In what ways would you teach an LfU-based activity to explore a concept in math or science? Draw on LfU and My World scholarship to support your pedagogical directions. Given its social and cognitive affordances, extend the discussion by describing how the activity and roles of the teacher and students are aligned with LfU principles.
LfU is a constructivist framework that engages in motivation, knowledge construction, and knowledge refinement (Edelson, 2001). This framework strongly parallels with Piaget’s concepts of schema construction where disequilibrium (as a source of motivation) leads to the adjustment or non-adjustment of schema. By constructing schema is meaningful scenarios for application, this facilitates the recall and use of information. From looking at LfU, I’ve been having difficulty understanding how it’s different from SKI (other than all the examples being tied to GIS).
I’ve chosen to create an LfU-based activity in organic nomenclature. However, selecting this topic made me wonder if I’m just falling into the traditional format the Edelson (2001) mentions where teachers separate content and process. The whole point of LfU is a framework for merging these together. In attempts to address this, I’ve decided to consolidate organic nomenclature as a motivation for a larger task. The organic nomenclature section will also engage in an LfU cycle. My greatest concern with this is if I’m actually using SKI for this design, rather than LfU.
A Forensic whodunit with chemicals
The end goal of the unit will be to determine the culprit based on chemicals (could be a mix of the organic chemistry unit, or a re-visit with a variety of types of compounds).
In this case, we’ll do a specific whodunit with organic compounds. However, to determine which chemical is present, students need to identify it. This will require an understanding of:
- organic nomenclature
- properties of an organic compound (as determined by its structure)
- reactivity for follow up qualitative and quantitative analysis (rationale for organic synthesis)
Thus, organic nomenclature, as a topic, links into motivation. Students form a goal of naming and drawing these compounds.
Organic nomenclature
In Ontario, organic nomenclature is taught in Grade 12 Chemistry, previously students learn how to name compounds in Grade 9/10 science. For covalent compounds, the naming conventions that students learned are not useful for organic compounds. This needs to be made obvious to students through an activity:
Task 1
Name and draw the following chemicals:
- CH4
- C2H6
- C3H8
- C4H10
it’s hoped that students recognize that there are different isomers for C4H10. If not, there is a follow up task.
Task 2
This game can be played either as a matching game or as a pairing game like Dude. The idea here is that in both cases, students will experience cognitive dissonance when they realize that the chemical name and structure are sometimes different.
Examples need to be picked to highlight the different possibilities (Since this is just an entry point for organic nomenclature, we would just start naming with alkanes, alkenes, alkynes, and cycloalkanes):
- different arrangement of atoms (e.g., butane vs. methylpropane)
- unsaturated compounds
- different types of bonds (e.g., double, triple bonds; different locations of these bonds)
- rings
Through these tasks, the motivation to learn organic nomenclature will manifest. Students will recognize that that the covalent compound naming they’ve previously learned has its limitations and they need to learn how to name such that the structure of the compound is clear.
We would then cycle through direct instruction and practice. To help students construct and refine their knowledge, another game can be used. Similar to the polygraph activities in teacher desmos, a drawing and naming game can be made. Student must create questions to either draw or name the compound their partner has. When they are certain of the compound, they will ask (e.g., is this your molecule [show a picture]?; is your molecule [name]?). Through questioning, students will practice the sequence for naming organic compounds (longest carbon chain, functional groups, substitutents, location).
Another task they can use is based on imposters. Incorrectly named organic compounds (e.g., incorrect numbering, not using the longest carbon chain) and correctly named organic compounds need to be identified and corrected as needed.
As the students work on these tasks, the teacher facilitates and offers follow up activities based on how students are performing. Some areas I predict could come up include:
- why common names still exist: get students to name a straight chain glucose, then show students that the name that is commonly used is glucose (gloss over the L, D)
- naming with multiple functional groups: link to why there’s a priority of functional groups and how that links to finding the longest continuous carbon chain with the highest priority functionality group
To continue with the cycle of motivation, knowledge construction, and knowledge refinement, students could investigate the physical properties of organic compounds. The Dumas method could also be used to determine the molar mass of the compounds (if liquid). Depending on which organic compounds are selected and investigated, students may notice that it’s really hard to find out the identity of the molecule. This will lead to the motivation to investigate chemical properties and how these arise. To keep with the game-based learning, an ending task that could be used is a modification of retrosynthetic rummy, a card game used for 2nd year organic chemistry students (Carney, 2015). Although Grade 12 students will not have the same content knowledge as 2nd year organic chemistry students, the concepts and practice of functional group interchange is still valuable. The modification could be A > B, how did this happen, students throw down the reaction card type.
References
Carney, J. M. (2015). Retrosynthetic rummy: A synthetic organic chemistry card game. Journal of Chemical Education, 92(2), 328-331. doi:10.1021/ed500657u
Edelson, D.C. (2001). Learning-for-use: A framework for the design of technology-supported inquiry activities. Journal of Research in Science Teaching,38(3), 355-385.