Search

Thermodynamics and kinetics are key topics in the chemistry curriculum that pose challenges to students across a range of educational levels. These struggles arise from the complexity and mixed representations inherent to the topics. Additionally, while thermodynamics and kinetics are related, students struggle to make conceptually correct connections, sometimes seeing them as two separate topics with no relation and other times conflating their meanings and explanatory powers. Herein we captured student conceptions about thermodynamics and kinetics through a Writing-to-Learn activity that utilized peer review and revision to engage students with the concepts by applying them to a real-world context. This study identified whether students focused on the concepts targeted by the assignment and characterized the chemistry content of the peer review feedback. Students' descriptions of thermodynamics and kinetics content, as well as the relationship between the two and how they connect to the application given in the assignment, improved during the process and suggests that peer review and revision played an important role in supporting students to describe these concepts. When guided by a content-focused peer review rubric, students provided constructive chemistry content-directed feedback. Specifically, analysis of student writing and comments demonstrated the potential of the assignment to engage students in building connections between complexly related topics, including distinguishing between spontaneity and rate and appropriately relating activation energy and rate. Findings from this study suggest that writing can be used to elicit student-specific conceptions of physical chemistry topics and develop students' explanatory skills of chemistry content even without direct instructor feedback.

Lewis structures are fundamental to learning chemistry, yet many students struggle to develop a complex understanding of its meaning and uses. Writing-to-Learn supports students in developing a deeper conceptual understanding of the topic, making it an ideal pedagogy to apply to student learning of Lewis structures. One difficulty often associated with classroom writing is the capacity of instructors to provide feedback to each student on their written work; however, this practical constraint can be mitigated through incorporating peer review. Peer review and revision are known to support conceptual learning and yet are underutilized in STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math) classrooms. Additionally, peer review is an authentic, common, and necessary practice in chemistry research, which warrants its incorporation early on in chemistry courses. A major concern regarding the use of peer review-based feedback is the ability of students to provide concept-based feedback that is both correct and detailed enough to enhance student understanding and support substantial revisions. In response, this work investigates the relationship between revision and the characteristics of students' peer review comments in the context of a Writing-to-Learn assignment focusing on student understanding of Lewis structures. Chemistry students wrote a summary of Lewis' 1916 paper introducing Lewis structures, participated in peer review, and revised their work in response to a structured prompt detailing specific chemistry concepts to be covered. The peer review comments and students' revisions were thematically analyzed. The peer review comments were deductively analyzed according to an analytical framework to characterize the usefulness of comments. The extent and type of student revisions were also analyzed and paired, if relevant, with the associated peer review comments. Results indicate that students provided both detailed and conceptually focused comments on their peers' work, irrespective of specific chemistry content being addressed. Although the assignment and peer review rubric were content focused, students made a mixture of editing and content revisions following peer review. These results suggest that further scaffolding of what constitutes good feedback and revision may further promote student learning.