Maia Popova- Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry, University of North Carolina at Greensboro, Greensboro, NC, United States
This perspective article is a call to establish research-practice partnerships (RPPs) to foster collaborations between instructors and education researchers to tune into the needs of practice, share evidence-based practices, and solve modern organic chemistry education problems. I begin the article by discussing some limitations of the traditional approach of “translating” research into practice and suggest RPPs as an alternative model for “bridging” research and practice. Importantly, RPPs have been shown to address persistent problems of practice and improve educational outcomes. While more common at the secondary level, RPPs are rarely leveraged in post-secondary chemistry education. The article goes on to provide a concrete and relevant context for potential future RPP efforts to improve aspects of organic chemistry education—RPPs between education researchers and organic chemistry instructors to work toward designing, administering, and testing interventions to support learners’ representational competence (RC). RC is a set of skills that allow for the reflective use of a variety of representations to think about, communicate, and act on chemical phenomena. Current instruction often falls short of effectively supporting learners in developing RC. It is often tacitly assumed that learners will develop RC without explicit instruction that scaffolds the development of the RC skills. While it is important to improve the teaching about and with representations, implementing innovative pedagogical approaches can be challenging, particularly when instructors feel isolated in their efforts within their work environments. The RPP model could catalyze solutions to these challenges by pooling diverse expertise, thus enabling more robust and sustainable educational innovations.
1 The problem with traditional approaches to translating research into practice
In the ever-evolving landscape of higher education, the importance of implementing innovative, evidence-based pedagogical approaches cannot be overstated. Educators must continuously seek out and apply the best available evidence to their teaching practices, thereby enhancing the quality of education they provide to improve student learning outcomes. At the same time, implementing innovative pedagogical approaches can be challenging, particularly when instructors feel isolated in their efforts within their work environments. Even if instructors recognize the potential benefits of a particular innovation, the absence of support can impede their well-intentioned curricular reform efforts or efforts to improve their teaching practices (Fairweather, 2008). These barriers can result in a lack of motivation needed to initiate change within their instruction (Shadle et al., 2017). To mitigate these barriers, educators and curriculum developers require knowledge, skills, resources, and support. This need has been previously emphasized by the National Research Council:
“The translation of research findings into forms useful for educational practice… will require large-scale, systematic experimentation and demonstration to transform knowledge about human learning and the development of competence into the working vocabulary of teachers…” (Committee on a Feasibility Study for a Strategic Education Research Program, National Research Council, 1999, p. 3).
Today, one of the most common mechanisms to provide such support is faculty professional development initiatives that typically involve structured programs, workshops, or seminars, where education researchers directly impart knowledge to instructors in a one-directional manner. A significant limitation of such traditional professional development lies in the assumption that knowledge transfer is straightforward and that teaching practices can be directly informed and transformed by simply exposing instructors to new educational theories or research findings. The conventional “translation” metaphor of research into practice provides an impoverished way of understanding the complex relationship between research and practice (Penuel et al., 2015). While effective to a degree, the “translation” approach overlooks several critical aspects that are essential for meaningful pedagogical growth as it fails to account for the specific contextual challenges and opportunities within different teaching environments and results in a lack of instructors’ engagement and ownership, missed opportunities for collaboration between educational researchers and instructors, inadequate attention to implementation challenges, and issues with the sustainability of instructional innovations (Burbank and Kauchak, 2003; Chicoine, 2004; Webster-Wright, 2009; Coburn et al., 2013; Penuel et al., 2015; Coburn and Penuel, 2016; Rodriguez and Towns, 2019; Johnson, 2022).
Major task force reports have called for changes in how we conceptualize the “translation” of research into practice (National Research Council, 1999; Donovan et al., 2013). Researchers, administrators, and stakeholders need to better account for the complex challenges researchers and practitioners face when using research to drive educational improvement (National Research Council, 1999; Coburn and Stein, 2010; Donovan et al., 2013). These efforts should go beyond the predominantly used “teaching as telling,” “one-directional,” or “one-shot” professional development models, especially given the evidence of the failure of some of these professional development approaches (Lovitt and Clarke, 1988; Fullan and Stiegelbauer, 1991; Johnson, 1998). The evolving landscape of higher education and the diverse needs of modern learners call for more innovative, flexible, and inclusive professional development approaches, as well as for a broader range of mechanisms through which faculty professional development can emerge. This perspective article is a call for the chemistry education community to consider an alternative faculty professional development model that has the potential to address the limitations described above—research-practice partnerships (Coburn et al., 2013; Penuel et al., 2015).
2 Research-practice partnerships as an alternative model for bridging research and practice
Research-practice partnerships (RPPs) are long-term collaborations, often between educators and education researchers, that have been shown to address persistent problems of practice, and improve educational outcomes (Tseng, 2012; Coburn et al., 2013; Donovan et al., 2013; Fishman et al., 2013). RPP members establish an external community of like-minded colleagues outside of one’s institution which becomes an important force in promoting educational innovation. RPP members engage in processes of collaboration and exchange that are both messier and often more transformative than the traditional “one-directional translation” of research into practice. RPPs are characterized by mutual goals that focus on problems of practice rather than gaps in research and theory. Importantly, these goals and efforts often evolve through interactions between RPP members, rather than being defined fully ahead of time (Penuel et al., 2015).
RPPs offer opportunities for growth and development not only for instructors but also for education researchers. By working closely with practitioners, researchers gain direct insights into the problems of practice. This deep engagement with the realities of educational settings fosters a richer understanding of the context-dependent nature of learning and teaching, enhancing the relevance and applicability of research findings. Effective RPPs establish shared authority where goals, work, and interactions are jointly negotiated, with carefully elaborated roles, routines, and protocols for engagement (Coburn and Penuel, 2016). Ultimately, this symbiosis between research and practice enriches the academic and research communities, fostering an environment where knowledge creation and pedagogical excellence coalesce more effectively.
While there is promising evidence on the impact of RPPs’ interventions on student learning at the secondary level (Fishman et al., 2003; Yarnall et al., 2006; Geier et al., 2008; Snow et al., 2009; Barab et al., 2010; Booth et al., 2015), RPPs are uncommon in post-secondary chemistry education. Below I propose a potential direction for future RPPs to improve aspects of post-secondary organic chemistry education.
3 Representational competence as a potential context for future research-practice partnerships to improve aspects of organic chemistry education
Organic Chemistry is known for its high attrition rates (Lovecchio and Dundes, 2002; Jones and Gellene, 2005; Grove et al., 2008). It is imperative to rethink and redesign the curriculum, instructional, and assessment strategies used to teach this course. To effectively transform organic chemistry education, it is necessary to forge effective professional development programs to equip instructors with literature-based resources and support that could meaningfully affect instructors’ pedagogical knowledge and teaching practices (Gess-Newsome et al., 2003; Henderson et al., 2011; Talanquer, 2014). One critical direction for these initiatives is in the area of representational competence (RC), as learning and communicating with visualizations is an essential component of chemistry instruction (Kozma and Russell, 2005; Ainsworth, 2006; Gilbert, 2007; Stieff, 2007; Keehner et al., 2008).
The development of RC has been positioned as one of the chief goals for STEM education by the National Research Council (2012). Chemistry is one of the main STEM disciplines where learner success is significantly impacted by RC because many of the fundamental concepts and processes in chemistry cannot be directly observed or experienced in the physical world (Kozma and Russell, 2005; Ainsworth, 2006; Gilbert, 2007). Kozma and Russell (2005), p. 131 define RC as “a set of skills and practices that allow a person to reflectively use a variety of representations, singly and together, to think about, communicate, and act on chemical phenomena in terms of underlying aperceptual physical entities and processes.” This set of skills includes the ability to interpret, translate, generate, and use representations, among others. At the same time, one can develop these foundational RC skills without understanding the ‘why’ behind engaging in tasks that require these skills. This is problematic because instruction and tasks that do not make sense to learners undermine their motivation to continue work in science (diSessa, 2004). Meta-RC “may be precisely what makes learning representations sensible to students” (diSessa, 2004). Meta-RC is a subset of RC that allows for the reflective and purposeful use of representations and includes skills such as the ability to describe affordances and limitations of various representations or select an optimal representation for a particular purpose. Therefore, effective support for developing RC requires a comprehensive approach that targets both the foundational RC skills and meta-RC skills.
Although a wide body of literature has focused on exploring organic chemistry students’ learning about and with representations (Bodner and Domin, 2000; Cooper et al., 2010; Grove et al., 2012; Stull et al., 2012; Popova and Bretz, 2018a,b,c), less is known about organic chemistry instructors’ approaches toward developing learner RC. Literature in this domain shows that even though conventional teaching approaches in chemistry incorporate a wide variety of representations, they are not frequently guided by learning objectives that explicitly target RC (Talanquer, 2022). It is often tacitly assumed that learners will develop RC without explicit instruction that intentionally scaffolds the development of the various RC skills. Recent studies from our research group found that neither chemistry instructors (Popova and Jones, 2021; Jones et al., 2022) nor chemistry textbooks (Gurung et al., 2022) support learners in developing higher-level meta-RC skills that allow for the reflective and purposeful use of representations. Moreover, currently, no professional development opportunities exist focused on improving how instructors support learner RC, despite chemistry instructors reporting wanting to learn about (a) finding quality representations to use in their teaching (e.g., animations, simulations), (b) effective teaching about representations, (c) proper assessment of student mastery of representations, and (d) expert-novice differences in understanding representations (Popova and Jones, 2021). The lack of such domain-specific professional development is problematic, as learners with developed RC are better set for building conceptual understanding and acquiring scientific practices (Lansangan and Orleans, 2007; Sim and Daniel, 2014; Lansangan et al., 2018; Dickmann et al., 2019; Herunata et al., 2021).
4 Hypothetical five-year RPP between organic chemistry instructors and education researchers
RPPs could be established to fill this gap in domain-specific professional development. Here, I present an outline for a potential five-year RPP between organic chemistry instructors and education researchers, aiming to improve organic chemistry students’ RC. Importantly, should RPP work be externally funded, it is imperative to ensure that appropriate funds are allocated to compensate for the work of not only the researchers but also the practitioners. Securing external funding is crucial not only for the operational needs of the RPP but also to honor the significant contributions of each participant. Appropriately allocated funds will ensure that instructors are compensated for their time, particularly for tasks that extend beyond their usual teaching responsibilities. Proper compensation would acknowledge instructors’ essential role in the partnership.
The RPP work could be partitioned into six main stages (Table 1) following the application process to express an interest in participating. The application process for the RPP should be intentionally designed to select instructors who demonstrate a clear commitment to engage in a long-term collaboration. The teaching pre-RPP and post-RPP periods in Years 1 and 5 (Table 1) could be used for collecting various data (e.g., video observations, course artifacts, interviews) to evaluate the impact of RPP on the Pedagogical Content Knowledge (PCK) and practices of instructors over time. Recognizing that RPPs generally involve establishing an external community of like-minded colleagues outside of one’s institution, ideally, the RPP work should start at an in-person gathering to help the RPP members more effectively build rapport with each other. Additionally, the RPP members should have an opportunity to come together at least yearly (e.g., at conferences). At the same time, consideration should be made for allowing for hybrid attendance of the in-person meetings, recognizing potential diverse needs and constraints of RPP members (e.g., funding limitations, teaching commitments, and personal health and well-being). Outside the occasional in-person meetings, the RPP members should meet periodically during remote meetings (below, I propose a monthly schedule of meetings).
Table 1. Timeline and the main stages for the proposed five-year research-practice partnership.
The RPP work could start with presenting the instructors with the “representational dilemma.” The representational dilemma refers to the idea that learners are expected to understand abstract concepts and reaction mechanisms using various representations before they have fully learned how to interpret and use these representations. This is analogous to using a complex map to navigate a new city without the necessary practice in map reading. Just as learning to read a map requires practice, learners also need support in using representations to understand new concepts and mechanisms. This dilemma could be used to outline a very general and broad goal for the RPP—to collectively brainstorm and generate practical solutions for this challenge, which could include designing and testing interventions in authentic classroom settings. At this first meeting, it is also critical to jointly discuss and negotiate roles, routines, and protocols for engagement as an RPP (Stage 1).
At the subsequent monthly remote meetings, RPP members should discuss literature related to theory and research around supporting learner RC (Stage 1). This literature could include (1) primers on RC and meta-RC (diSessa, 2004; Kozma and Russell, 2005), (2) relevant theories of learning including constructivism (Novak, 1993), dual-coding theory (Paivio, 1986), and the information processing model (Baddeley, 2003), (3) Johnstone’s chemistry triplet (Johnstone, 2006; Taber, 2013), (4) multimedia and visualization principles (Mayer, 2002; Tasker, 2015), (5) the key factors affecting learners’ ability to reason with representation (Schönborn and Anderson, 2006, 2010), (6) assessment including the use of representations to promote equitable assessment design (Towns, 2014; Ralph and Lewis, 2020); and (7) design frameworks for developing educational interventions (Branch, 2010; Rau, 2017). At each remote monthly meeting, the discussion should focus on deriving insights for interventions aimed at improving RC.
Next, the RPP should leverage their knowledge of the (1) needs of their learners, (2) relevant research and theory, and (3) design frameworks to develop interventions to support learner RC (Stage 2). RPP can work collaboratively to review and refine the developed interventions (including student and instructor implementation guides). At this stage, the RPP should also make concrete plans for gathering and analyzing any necessary student data, including, when applicable, completing the Collaborative Institutional Training Initiative (CITI) and submitting Institutional Review Board (IRB) applications to ensure the ethical administration, testing, and evaluation of developed interventions.
The next stage would involve administering interventions in Organic Chemistry I and collecting student outcomes data (Stage 3). Each RPP member administering interventions in their classroom should be able to select a set of newly developed interventions that are best aligned with their learning objectives and the needs of their students. During this stage, RPP members should collect, analyze, and reflect on student data to evaluate the success of the administered interventions. In Stages 4 and 5, RPP members refine, develop (if needed), and readminister interventions in organic chemistry classrooms, emulating Stages 2 and 3. Finally, the RPP members should work on disseminating their work at conferences and via publications (Stage 6). Time should be set aside for planning, writing, and revising publications at the end of the project.
To mitigate the potential burden on instructors, the RPP should be structured to foster a collaborative environment where responsibilities are shared among all partners. This should include substantial support from education researchers in managing the collection and analysis of data, and the administrative tasks associated with IRB approval and funding applications. Leveraging the diverse expertise within the RPP could help enhance the sustainability and effectiveness of the interventions without overburdening any of the members.
5 Discussion, implications, and concluding remarks
While the section above outlines the timeline and main stages for a hypothetical RPP, it is important to tailor this plan to the unique context and needs of each specific project or collective of RPP participants. For example, while Table 1 proposes that in-person meetings occur in March and July, to coincide with the National Meeting and Exposition of the American Chemical Society (ACS) and the Biennial Conference on Chemical Education (BCCE), RPPs based outside of the United States should consider holding in-person meetings in accordance with the timelines of local chemistry education conferences.
Additionally, while this perspective article presents a hypothetical RPP for supporting learner RC, RPPs could be leveraged to address other important problems of organic chemistry education, such as developing student mechanistic reasoning in lecture courses or scientific practices in laboratory courses—other areas identified as particularly difficult for both teaching and learning (National Research Council, 2012; Graulich, 2015).
Finally, research on RPPs in education is very sparse, especially at the postsecondary level. More research is needed to understand the influences of RPPs on instructors and researchers (Coburn and Penuel, 2016). For example, there are several studies that provide evidence that RPP participation is associated with increased access to research (Bickel and Cooley, 1985; Kerr et al., 2006), but little is known about whether it is also associated with greater use of research for making instructional decisions (Coburn and Penuel, 2016). Comprehensive evaluations are necessary to assess RPP contributions to educational improvement. For example, studies are needed to characterize and evaluate (a) the dynamics of RPPs and the mechanisms by which they may foster educational improvement, (b) challenges associated with RPPs at the postsecondary level, (c) how RPP participation might influence instructors’ PCK and practices and researchers’ insights, (d) whether RPPs foster greater capacity and uptake of research in classroom decision-making, and (e) the extent to which RPPs help improve student learning and RC. By diving deeper into these aspects, we can pave the way for RPPs to not just be a theoretical ideal but a practical vehicle for driving improvements in the quality of chemistry education.
Data availability statement
The original contributions presented in the study are included in the article/supplementary material, further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.
Author contributions
MP: Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing.
Funding
The author declares that no financial support was received for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Conflict of interest
The author declares that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Publisher’s note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
References
Ainsworth, S. (2006). DeFT: a conceptual framework for considering learning with multiple representations. Learn. Instr. 16, 183–198. doi: 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2006.03.001
Baddeley, A. (2003). Working memory and language: an overview. J. Commun. Dis. 36, 189–208. doi: 10.1016/S0021-9924(03)00019-4
Barab, S. A., Gresalfi, M. S., and Ingram-Goble, A. (2010). Transformational play: using games to position person, content, and context. Educ. Res. 39, 525–536. doi: 10.3102/0013189X10386593
Bickel, W. E., and Cooley, W. W. (1985). Decision-oriented educational research in school districts: the role of dissemination processes. Stud. Educ. Eval. 11, 183–203. doi: 10.1016/0191-491X(85)90022-7
Bodner, G. M., and Domin, D. S. (2000). Mental models: the role of representations in problem solving in chemistry. Univ. Chem. Educ. 4, 24–30
Booth, J. L., Cooper, L. A., Donovan, M. S., Huyghe, A., Koedinger, K., and Pare-Blagoev, E. J. (2015). Design-based research within the constraints of practice: algebra by example. J. Educ. Stud. Placed Risk 20, 79–100. doi: 10.1080/10824669.2014.986674
Burbank, M. D., and Kauchak, D. (2003). An alternative model for professional development: investigations into effective collaboration. Teach. Teach. Educ. 19, 499–514. doi: 10.1016/S0742-051X(03)00048-9
Chicoine, D. (2004). Ignoring the obvious: a constructivist critique of a traditional teacher education program. Educ. Stud. 36, 245–263. doi: 10.1207/s15326993es3603_4
Coburn, C. E., and Penuel, W. R. (2016). Research–practice partnerships in education: outcomes, dynamics, and open questions, educational researcher. Educ. Res. 45, 48–54. doi: 10.3102/0013189X16631750
Coburn, C. E., Penuel, W. R., and Geil, K. (2013). Research–practice partnerships at the district level: A new strategy for leveraging research for educational improvement. Berkeley, CA and Boulder, CO: University of California and University of Colorado.
Coburn, C. E., and Stein, M. K. (2010). Research and practice in education: Building alliances, bridging the divide. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
Cooper, M. M., Grove, N., Underwood, S. M., and Klymkowsky, M. W. (2010). Lost in Lewis structures: an investigation of student difficulties in developing representational competence. J. Chem. Educ. 87, 869–874. doi: 10.1021/ed900004y
Dickmann, T., Opfermann, M., Dammann, E., Lang, M., and Rumann, S. (2019). What you see is what you learn? The role of visual model comprehension for academic success in chemistry. Chem. Educ. Res. Pr. 20, 804–820. doi: 10.1039/C9RP00016J
diSessa, A. A. (2004). Metarepresentation: native competence and targets for instruction. Cogn. Instr. 22, 293–331. doi: 10.1207/s1532690xci2203_2
Donovan, M. S., Snow, C. E., and Daro, P. (2013). “The SERP approach to problem-solving research, development, and implementation” in Design-based implementation research. National Society for the study of education yearbook. eds. B. J. Fishman, W. R. Penuel, A.-R. Allen, and B. H. Cheng (New York, NY: Teachers College Record), 400–425.
Fairweather, J. (2008). Linking evidence and promising practices in STEM undergraduate education. NRC Workshop on Evidence on Selected Promising Practices in Undergraduate Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) Education. Available at: http://www7.nationalacademies.org/bose/Fairweather_CommissionedPaper.
Fishman, B. J., Marx, R. W., Best, S., and Tal, R. (2003). Linking teacher and student learning to improve professional development in systemic reform. Teach. Teach. Educ. 19, 643–658. doi: 10.1016/S0742-051X(03)00059-3
Fishman, B. J., Penuel, W. R., Allen, A.-R., and Cheng, B. H. (2013). Design-based implementation research: Theories, methods, and exemplars. National Society for the study of education yearbook. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Fullan, M., and Stiegelbauer, S. (1991). The new meaning of educational change. New York: Teachers College Press.
Geier, R., Blumenfeld, P., Marx, R. W., Krajcik, J., Fishman, B. J., and Soloway, E. (2008). Standardized test outcomes for students engaged in inquiry-based science curricula in the context of urban reform. J. Res. Sci. Teach. 45, 922–939. doi: 10.1002/tea.20248
Gess-Newsome, J., Southerland, S. A., Johnston, A., and Woodbury, S. (2003). Educational reform, personal practical theories, and dissatisfaction: the anatomy of change in college science teaching. Am. Educ. Res. J. 40, 731–767. doi: 10.3102/00028312040003731
Gilbert, J. K. (2007). “Visualization: a metacognitive skill in science and science education” in Visualization in science education. ed. J. K. Gilbert (Dordrecht: Springer), 9–27.
Graulich, N. (2015). The tip of the iceberg in organic chemistry classes: how do students deal with the invisible? Chem. Educ. Res. Pr. 16, 9–21. doi: 10.1039/C4RP00165F
Grove, N. P., Cooper, M. M., and Rush, K. M. (2012). Decorating with arrows: toward the development of representational competence in organic chemistry. J. Chem. Educ. 89, 844–849. doi: 10.1021/ed2003934
Grove, N. P., Hershberger, J. W., and Bretz, S. L. (2008). Impact of a spiral organic curriculum on student attrition and learning. Chem. Educ. Res. Pr. 9, 157–162. doi: 10.1039/B806232N
Gurung, E., Jacob, R., Bunch, Z., Thompson, B., and Popova, M. (2022). Evaluating the effectiveness of organic chemistry textbooks for promoting representational competence. J. Chem. Educ. 99, 2044–2054. doi: 10.1021/acs.jchemed.1c01054
Henderson, C., Beach, A., and Finkelstein, N. (2011). Facilitating change in undergraduate STEM instructional practices: an analytic review of the literature. J. Res. Sci. Teach. 48, 952–984. doi: 10.1002/tea.20439
Herunata, H., Rosyida, I., Sulistina, O., and Wijaya, H. W. (2021). Correlational analysis of conceptual understanding, chemical representation, and representational competence on chemistry equilibrium. AIP Conf. Proc. 2330:020016. doi: 10.1063/5.0043116
Johnson, J. (1998). Embracing change: a leadership model for the learning organization. Int. J. Train. Dev. 2, 141–150. doi: 10.1111/1468-2419.00042
Johnson, R. (2022). Bridging the divide between chemistry educators and chemistry education researchers. J. Chem. Educ. 99, 3631–3632. doi: 10.1021/acs.jchemed.2c01035
Johnstone, A. H. (2006). Chemical education research in Glasgow in perspective. Chem. Educ. Res. Pract. 7, 49–63. doi: 10.1039/B5RP90021B
Jones, K. B., and Gellene, G. I. (2005). Understanding attrition in an introductory chemistry sequence following successful completion of a remedial course. J. Chem. Educ. 82, 1241–1245. doi: 10.1021/ed082p1241
Jones, T., Romanov, A., Pratt, J. M., and Popova, M. (2022). Multi-framework case study characterizing organic chemistry instructors’ approaches toward teaching about representations. Chem. Educ. Res. Pract. 23, 930–947. doi: 10.1039/D2RP00173J
Keehner, M., Hegarty, M., Cohen, C., Khooshabeh, P., and Montello, D. R. (2008). Spatial reasoning with external visualizations: what matters is what you see, not whether you interact. Cogn. Sci. 32, 1099–1132. doi: 10.1080/03640210801898177
Kerr, K. A., Marsh, J. A., Ikemoto, G. S., Darilek, H., and Barney, H. (2006). Strategies to promote data use for instructional improvement: actions, outcomes, and lessons from three urban districts. Am. J. Educ. 112, 496–520. doi: 10.1086/505057
Kozma, R., and Russell, J. (2005). “Students becoming chemists: developing representational competence” in Visualization in science education. ed. J. K. Gilbert (Dordrecht: Springer), 121–145.
Lansangan, R., and Orleans, A. (2007). Representational competence of secondary chemistry students in understanding selected chemical principles. Int. J. Sci. Educ. 24, 7930–7934
Lansangan, R. V., Orleans, A. V., and Camacho, V. M. I. (2018). Assessing conceptual understanding in chemistry using representation. Adv. Sci. Lett. 24, 7930–7934. doi: 10.1166/asl.2018.12459
Lovecchio, K., and Dundes, L. (2002). Premed survival: understanding the culling process in premedical undergraduate education. Acad. Med. 77, 719–724. doi: 10.1097/00001888-200207000-00016
Lovitt, C., and Clarke, D. (1988). The mathematics curriculum and teaching program: professional development package. Australia: Curriculum Development Centre.
Mayer, R. E. (2002). Cognitive theory and the design of multimedia instruction: an example of the two-way street between cognition and instruction. New Dir. Teach. Learn. 2002, 55–71. doi: 10.1002/tl.47
National Research Council (1999). Improving student learning: a strategic plan for education research and its utilization. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
National Research Council (2012). Discipline-based education research: Understanding and improving learning in undergraduate science and engineering. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
Novak, J. D. (1993). Human constructivism: a unification of psychological and epistemological phenomena in meaning-making. Int. J. Pers. Constr. Psychol. 6, 167–193. doi: 10.1080/08936039308404338
Penuel, W. R., Allen, A., Coburn, C. E., and Farrell, C. (2015). Conceptualizing research–practice partnerships as joint work at boundaries. J. Educ. Stud. Placed Risk. 20, 182–197. doi: 10.1080/10824669.2014.988334
Popova, M., and Bretz, S. L. (2018a). It’s only the major product that we care about in organic chemistry: an analysis of students’ annotations of reaction coordinate diagrams. J. Chem. Educ. 95, 1086–1093. doi: 10.1021/acs.jchemed.8b00153
Popova, M., and Bretz, S. L. (2018b). Organic chemistry students’ challenges with coherence formation between reactions and reaction coordinate diagrams. Chem. Educ. Res. Pract. 19, 732–745. doi: 10.1039/C8RP00064F
Popova, M., and Bretz, S. L. (2018c). Organic chemistry students’ interpretations of the surface features of reaction coordinate diagrams. Chem. Educ. Res. Pract. 19, 919–931. doi: 10.1039/C8RP00063H
Popova, M., and Jones, T. (2021). Chemistry instructors’ intentions toward developing, teaching, and assessing student representational competence skills. Chem. Educ. Res. Pract. 22, 733–748. doi: 10.1039/D0RP00329H
Ralph, V. R., and Lewis, S. E. (2020). Impact of representations in assessments on student performance and equity. J. Chem. Educ. 97, 603–615. doi: 10.1021/acs.jchemed.9b01058
Rau, M. A. (2017). A framework for educational technologies that support representational competencies. IEEE Trans. Learn. Technol. 10, 290–305. doi: 10.1109/TLT.2016.2623303
Rodriguez, J. G., and Towns, M. H. (2019). Alternative use for the refined consensus model of pedagogical content knowledge: suggestions for contextualizing chemistry education research. J. Chem. Educ. 96, 1797–1803. doi: 10.1021/acs.jchemed.9b00415
Schönborn, K. J., and Anderson, T. R. (2006). The importance of visual literacy in the education of biochemists. Biochem. Mol. Biol. Educ. 34, 94–102. doi: 10.1002/bmb.2006.49403402094
Schönborn, K. J., and Anderson, T. R. (2010). Bridging the educational research-teaching practice gap: foundations for assessing and developing biochemistry students’ visual literacy. Biochem. Mol. Biol. Educ. 38, 347–354. doi: 10.1002/bmb.20436
Shadle, S. E., Marker, A., and Earl, B. (2017). Faculty drivers and barriers: laying the groundwork for undergraduate STEM education reform in academic departments. Int. J. STEM Educ. 4:8. doi: 10.1186/s40594-017-0062-7
Sim, J. H., and Daniel, E. G. S. (2014). Representational competence in chemistry: a comparison between students with different levels of understanding of basic chemical concepts and chemical representations. Cogent Educ. 1:991180. doi: 10.1080/2331186X.2014.991180
Snow, C. E., Lawrence, J., and White, C. (2009). Generating knowledge of academic language among urban middle school students. J. Res. Educ. Effect. 2, 325–344. doi: 10.1080/19345740903167042
Stieff, M. (2007). Mental rotation and diagrammatic reasoning in science. Learn. Instr. 17, 219–234. doi: 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2007.01.012
Stull, A. T., Hegarty, M., Dixon, B., and Stieff, M. (2012). Representational translation with concrete models in organic chemistry. Cogn. Instr. 30, 404–434. doi: 10.1080/07370008.2012.719956
Taber, K. S. (2013). Revisiting the chemistry triplet: drawing upon the nature of chemical knowledge and the psychology of learning to inform chemistry education. Chem. Educ. Res. Pract. 14, 156–168. doi: 10.1039/C3RP00012E
Talanquer, V. (2014). DBER and STEM education reform: are we up to the challenge? J. Res. Sci. Teach. 51, 809–819. doi: 10.1002/tea.21162
Talanquer, V. (2022). The complexity of reasoning about and with chemical representations. JACS Au 2, 2658–2669. doi: 10.1021/jacsau.2c00498
Tasker, R. (2015). “Using multimedia to visualize the molecular world: educational theory into practice” in Chemists’ guide to effective teaching. eds. N. J. Pienta, M. M. Cooper, and T. J. Greenbowe (Hoboken: Pearson Prentice Hall).
Towns, M. H. (2014). Guide to developing high-quality, reliable, and valid multiple-choice assessments. J. Chem. Educ. 91, 1426–1431. doi: 10.1021/ed500076x
Tseng, V. (2012). Partnerships: shifting the dynamics between research and practice. New York, NY: William T. Grant Foundation.
Webster-Wright, A. (2009). Reframing professional development through understanding authentic professional learning. Rev. Educ. Res. 79, 702–739. doi: 10.3102/0034654308330970
Keywords: post-secondary education, organic chemistry, representational competence, professional development, research-practice partnerships
Citation: Popova M (2024) Bridging chemistry education research and practice through research-practice partnerships. Front. Educ. 9:1401835. doi: 10.3389/feduc.2024.1401835
Edited by:
Brett McCollum, Thompson Rivers University, CanadaReviewed by:
Riley Petillion, University of British Columbia, CanadaJennifer MacDonald, Dalhousie University, Canada
Copyright © 2024 Popova. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
*Correspondence: Maia Popova, m_popova@uncg.edu