Chemistry Professors' Perceptions of Undergraduate Learning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study investigated 27 chemistry professors’ perceptions of learning in undergraduate education and their suggestions for adopting an inquiry-based pedagogical approach to teaching and learning. Semistructured interviews revealed that two thirds of participants perceived undergraduate learning in traditional ways such as the acquisition of basic facts in a discipline. One fifth perceived undergraduate education as an active way of learning, specifically taking advantage of existing opportunities for students to engage in research experiences. Four professors described learning as a balance between the roles undertaken by students and instructors, namely students becoming more involved in the process of asking questions. Suggestions on how to bring teaching and research closer together in undergraduate education included (a) seeking research opportunities, (b) providing authentic learning environments, (c) capturing students’ curiosity, and (d) varying teaching methods. Although some statements did not provide a specific practical suggestion about how to achieve an inquiry-based pedagogical approach in higher education, a beginning of change was observed among chemistry professors' perceptions of students’ roles toward one of active learning. Cette étude analyse les perceptions de 27 professeurs de chimie sur l’apprentissage dans l’enseignement au niveau du premier cycle ainsi que leurs suggestions pour adopter une approche pédagogique d’apprentissage fondé sur l’exploration. Des entrevues semistructurées ont révélé que les deux-tiers des participants percevaient l’apprentissage au niveau du premier cycle de manière traditionnelle, tel que l’acquisition de connaissances de base dans une discipline. Un cinquième d’entre eux percevaient l’enseignement au niveau du premier cycle comme une manière active d’apprendre, spécifiquement en profitant des opportunités existantes qui permettent aux étudiants de participer à des expériences de recherche. Quatre professeurs ont décrit l’apprentissage comme un équilibre entre les rôles joués par les étudiants et ceux joués par les instructeurs, c’est-à-dire les situations où les étudiants sont davantage impliqués dans le processus qui consiste à poser des questions. Des suggestions pour savoir comment rapprocher l’enseignement et la recherche dans l’enseignement au niveau du premier cycle comprennent : (a) rechercher des occasions de recherche, (b) fournir des environnements d’apprentissage authentique, (c) éveiller la curiosité des étudiants, et (d) varier les méthodes d’enseignement. Bien que certaines déclarations n’aient pas fourni de suggestions pratiques spécifiques sur la manière d’en arriver à une approche pédagogique d’apprentissage fondé sur l’exploration dans l’enseignement supérieur, un début de changement a été observé parmi les perceptions des professeurs de chimie sur les rôles des étudiants vers un apprentissage actif.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".