, but he also recognized the evolution of the term and the introduction of more specific ideas.

Implications for Educators

As this paper demonstrates, a historical definition of valence is nearly omnipresent in the responses from modern genAI tools. What other terms and concepts might these tools describe using language not found in our current textbooks? And how will our students be able to interpret modern vs historical concepts? With how rapidly new versions of these genAI tools are being released, we imagine there will be further variation in the results and perhaps a shift to a more modern perspective on the term. However, in their current state, these tools could, without a question, be a source of profound confusion for students. College and secondary school educators need to be aware that genAI tools can generate responses that are not representative of content in modern general chemistry textbooks and appear inconsistent with our modern understanding of chemistry.
In addition, we encourage educators to consider and include in their class sessions frank conversation about the ethical and moral concerns associated with generative AI tools. (39−42) Most students comprehend that plagiarism is unacceptable and we would be remiss in using genAI tools in our classes without acknowledging that the information in the responses is almost never cited properly. (43) Students also need to understand that genAI tools can create believable but completely imaginary citations. (44) Furthermore, the errors and confusing ideas we observed in the responses to our prompts compel us to communicate to students a healthy skepticism about these tools. As educators and scientists, we can and should communicate clearly that these tools are not sentient, (45−47) have no capacity for truth, (48) and are merely complex statistical algorithms (49−51) dressed up in plain language "clothing".
Considering the concept of valence, the juxtaposition of the historical definition and our modern understanding within the responses of modern genAI tools implies the development of a chemical concept over time. The findings of this study provide an opportunity to discuss the nature of science with our students. Table 6 describes a multipart in-class activity regarding these topics that utilizes think-pair-share (TPS), a recognized pedagogy for active learning in chemistry. (52−55) This activity should be deployed near and after when general chemistry students have learned about modern atomic theory, electron configurations, and valence electrons.
Table 6. Think-Pair-Share about Valence and the Nature of Science
Part 1: TPS regarding the nature of scienceInstructor prompt: “Think about the following statement: Science is a collection of facts that has always been known. Do you agree or disagree with this statement? Consider this on your own for 1–2 minutes then discuss with your partner.”
Part 2: TPS regarding valenceInstructor prompt: “We’ve been learning about valence electrons and electron configurations in the last week. How would you define the term valence? Consider this on your own for 1–2 minutes then discuss with your partner.”
Part 3: TPS with genAIInstructor prompt: “With your partner, use a generative AI tool (ChatGPT, Gemini, etc.) to explore the term valence. What do you observe about the responses you received? Write some direct quotes below and discuss.”
Part 4: DiscussionInstructor led class discussion about how valence has been defined both by students and using genAI. Draw connections to how this relates to the nature of science.
Using three scaffolded think-pair-share exercises (Parts 1–3) and the results discussed in this paper, a general chemistry instructor can guide a class discussion (Part 4) regarding how the term valence has been interpreted differently over time and how these differences connect to the malleable nature of science itself. Refining the prompt used in Part 3 may yield interesting responses and create new learning opportunities for students. The discussion in Part 4 may explore how and why the concept of “combining capacity” is no longer included in our collegiate general chemistry textbooks and how, as Pauling predicted, other more descriptive terms are preferred. Instructors may use activities like this to support learning interdisciplinary concepts from the Next Generation Science Standards, (56) such as Scientific Knowledge is Open to Revision in Light of New Evidence. (57) This think-pair-share activity could also be adapted to explore the historical development of other concepts in chemistry and make connections to the nature of science.

Conclusions

Click to copy section linkSection link copied!
This paper presents historical and modern perspectives on the term valence and describes a systematic review of responses from modern generative AI tools in the context of collegiate general chemistry. We observe a prevalence of the historical definitions of “combining capacity” or “combining power” in the responses from genAI tools as well as in textbooks from the early to mid-20th century which tend to use valence as a noun. Modern textbooks use valence as an adjective to modify other nouns related to electron structure such as electron or valence orbital. The shift in meaning and usage of this term is an example of the nature of science itself in that our understanding of chemistry and the manner we teach it is open to revision. Combining historical and modern perspectives with genAI tools, thoughtful in-class activities can model how chemistry has changed over time and create innovative opportunities for student learning.

Supporting Information

Click to copy section linkSection link copied!

The Supporting Information is available at https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.jchemed.4c00271.

  • genAI prompts used and full responses collected on two separate dates (PDF, XLSX)

Terms & Conditions

Most electronic Supporting Information files are available without a subscription to ACS Web Editions. Such files may be downloaded by article for research use (if there is a public use license linked to the relevant article, that license may permit other uses). Permission may be obtained from ACS for other uses through requests via the RightsLink permission system: http://pubs.acs.org/page/copyright/permissions.html.

Author Information

Click to copy section linkSection link copied!
  • Corresponding Author
  • Authors
    • Eva-Maria Rudler - Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry, George Mason University, 4400 University Drive, Fairfax, Virginia 22030, United States
    • Conner Preston - Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry, George Mason University, 4400 University Drive, Fairfax, Virginia 22030, United States
  • Author Contributions

    R.M.J.: conceptualization, methodology, investigation, writing–original draft, writing–review and editing, visualization, E.R.: methodology, investigation, analysis, writing–original draft, writing–review and editing, C.P.: investigation, analysis, writing–original draft

  • Notes
    The authors declare no competing financial interest.

Acknowledgments

Click to copy section linkSection link copied!

The authors acknowledge the support of the Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry at George Mason University. R.M.J. thanks Dr. Mary Emenike (Rutgers University) for helpful conversation and acknowledges the support of the College of Science STEM Accelerator and Dr. Mary Crowe. E.R. thanks Dr. Ozlem Dilek and C.P. thanks Dr. Lee Solomon for their support of this project.

References

Click to copy section linkSection link copied!

This article references 57 other publications.

  1. 1
    Lawrie, G. Establishing a Delicate Balance in the Relationship between Artificial Intelligence and Authentic Assessment in Student Learning. Chem. Educ. Res. Pract. 2023, 24 (2), 392– 393,  DOI: 10.1039/D3RP90003G
    Google Scholar
    There is no corresponding record for this reference.
  2. 2
    Lederman, N. G. Students’ and Teachers’ Conceptions of the Nature of Science: A Review of the Research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 1992, 29 (4), 331– 359,  DOI: 10.1002/tea.3660290404
    Google Scholar
    There is no corresponding record for this reference.
  3. 3
    American Chemical Society. Middle & High School Chemistry Guidelines. American Chemical Society. https://www.acs.org/education/policies/middle-and-high-school-chemistry.html (accessed 2023–12–04).
    Google Scholar
    There is no corresponding record for this reference.
  4. 4
    National Science Teachers Association. Nature of Science Position Statement. https://www.nsta.org/nstas-official-positions/nature-science (accessed 2023–12–04).
    Google Scholar
    There is no corresponding record for this reference.
  5. 5
    Ibrahim, B.; Buffler, A.; Lubben, F. Profiles of Freshman Physics Students’ Views on the Nature of Science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 2009, 46 (3), 248– 264,  DOI: 10.1002/tea.20219
    Google Scholar
    There is no corresponding record for this reference.
  6. 6
    Shultz, G. V.; Gere, A. R. Writing-to-Learn the Nature of Science in the Context of the Lewis Dot Structure Model. J. Chem. Educ. 2015, 92 (8), 1325– 1329,  DOI: 10.1021/acs.jchemed.5b00064
    Google Scholar
    6
    Writing-to-Learn the Nature of Science in the Context of the Lewis Dot Structure Model
    Shultz, Ginger V.; Gere, Anne Ruggles
    Journal of Chemical Education (2015), 92 (8), 1325-1329CODEN: JCEDA8; ISSN:0021-9584. (American Chemical Society and Division of Chemical Education, Inc.)
    Traditional methods for teaching the Lewis dot structure model emphasize rule-based learning and often neglect the purpose and function of the model. Thus, many students are unable to extend their understanding of mol. structures in new contexts. The assignment described here addresses this issue by asking students to read and write about the 1916 paper, in which Lewis proposed the original ideas that led to the dot structure model taught in modern general chem. courses. This directed writing-to-learn approach is designed to promote conceptual learning of the Lewis dot structure model and to transform students' beliefs about the nature of science as they evaluate the early model presented by Lewis and compare it to the conventional model taught in lecture. Participating students responded to a pre-post survey, which indicated modest gains in their conceptions of the nature of science. The assignment is designed for college-level general chem. students but may be modified for use in high school chem. and is generally transportable to other fundamental topics in chem. in which accessible literature is available as an appropriate source for directed reading and writing.
    >> More from SciFinder ®
    https://chemport.cas.org/services/resolver?origin=ACS&resolution=options&coi=1%3ACAS%3A528%3ADC%252BC2MXovVSgsbo%253D&md5=df8cf687a83bf432e1414e346d344aa5
  7. 7
    Aparicio, J. L.; Elizalde, M. P. From Water to H 2 O: Using the Human Dimension of Science To Teach the Nature of Science. J. Chem. Educ. 2018, 95 (10), 1763– 1770,  DOI: 10.1021/acs.jchemed.8b00060
    Google Scholar
    There is no corresponding record for this reference.
  8. 8
    Harris, E. P. Lecture Notes on General Chemistry, Rev. ed.; Northampton, Mass., 1888.
    Google Scholar
    There is no corresponding record for this reference.
  9. 9
    Smith, H. C. Lecture-Notes on Chemistry for Dental Students; John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, 1917.
    Google Scholar
    There is no corresponding record for this reference.
  10. 10
    Lewis, G. N. The Atom and the Molecule. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1916, 38 (4), 762– 785,  DOI: 10.1021/ja02261a002
    Google Scholar
    10
    The atom and the molecule
    Lewis, G. N.
    Journal of the American Chemical Society (1916), 38 (), 762-85CODEN: JACSAT; ISSN:0002-7863.
    cf. C. A. 71 3865 and Bray and Branch, C. A. 7, 3865. Compds. should be classed as polar and nonpolar rather than inorg. and org. These classes are roughly the same. A nonpolar mol. is one in which the electrons belonging to the individual atom are held by such restraints that they do not move far from their normal positions, while in the polar mols. the electrons, being more mobile, so move as to sep. the mol. into positive and negative parts. In an extremely polar mol. such as NaCl it is probable that in the great majority of the mols. the Cl atom has acquired a unit negative charge and therefore the Na atom a unit positive charge, and the process of ionization probably consists only in a further sepn. of these charged parts. If a weakly polar mol. comes into the neighborhood of a more polar one it becomes itself more polar. In this process the weaker bipole stretches and its moment increases. A "cubical atom" is proposed as a basis of a new theory of atomic structure. Thus Li is a cube with a single electron on one corner, Be has 2 electrons, B 3, C 4, N 5, O 6, and F 7. This view is in harmony with the theory developed by Parson, C. A. 10, 406. An atom is considered as having an unalterable kernel which possesses an excess of positive charges corresponding in number to the ordinal number of the group in the periodic table to which the element belongs (cf. Thomson, C. A. 8, 824). There is a shell of electrons around the kernel which, in the case of a neutral atom, contains negative electrons equal in number to the excess of positive charges of the kernel, but the number of electrons in the shell may vary during chem. changes between zero and 8. The atom tends to hold an even number of electrons in the shell (especially 8 at the corners of the cube) but the electrons may ordinarily pass from one position to another in this shell. Two atomic shells are mutually interpenetrable. The paper is a discussion of these ideas applied to the structure of atoms and compds.
    >> More from SciFinder ®
    https://chemport.cas.org/services/resolver?origin=ACS&resolution=options&coi=1%3ACAS%3A528%3ADyaC28XlvFSl&md5=9f8b4fdf6c255a1c60dafaad766c9d3a
  11. 11
    Lewis, G. N. Valence and the Structure of Atoms and Molecules; Dover Publications: New York, 1966.
    Google Scholar
    There is no corresponding record for this reference.
  12. 12
    Pauling, L. The Modern Theory of Valency. J. Chem. Soc. 1948, 1461– 1467,  DOI: 10.1039/jr9480001461
    Google Scholar
    12
    The modern theory of valency
    Pauling, Linus
    Journal of the Chemical Society (1948), (), 1461-7CODEN: JCSOA9; ISSN:0368-1769.
    An address.
    >> More from SciFinder ®
    https://chemport.cas.org/services/resolver?origin=ACS&resolution=options&coi=1%3ACAS%3A528%3ADyaH1MXlslyh&md5=7ead609f642c4a18d7738a6705a4055f
  13. 13
    Pauling, L. The Nature of the Chemical Bond and the Structure of Molecules and Crystals: An Introduction to Modern Structural Chemistry, 2d ed.; The George Fisher Baker non-resident lectureship in chemistry at Cornell University; 18; Cornell University Press: Ithaca, NY, 1945.
    Google Scholar
    There is no corresponding record for this reference.
  14. 14
    Pauling, L. College Chemistry: An Introductory Textbook of General Chemistry; A Series of chemistry texts; W.H. Freeman: San Francisco, 1950.
    Google Scholar
    There is no corresponding record for this reference.
  15. 15
    Scarlett, A. J. College Chemistry; New York, Holt, 1956.
    Google Scholar
    There is no corresponding record for this reference.
  16. 16
    Nebergall, W. H.; Schmidt, F. C. General Chemistry; Bailar, J. C., Jr, Ed.; D.C. Heath and Company: Boston, 1959.
    Google Scholar
    There is no corresponding record for this reference.
  17. 17
    Brown, T. L. General Chemistry, 1st ed..; C.E. Merrill Books: Columbus, OH, 1963.
    Google Scholar
    There is no corresponding record for this reference.
  18. 18
    Keenan, C. W. General College Chemistry, 6th ed.; Harper & Row: San Francisco, 1980.
    Google Scholar
    There is no corresponding record for this reference.
  19. 19
    Silberberg, M. S. Principles of General Chemistry, 3rd ed.; McGraw-Hill: New York, 2013.
    Google Scholar
    There is no corresponding record for this reference.
  20. 20
    Chang, R.; Goldsby, K. A. Chemistry, Twelfth ed.; McGraw-Hill Education: New York, NY, 2016.
    Google Scholar
    There is no corresponding record for this reference.
  21. 21
    Zumdahl, S. S.; Zumdahl, S. A. Chemistry: An Atoms First Approach, Second ed.; Cengage Learning: Boston, MA, USA, 2016.
    Google Scholar
    There is no corresponding record for this reference.
  22. 22
    Silberberg, M. S.; Amateis, P. Chemistry: The Molecular Nature of Matter and Change, Ninth ed.; McGraw-Hill Education: Dubuque, 2021.
    Google Scholar
    There is no corresponding record for this reference.
  23. 23
    Gilbert, T. R.; Kirss, R. V.; Bretz, S. L.; Foster, N. Chemistry: The Science in Context, Sixth ed.; W. W. Norton & Company: New York, 2020.
    Google Scholar
    There is no corresponding record for this reference.
  24. 24
    West, J. K.; Franz, J. L.; Hein, S. M.; Leverentz-Culp, H. R.; Mauser, J. F.; Ruff, E. F.; Zemke, J. M. An Analysis of AI-Generated Laboratory Reports across the Chemistry Curriculum and Student Perceptions of ChatGPT. J. Chem. Educ. 2023, 100 (11), 4351– 4359,  DOI: 10.1021/acs.jchemed.3c00581
    Google Scholar
    There is no corresponding record for this reference.
  25. 25
    Leon, A. J.; Vidhani, D. ChatGPT Needs a Chemistry Tutor Too. J. Chem. Educ. 2023, 100 (10), 3859– 3865,  DOI: 10.1021/acs.jchemed.3c00288
    Google Scholar
    There is no corresponding record for this reference.
  26. 26
    Fergus, S.; Botha, M.; Ostovar, M. Evaluating Academic Answers Generated Using ChatGPT. J. Chem. Educ. 2023, 100 (4), 1672– 1675,  DOI: 10.1021/acs.jchemed.3c00087
    Google Scholar
    26
    Evaluating academic answers generated using ChatGPT
    Fergus, Suzanne; Botha, Michelle; Ostovar, Mehrnoosh
    Journal of Chemical Education (2023), 100 (4), 1672-1675CODEN: JCEDA8; ISSN:0021-9584. (American Chemical Society and Division of Chemical Education, Inc.)
    The integration of technol. in education has become ever more prioritized since the COVID-19 pandemic. Chat Generative Pre-Trained Transformer (ChatGPT) is an artificial intelligence technol. that generates conversational interactions to user prompts. The trained model can answer follow up questions, admit its mistakes, challenge incorrect premises, and reject inappropriate requests. The functionality of ChatGPT in answering chem. assessment questions required investigation to ascertain its potential impact on learning and assessment. Two chem.-focused modules in Year 1 and Year 2 of a Pharmaceutical Science program were used to study and evaluate ChatGPT generated responses in relation to the end of year exam assessments. For questions that focused on knowledge and understanding with "describe" and "discuss" verbs, the ChatGPT generated responses. For questions that focused on application of knowledge and interpretation with nontext information, the ChatGPT technol. reached a limitation. A further anal. of the quality of responses is reported in this study. ChatGPT is not considered a high-risk technol. tool in relation to cheating. Similar to the COVID-19 disruption, ChatGPT is expected to provide a catalyst for educational discussions on academic integrity and assessment design.
    >> More from SciFinder ®
    https://chemport.cas.org/services/resolver?origin=ACS&resolution=options&coi=1%3ACAS%3A528%3ADC%252BB3sXmtlKkt7w%253D&md5=fb83cef4e5d08a075047d8d230d7ae49
  27. 27
    Watts, F. M.; Dood, A. J.; Shultz, G. V.; Rodriguez, J.-M. G. Comparing Student and Generative Artificial Intelligence Chatbot Responses to Organic Chemistry Writing-to-Learn Assignments. J. Chem. Educ. 2023, 100 (10), 3806– 3817,  DOI: 10.1021/acs.jchemed.3c00664
    Google Scholar
    There is no corresponding record for this reference.
  28. 28
    Guo, Y.; Lee, D. Leveraging ChatGPT for Enhancing Critical Thinking Skills. J. Chem. Educ. 2023, 100 (12), 4876– 4883,  DOI: 10.1021/acs.jchemed.3c00505
    Google Scholar
    There is no corresponding record for this reference.
  29. 29
    Bard (9–12–23). https://bard.google.com/chat (accessed 2023–09–12).
    Google Scholar
    There is no corresponding record for this reference.
  30. 30
    ChatGPT Version 3.5 (12–13–23). https://chat.openai.com/ (accessed 2023–12–13).
    Google Scholar
    There is no corresponding record for this reference.
  31. 31
    ChatGPT Version 3.5 (9–12–23). https://chat.openai.com/ (accessed 2023–09–12).
    Google Scholar
    There is no corresponding record for this reference.
  32. 32
    Liner (9–12–23). https://getliner.com (accessed 2023–09–12).
    Google Scholar
    There is no corresponding record for this reference.
  33. 33
    ChatSonic (9–12–23). https://app.writesonic.com (accessed 2023–09–12).
    Google Scholar
    There is no corresponding record for this reference.
  34. 34
    Open AI 2023. Bard (12–13–23). https://bard.google.com/chat (accessed 2023–12–13).
    Google Scholar
    There is no corresponding record for this reference.
  35. 35
    Liner (12–13–23). https://getliner.com (accessed 2023–12–13).
    Google Scholar
    There is no corresponding record for this reference.
  36. 36
    Open AI. ChatSonic Version 1.0.0.67 (12–13–23). https://app.writesonic.com (accessed 2023–12–13).
    Google Scholar
    There is no corresponding record for this reference.
  37. 37
    Google. Gemini. Gemini. https://gemini.google.com (accessed 2024–06–04).
    Google Scholar
    There is no corresponding record for this reference.
  38. 38
    Pauling, L. General Chemistry: An Introduction to Descriptive Chemistry and Modern Chemical Theory; W.H. Freeman: San Francisco, 1947.
    Google Scholar
    There is no corresponding record for this reference.
  39. 39
    Stahl, B. C.; Eke, D. The Ethics of ChatGPT – Exploring the Ethical Issues of an Emerging Technology. International Journal of Information Management 2024, 74, 102700  DOI: 10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2023.102700
    Google Scholar
    There is no corresponding record for this reference.
  40. 40
    Perrigo, B. OpenAI Used Kenyan Workers on Less Than $2 Per Hour to Make ChatGPT Less Toxic. TIME , January 18, 2023. https://time.com/6247678/openai-chatgpt-kenya-workers/ (accessed 2024–05–16).
    Google Scholar
    There is no corresponding record for this reference.
  41. 41
    Perrigo, B. Why Timnit Gebru Isn’t Waiting for Big Tech to Fix AI’s Problems. TIME, January 18, 2022. https://time.com/6132399/timnit-gebru-ai-google/ (accessed 2024–05–16).
    Google Scholar
    There is no corresponding record for this reference.
  42. 42
    Angwin, J.; Lawson, J.; Mattu, S.; Kirchner, L. Machine Bias. ProPublica. https://www.propublica.org/article/machine-bias-risk-assessments-in-criminal-sentencing (accessed 2024–05–16).
    Google Scholar
    There is no corresponding record for this reference.
  43. 43
    Bender, E. M.; Gebru, T.; McMillan-Major, A.; Shmitchell, S. On the Dangers of Stochastic Parrots: Can Language Models Be Too Big? In Proceedings of the 2021 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency ; ACM: Virtual Event Canada, 2021; pp 610– 623.  DOI: 10.1145/3442188.3445922 .
    Google Scholar
    There is no corresponding record for this reference.
  44. 44
    Rozear, H.; Park, S. ChatGPT and Fake Citations. Duke University Libraries Blogs. https://blogs.library.duke.edu/blog/2023/03/09/chatgpt-and-fake-citations/ (accessed 2024–06–04).
    Google Scholar
    There is no corresponding record for this reference.
  45. 45
    Li, F.-F.; Etchemendy, J. No, Today’s AI Isn’t Sentient. Here’s How We Know. Time. https://time.com/collection/time100-voices/6980134/ai-llm-not-sentient/ (accessed 2024–05–24).
    Google Scholar
    There is no corresponding record for this reference.
  46. 46
    Moscatel, R. Why ChatGPT Can’t Do Basic Math. Tomorrow’s Jobs Today. https://medium.com/tomorrows-jobs-today/why-chatgpt-cant-do-basic-math-fc1a132e9773 (accessed 2024–05–24).
    Google Scholar
    There is no corresponding record for this reference.
  47. 47
    Weil, E. You Are Not a Parrot. New Your Magazine . March 1, 2023. https://nymag.com/intelligencer/article/ai-artificial-intelligence-chatbots-emily-m-bender.html (accessed 2024–05–16).
    Google Scholar
    There is no corresponding record for this reference.
  48. 48
    Ansari, T. How Generative AI Is Gobbling Up the Internet. AIM . January 22, 2024. https://analyticsindiamag.com/how-generative-ai-is-taking-over-the-internet/ (accessed 2024–05–16).
    Google Scholar
    There is no corresponding record for this reference.
  49. 49
    University of Michigan. Getting Started with Gen AI - U-M Instructor Guide ; 2023. file:///Users/l20-n01873-exp/Downloads/Getting%20Started-Generative%20AI_U-M%20Instructor%20Guide-Accessible0923.pdf.
    Google Scholar
    There is no corresponding record for this reference.
  50. 50
    A New AI Chatbot Might Do Your Homework for You. But It’s Still Not an A+ Student. NPR , 2022. https://www.npr.org/2022/12/19/1143912956/chatgpt-ai-chatbot-homework-academia (accessed 2024–05–24).
    Google Scholar
    There is no corresponding record for this reference.
  51. 51
    Wolfram, S. What Is ChatGPT Doing... and Why Does It Work? https://writings.stephenwolfram.com/2023/02/what-is-chatgpt-doing-and-why-does-it-work/ (accessed 2024–05–24).
    Google Scholar
    There is no corresponding record for this reference.
  52. 52
    Flynn, A. B. Structure and Evaluation of Flipped Chemistry Courses: Organic & Spectroscopy, Large and Small, First to Third Year, English and French. Chem. Educ. Res. Pract. 2015, 16 (2), 198– 211,  DOI: 10.1039/C4RP00224E
    Google Scholar
    There is no corresponding record for this reference.
  53. 53
    Eichler, J. F. Future of the Flipped Classroom in Chemistry Education: Recognizing the Value of Independent Preclass Learning and Promoting Deeper Understanding of Chemical Ways of Thinking During In-Person Instruction. J. Chem. Educ. 2022, 99 (3), 1503– 1508,  DOI: 10.1021/acs.jchemed.1c01115
    Google Scholar
    53
    The future of the flipped classroom in chemistry education: Recognizing the value of independent preclass learning and promoting deeper understanding of chemical ways of thinking during in-person instruction
    Eichler, Jack F.
    Journal of Chemical Education (2022), 99 (3), 1503-1508CODEN: JCEDA8; ISSN:0021-9584. (American Chemical Society and Division of Chemical Education, Inc.)
    Studies on the efficacy of the flipped classroom structure have become more prevalent in the chem. education research literature over the past ten years, and the body of research that has been compiled appears to indicate flipped classroom structures pos. impact student learning outcomes relative to "teaching as usual" comparison groups. Though the definition of a flipped classroom is almost universally defined as a class structure in which some portion of traditional in-person didactic lecture is transformed to an independent preclass learning mode, with the traditional lecture being replaced by active learning exercises, the exact nature of the preclass and in-person leaning activities vary quite widely among the studies reported in the literature. Furthermore, though educational studies typically acknowledge that preclass learning modules can reduce cognitive load for students, researchers often emphasize increased active learning in class as the motivation for adopting the flipped classroom. This commentary will highlight the variety of instructional practices reported to be used during the in-person phase of flipped classrooms and how well-designed prelecture activities also contribute to meaningful learning. This will lead to the proposition that the flipped classroom should not be considered a teaching best practice in and of itself, but rather an in-person/independent hybrid learning scaffold that supports other evidence-based instructional practices. Chem. education researchers and practitioners are encouraged to focus their efforts on optimizing the flipped classroom for chem.-specific learning objectives, with the ongoing challenge being to promote both skill-based learning and deeper conceptual understanding of chem. ways of thinking.
    >> More from SciFinder ®
    https://chemport.cas.org/services/resolver?origin=ACS&resolution=options&coi=1%3ACAS%3A528%3ADC%252BB38Xjtl2lt7o%253D&md5=6c4716d27b3d77671cb8949f45eeff26
  54. 54
    Bamiro, A. O. Effects of Guided Discovery and Think-Pair-Share Strategies on Secondary School Students’ Achievement in Chemistry. SAGE Open 2015, 5 (1), 215824401456475  DOI: 10.1177/2158244014564754
    Google Scholar
    There is no corresponding record for this reference.
  55. 55
    Bruck, L. B.; Towns, M. H. Preparing Students To Benefit from Inquiry-Based Activities in the Chemistry Laboratory: Guidelines and Suggestions. J. Chem. Educ. 2009, 86 (7), 820,  DOI: 10.1021/ed086p820
    Google Scholar
    55
    Preparing students to benefit from inquiry-based activities in the chemistry laboratory: guidelines and suggestions
    Bruck, Laura B.; Towns, Marcy H.
    Journal of Chemical Education (2009), 86 (7), 820-822CODEN: JCEDA8; ISSN:0021-9584. (Journal of Chemical Education, Dept. of Chemistry)
    This article presents some suggestions for instructors to prep. students for inquiry-based lab. activities and explain their use in the lab. It also provides ideas for instruction before, during, and after inquiry-based activities have been introduced into the lab. curriculum.
    >> More from SciFinder ®
    https://chemport.cas.org/services/resolver?origin=ACS&resolution=options&coi=1%3ACAS%3A528%3ADC%252BD1MXnt12kuro%253D&md5=501571cdd9fb1389e230e43b86ef7421
  56. 56
    Achieve.org. Next Generation Science Standards. https://www.nextgenscience.org/search-standards (accessed 2024–06–06).
    Google Scholar
    There is no corresponding record for this reference.
  57. 57
    Achieve.org; Bybee, R. Nature of Science in the Next Generation Science Standards: APPENDIX H – Understanding the Scientific Enterprise ; 2013; pp 1– 10. https://www.nextgenscience.org/sites/default/files/Appendix%20H%20-%20The%20Nature%20of%20Science%20in%20the%20Next%20Generation%20Science%20Standards%204.15.13.pdf (accessed 2024–06–06).
    Google Scholar
    There is no corresponding record for this reference.

Cited By

Click to copy section linkSection link copied!

This article is cited by 1 publications.

  1. Ted M. Clark, Nicolas Tafini. Exploring the AI–Human Interface for Personalized Learning in a Chemical Context. Journal of Chemical Education 2024, 101 (11) , 4916-4923. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jchemed.4c00967
Download PDF
Go to Journal of Chemical Education
Get e-Alerts
Get e-Alerts

Journal of Chemical Education

Cite this: J. Chem. Educ. 2024, 101, 8, 3276–3283
Click to copy citationCitation copied!
https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jchemed.4c00271
Published July 29, 2024

Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by American Chemical Society and Division of Chemical Education, Inc. This publication is licensed under

CC-BY 4.0 .

Article Views

1154

Altmetric

-

Citations

1
Learn about these metrics

Article Views are the COUNTER-compliant sum of full text article downloads since November 2008 (both PDF and HTML) across all institutions and individuals. These metrics are regularly updated to reflect usage leading up to the last few days.

Citations are the number of other articles citing this article, calculated by Crossref and updated daily. Find more information about Crossref citation counts.

The Altmetric Attention Score is a quantitative measure of the attention that a research article has received online. Clicking on the donut icon will load a page at altmetric.com with additional details about the score and the social media presence for the given article. Find more information on the Altmetric Attention Score and how the score is calculated.

  • Abstract

    High Resolution Image
    Download MS PowerPoint Slide

    Figure 1

    Figure 1. Comparison of appearance frequency of the historical definition (combining power or combining capacity) across the four sampled GenAI tools with respect to the variable term in the prompt. Data are shown from the two collection times: September 2023 (blue) and December 2023 (orange).

    High Resolution Image
    Download MS PowerPoint Slide

  • References

    This article references 57 other publications.

    1. 1
      Lawrie, G. Establishing a Delicate Balance in the Relationship between Artificial Intelligence and Authentic Assessment in Student Learning. Chem. Educ. Res. Pract. 2023, 24 (2), 392– 393,  DOI: 10.1039/D3RP90003G
      There is no corresponding record for this reference.
    2. 2
      Lederman, N. G. Students’ and Teachers’ Conceptions of the Nature of Science: A Review of the Research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 1992, 29 (4), 331– 359,  DOI: 10.1002/tea.3660290404
      There is no corresponding record for this reference.
    3. 3
      American Chemical Society. Middle & High School Chemistry Guidelines. American Chemical Society. https://www.acs.org/education/policies/middle-and-high-school-chemistry.html (accessed 2023–12–04).
      There is no corresponding record for this reference.
    4. 4
      National Science Teachers Association. Nature of Science Position Statement. https://www.nsta.org/nstas-official-positions/nature-science (accessed 2023–12–04).
      There is no corresponding record for this reference.
    5. 5
      Ibrahim, B.; Buffler, A.; Lubben, F. Profiles of Freshman Physics Students’ Views on the Nature of Science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 2009, 46 (3), 248– 264,  DOI: 10.1002/tea.20219
      There is no corresponding record for this reference.
    6. 6
      Shultz, G. V.; Gere, A. R. Writing-to-Learn the Nature of Science in the Context of the Lewis Dot Structure Model. J. Chem. Educ. 2015, 92 (8), 1325– 1329,  DOI: 10.1021/acs.jchemed.5b00064
      6
      Writing-to-Learn the Nature of Science in the Context of the Lewis Dot Structure Model
      Shultz, Ginger V.; Gere, Anne Ruggles
      Journal of Chemical Education (2015), 92 (8), 1325-1329CODEN: JCEDA8; ISSN:0021-9584. (American Chemical Society and Division of Chemical Education, Inc.)
      Traditional methods for teaching the Lewis dot structure model emphasize rule-based learning and often neglect the purpose and function of the model. Thus, many students are unable to extend their understanding of mol. structures in new contexts. The assignment described here addresses this issue by asking students to read and write about the 1916 paper, in which Lewis proposed the original ideas that led to the dot structure model taught in modern general chem. courses. This directed writing-to-learn approach is designed to promote conceptual learning of the Lewis dot structure model and to transform students' beliefs about the nature of science as they evaluate the early model presented by Lewis and compare it to the conventional model taught in lecture. Participating students responded to a pre-post survey, which indicated modest gains in their conceptions of the nature of science. The assignment is designed for college-level general chem. students but may be modified for use in high school chem. and is generally transportable to other fundamental topics in chem. in which accessible literature is available as an appropriate source for directed reading and writing.
      >> More from SciFinder ®
      https://chemport.cas.org/services/resolver?origin=ACS&resolution=options&coi=1%3ACAS%3A528%3ADC%252BC2MXovVSgsbo%253D&md5=df8cf687a83bf432e1414e346d344aa5
    7. 7
      Aparicio, J. L.; Elizalde, M. P. From Water to H 2 O: Using the Human Dimension of Science To Teach the Nature of Science. J. Chem. Educ. 2018, 95 (10), 1763– 1770,  DOI: 10.1021/acs.jchemed.8b00060
      There is no corresponding record for this reference.
    8. 8
      Harris, E. P. Lecture Notes on General Chemistry, Rev. ed.; Northampton, Mass., 1888.
      There is no corresponding record for this reference.
    9. 9
      Smith, H. C. Lecture-Notes on Chemistry for Dental Students; John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, 1917.
      There is no corresponding record for this reference.
    10. 10
      Lewis, G. N. The Atom and the Molecule. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1916, 38 (4), 762– 785,  DOI: 10.1021/ja02261a002
      10
      The atom and the molecule
      Lewis, G. N.
      Journal of the American Chemical Society (1916), 38 (), 762-85CODEN: JACSAT; ISSN:0002-7863.
      cf. C. A. 71 3865 and Bray and Branch, C. A. 7, 3865. Compds. should be classed as polar and nonpolar rather than inorg. and org. These classes are roughly the same. A nonpolar mol. is one in which the electrons belonging to the individual atom are held by such restraints that they do not move far from their normal positions, while in the polar mols. the electrons, being more mobile, so move as to sep. the mol. into positive and negative parts. In an extremely polar mol. such as NaCl it is probable that in the great majority of the mols. the Cl atom has acquired a unit negative charge and therefore the Na atom a unit positive charge, and the process of ionization probably consists only in a further sepn. of these charged parts. If a weakly polar mol. comes into the neighborhood of a more polar one it becomes itself more polar. In this process the weaker bipole stretches and its moment increases. A "cubical atom" is proposed as a basis of a new theory of atomic structure. Thus Li is a cube with a single electron on one corner, Be has 2 electrons, B 3, C 4, N 5, O 6, and F 7. This view is in harmony with the theory developed by Parson, C. A. 10, 406. An atom is considered as having an unalterable kernel which possesses an excess of positive charges corresponding in number to the ordinal number of the group in the periodic table to which the element belongs (cf. Thomson, C. A. 8, 824). There is a shell of electrons around the kernel which, in the case of a neutral atom, contains negative electrons equal in number to the excess of positive charges of the kernel, but the number of electrons in the shell may vary during chem. changes between zero and 8. The atom tends to hold an even number of electrons in the shell (especially 8 at the corners of the cube) but the electrons may ordinarily pass from one position to another in this shell. Two atomic shells are mutually interpenetrable. The paper is a discussion of these ideas applied to the structure of atoms and compds.
      >> More from SciFinder ®
      https://chemport.cas.org/services/resolver?origin=ACS&resolution=options&coi=1%3ACAS%3A528%3ADyaC28XlvFSl&md5=9f8b4fdf6c255a1c60dafaad766c9d3a
    11. 11
      Lewis, G. N. Valence and the Structure of Atoms and Molecules; Dover Publications: New York, 1966.
      There is no corresponding record for this reference.
    12. 12
      Pauling, L. The Modern Theory of Valency. J. Chem. Soc. 1948, 1461– 1467,  DOI: 10.1039/jr9480001461
      12
      The modern theory of valency
      Pauling, Linus
      Journal of the Chemical Society (1948), (), 1461-7CODEN: JCSOA9; ISSN:0368-1769.
      An address.
      >> More from SciFinder ®
      https://chemport.cas.org/services/resolver?origin=ACS&resolution=options&coi=1%3ACAS%3A528%3ADyaH1MXlslyh&md5=7ead609f642c4a18d7738a6705a4055f
    13. 13
      Pauling, L. The Nature of the Chemical Bond and the Structure of Molecules and Crystals: An Introduction to Modern Structural Chemistry, 2d ed.; The George Fisher Baker non-resident lectureship in chemistry at Cornell University; 18; Cornell University Press: Ithaca, NY, 1945.
      There is no corresponding record for this reference.
    14. 14
      Pauling, L. College Chemistry: An Introductory Textbook of General Chemistry; A Series of chemistry texts; W.H. Freeman: San Francisco, 1950.
      There is no corresponding record for this reference.
    15. 15
      Scarlett, A. J. College Chemistry; New York, Holt, 1956.
      There is no corresponding record for this reference.
    16. 16
      Nebergall, W. H.; Schmidt, F. C. General Chemistry; Bailar, J. C., Jr, Ed.; D.C. Heath and Company: Boston, 1959.
      There is no corresponding record for this reference.
    17. 17
      Brown, T. L. General Chemistry, 1st ed..; C.E. Merrill Books: Columbus, OH, 1963.
      There is no corresponding record for this reference.
    18. 18
      Keenan, C. W. General College Chemistry, 6th ed.; Harper & Row: San Francisco, 1980.
      There is no corresponding record for this reference.
    19. 19
      Silberberg, M. S. Principles of General Chemistry, 3rd ed.; McGraw-Hill: New York, 2013.
      There is no corresponding record for this reference.
    20. 20
      Chang, R.; Goldsby, K. A. Chemistry, Twelfth ed.; McGraw-Hill Education: New York, NY, 2016.
      There is no corresponding record for this reference.
    21. 21
      Zumdahl, S. S.; Zumdahl, S. A. Chemistry: An Atoms First Approach, Second ed.; Cengage Learning: Boston, MA, USA, 2016.
      There is no corresponding record for this reference.
    22. 22
      Silberberg, M. S.; Amateis, P. Chemistry: The Molecular Nature of Matter and Change, Ninth ed.; McGraw-Hill Education: Dubuque, 2021.
      There is no corresponding record for this reference.
    23. 23
      Gilbert, T. R.; Kirss, R. V.; Bretz, S. L.; Foster, N. Chemistry: The Science in Context, Sixth ed.; W. W. Norton & Company: New York, 2020.
      There is no corresponding record for this reference.
    24. 24
      West, J. K.; Franz, J. L.; Hein, S. M.; Leverentz-Culp, H. R.; Mauser, J. F.; Ruff, E. F.; Zemke, J. M. An Analysis of AI-Generated Laboratory Reports across the Chemistry Curriculum and Student Perceptions of ChatGPT. J. Chem. Educ. 2023, 100 (11), 4351– 4359,  DOI: 10.1021/acs.jchemed.3c00581
      There is no corresponding record for this reference.
    25. 25
      Leon, A. J.; Vidhani, D. ChatGPT Needs a Chemistry Tutor Too. J. Chem. Educ. 2023, 100 (10), 3859– 3865,  DOI: 10.1021/acs.jchemed.3c00288
      There is no corresponding record for this reference.
    26. 26
      Fergus, S.; Botha, M.; Ostovar, M. Evaluating Academic Answers Generated Using ChatGPT. J. Chem. Educ. 2023, 100 (4), 1672– 1675,  DOI: 10.1021/acs.jchemed.3c00087
      26
      Evaluating academic answers generated using ChatGPT
      Fergus, Suzanne; Botha, Michelle; Ostovar, Mehrnoosh
      Journal of Chemical Education (2023), 100 (4), 1672-1675CODEN: JCEDA8; ISSN:0021-9584. (American Chemical Society and Division of Chemical Education, Inc.)
      The integration of technol. in education has become ever more prioritized since the COVID-19 pandemic. Chat Generative Pre-Trained Transformer (ChatGPT) is an artificial intelligence technol. that generates conversational interactions to user prompts. The trained model can answer follow up questions, admit its mistakes, challenge incorrect premises, and reject inappropriate requests. The functionality of ChatGPT in answering chem. assessment questions required investigation to ascertain its potential impact on learning and assessment. Two chem.-focused modules in Year 1 and Year 2 of a Pharmaceutical Science program were used to study and evaluate ChatGPT generated responses in relation to the end of year exam assessments. For questions that focused on knowledge and understanding with "describe" and "discuss" verbs, the ChatGPT generated responses. For questions that focused on application of knowledge and interpretation with nontext information, the ChatGPT technol. reached a limitation. A further anal. of the quality of responses is reported in this study. ChatGPT is not considered a high-risk technol. tool in relation to cheating. Similar to the COVID-19 disruption, ChatGPT is expected to provide a catalyst for educational discussions on academic integrity and assessment design.
      >> More from SciFinder ®
      https://chemport.cas.org/services/resolver?origin=ACS&resolution=options&coi=1%3ACAS%3A528%3ADC%252BB3sXmtlKkt7w%253D&md5=fb83cef4e5d08a075047d8d230d7ae49
    27. 27
      Watts, F. M.; Dood, A. J.; Shultz, G. V.; Rodriguez, J.-M. G. Comparing Student and Generative Artificial Intelligence Chatbot Responses to Organic Chemistry Writing-to-Learn Assignments. J. Chem. Educ. 2023, 100 (10), 3806– 3817,  DOI: 10.1021/acs.jchemed.3c00664
      There is no corresponding record for this reference.
    28. 28
      Guo, Y.; Lee, D. Leveraging ChatGPT for Enhancing Critical Thinking Skills. J. Chem. Educ. 2023, 100 (12), 4876– 4883,  DOI: 10.1021/acs.jchemed.3c00505
      There is no corresponding record for this reference.
    29. 29
      Bard (9–12–23). https://bard.google.com/chat (accessed 2023–09–12).
      There is no corresponding record for this reference.
    30. 30
      ChatGPT Version 3.5 (12–13–23). https://chat.openai.com/ (accessed 2023–12–13).
      There is no corresponding record for this reference.
    31. 31
      ChatGPT Version 3.5 (9–12–23). https://chat.openai.com/ (accessed 2023–09–12).
      There is no corresponding record for this reference.
    32. 32
      Liner (9–12–23). https://getliner.com (accessed 2023–09–12).
      There is no corresponding record for this reference.
    33. 33
      ChatSonic (9–12–23). https://app.writesonic.com (accessed 2023–09–12).
      There is no corresponding record for this reference.
    34. 34
      Open AI 2023. Bard (12–13–23). https://bard.google.com/chat (accessed 2023–12–13).
      There is no corresponding record for this reference.
    35. 35
      Liner (12–13–23). https://getliner.com (accessed 2023–12–13).
      There is no corresponding record for this reference.
    36. 36
      Open AI. ChatSonic Version 1.0.0.67 (12–13–23). https://app.writesonic.com (accessed 2023–12–13).
      There is no corresponding record for this reference.
    37. 37
      Google. Gemini. Gemini. https://gemini.google.com (accessed 2024–06–04).
      There is no corresponding record for this reference.
    38. 38
      Pauling, L. General Chemistry: An Introduction to Descriptive Chemistry and Modern Chemical Theory; W.H. Freeman: San Francisco, 1947.
      There is no corresponding record for this reference.
    39. 39
      Stahl, B. C.; Eke, D. The Ethics of ChatGPT – Exploring the Ethical Issues of an Emerging Technology. International Journal of Information Management 2024, 74, 102700  DOI: 10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2023.102700
      There is no corresponding record for this reference.
    40. 40
      Perrigo, B. OpenAI Used Kenyan Workers on Less Than $2 Per Hour to Make ChatGPT Less Toxic. TIME , January 18, 2023. https://time.com/6247678/openai-chatgpt-kenya-workers/ (accessed 2024–05–16).
      There is no corresponding record for this reference.
    41. 41
      Perrigo, B. Why Timnit Gebru Isn’t Waiting for Big Tech to Fix AI’s Problems. TIME, January 18, 2022. https://time.com/6132399/timnit-gebru-ai-google/ (accessed 2024–05–16).
      There is no corresponding record for this reference.
    42. 42
      Angwin, J.; Lawson, J.; Mattu, S.; Kirchner, L. Machine Bias. ProPublica. https://www.propublica.org/article/machine-bias-risk-assessments-in-criminal-sentencing (accessed 2024–05–16).
      There is no corresponding record for this reference.
    43. 43
      Bender, E. M.; Gebru, T.; McMillan-Major, A.; Shmitchell, S. On the Dangers of Stochastic Parrots: Can Language Models Be Too Big? In Proceedings of the 2021 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency ; ACM: Virtual Event Canada, 2021; pp 610– 623.  DOI: 10.1145/3442188.3445922 .
      There is no corresponding record for this reference.
    44. 44
      Rozear, H.; Park, S. ChatGPT and Fake Citations. Duke University Libraries Blogs. https://blogs.library.duke.edu/blog/2023/03/09/chatgpt-and-fake-citations/ (accessed 2024–06–04).
      There is no corresponding record for this reference.
    45. 45
      Li, F.-F.; Etchemendy, J. No, Today’s AI Isn’t Sentient. Here’s How We Know. Time. https://time.com/collection/time100-voices/6980134/ai-llm-not-sentient/ (accessed 2024–05–24).
      There is no corresponding record for this reference.
    46. 46
      Moscatel, R. Why ChatGPT Can’t Do Basic Math. Tomorrow’s Jobs Today. https://medium.com/tomorrows-jobs-today/why-chatgpt-cant-do-basic-math-fc1a132e9773 (accessed 2024–05–24).
      There is no corresponding record for this reference.
    47. 47
      Weil, E. You Are Not a Parrot. New Your Magazine . March 1, 2023. https://nymag.com/intelligencer/article/ai-artificial-intelligence-chatbots-emily-m-bender.html (accessed 2024–05–16).
      There is no corresponding record for this reference.
    48. 48
      Ansari, T. How Generative AI Is Gobbling Up the Internet. AIM . January 22, 2024. https://analyticsindiamag.com/how-generative-ai-is-taking-over-the-internet/ (accessed 2024–05–16).
      There is no corresponding record for this reference.
    49. 49
      University of Michigan. Getting Started with Gen AI - U-M Instructor Guide ; 2023. file:///Users/l20-n01873-exp/Downloads/Getting%20Started-Generative%20AI_U-M%20Instructor%20Guide-Accessible0923.pdf.
      There is no corresponding record for this reference.
    50. 50
      A New AI Chatbot Might Do Your Homework for You. But It’s Still Not an A+ Student. NPR , 2022. https://www.npr.org/2022/12/19/1143912956/chatgpt-ai-chatbot-homework-academia (accessed 2024–05–24).
      There is no corresponding record for this reference.
    51. 51
      Wolfram, S. What Is ChatGPT Doing... and Why Does It Work? https://writings.stephenwolfram.com/2023/02/what-is-chatgpt-doing-and-why-does-it-work/ (accessed 2024–05–24).
      There is no corresponding record for this reference.
    52. 52
      Flynn, A. B. Structure and Evaluation of Flipped Chemistry Courses: Organic & Spectroscopy, Large and Small, First to Third Year, English and French. Chem. Educ. Res. Pract. 2015, 16 (2), 198– 211,  DOI: 10.1039/C4RP00224E
      There is no corresponding record for this reference.
    53. 53
      Eichler, J. F. Future of the Flipped Classroom in Chemistry Education: Recognizing the Value of Independent Preclass Learning and Promoting Deeper Understanding of Chemical Ways of Thinking During In-Person Instruction. J. Chem. Educ. 2022, 99 (3), 1503– 1508,  DOI: 10.1021/acs.jchemed.1c01115
      53
      The future of the flipped classroom in chemistry education: Recognizing the value of independent preclass learning and promoting deeper understanding of chemical ways of thinking during in-person instruction
      Eichler, Jack F.
      Journal of Chemical Education (2022), 99 (3), 1503-1508CODEN: JCEDA8; ISSN:0021-9584. (American Chemical Society and Division of Chemical Education, Inc.)
      Studies on the efficacy of the flipped classroom structure have become more prevalent in the chem. education research literature over the past ten years, and the body of research that has been compiled appears to indicate flipped classroom structures pos. impact student learning outcomes relative to "teaching as usual" comparison groups. Though the definition of a flipped classroom is almost universally defined as a class structure in which some portion of traditional in-person didactic lecture is transformed to an independent preclass learning mode, with the traditional lecture being replaced by active learning exercises, the exact nature of the preclass and in-person leaning activities vary quite widely among the studies reported in the literature. Furthermore, though educational studies typically acknowledge that preclass learning modules can reduce cognitive load for students, researchers often emphasize increased active learning in class as the motivation for adopting the flipped classroom. This commentary will highlight the variety of instructional practices reported to be used during the in-person phase of flipped classrooms and how well-designed prelecture activities also contribute to meaningful learning. This will lead to the proposition that the flipped classroom should not be considered a teaching best practice in and of itself, but rather an in-person/independent hybrid learning scaffold that supports other evidence-based instructional practices. Chem. education researchers and practitioners are encouraged to focus their efforts on optimizing the flipped classroom for chem.-specific learning objectives, with the ongoing challenge being to promote both skill-based learning and deeper conceptual understanding of chem. ways of thinking.
      >> More from SciFinder ®
      https://chemport.cas.org/services/resolver?origin=ACS&resolution=options&coi=1%3ACAS%3A528%3ADC%252BB38Xjtl2lt7o%253D&md5=6c4716d27b3d77671cb8949f45eeff26
    54. 54
      Bamiro, A. O. Effects of Guided Discovery and Think-Pair-Share Strategies on Secondary School Students’ Achievement in Chemistry. SAGE Open 2015, 5 (1), 215824401456475  DOI: 10.1177/2158244014564754
      There is no corresponding record for this reference.
    55. 55
      Bruck, L. B.; Towns, M. H. Preparing Students To Benefit from Inquiry-Based Activities in the Chemistry Laboratory: Guidelines and Suggestions. J. Chem. Educ. 2009, 86 (7), 820,  DOI: 10.1021/ed086p820
      55
      Preparing students to benefit from inquiry-based activities in the chemistry laboratory: guidelines and suggestions
      Bruck, Laura B.; Towns, Marcy H.
      Journal of Chemical Education (2009), 86 (7), 820-822CODEN: JCEDA8; ISSN:0021-9584. (Journal of Chemical Education, Dept. of Chemistry)
      This article presents some suggestions for instructors to prep. students for inquiry-based lab. activities and explain their use in the lab. It also provides ideas for instruction before, during, and after inquiry-based activities have been introduced into the lab. curriculum.
      >> More from SciFinder ®
      https://chemport.cas.org/services/resolver?origin=ACS&resolution=options&coi=1%3ACAS%3A528%3ADC%252BD1MXnt12kuro%253D&md5=501571cdd9fb1389e230e43b86ef7421
    56. 56
      Achieve.org. Next Generation Science Standards. https://www.nextgenscience.org/search-standards (accessed 2024–06–06).
      There is no corresponding record for this reference.
    57. 57
      Achieve.org; Bybee, R. Nature of Science in the Next Generation Science Standards: APPENDIX H – Understanding the Scientific Enterprise ; 2013; pp 1– 10. https://www.nextgenscience.org/sites/default/files/Appendix%20H%20-%20The%20Nature%20of%20Science%20in%20the%20Next%20Generation%20Science%20Standards%204.15.13.pdf (accessed 2024–06–06).
      There is no corresponding record for this reference.

  • Supporting Information

    Supporting Information

    The Supporting Information is available at https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.jchemed.4c00271.

    • genAI prompts used and full responses collected on two separate dates (PDF, XLSX)


    Terms & Conditions

    Most electronic Supporting Information files are available without a subscription to ACS Web Editions. Such files may be downloaded by article for research use (if there is a public use license linked to the relevant article, that license may permit other uses). Permission may be obtained from ACS for other uses through requests via the RightsLink permission system: http://pubs.acs.org/page/copyright/permissions.html.