PreLecture Resources: Literature Examples

This post provides some short annotations to literature involving prelecture resources/activities – the annotations are a brief summary rather than a commentary:

  1. Online Discussion Assignments Improve Students’ Class Preparation, Teaching of Psychology, 2010, 37(2), 204-209: Lecturer used pre-lecture discussion activities to encourage students to read text before attending class. It had no direct influence on examination results but students reported that they felt they understood the material better and that they felt more prepared for exams.
  2. Using multimedia modules to better prepare students for introductory physics lecture, Physical Review Special Topics – Physics Education Research, 2010, 6(1), 010108: Authors introduce multimedia learning modules (MLMs) which are pre-lecture web-based resources which are awarded credit to incentivize usage. Authors mention one of the reasons as being to reduce the cognitive load in lectures. The total time required for each pre-lecture was about 15 mins, and they covered most of what was coming up in the lecture itself. the authors argue by presenting exam scores, etc, that the prelecture resources increased students’ understanding of a topic before coming to the lecture, measured by post-prelecture-but-before-lecture questions, and will present in a subsequent paper how the lecture experience changed because of the introduction of these resources. (T. Stelzer, D. T. Brookes, G. Gladding, and J. P. Mestre, Comparing the efficacy of multimedia modules with traditional textbooks for learning introductory physics content. Am. J. Phys.). The authors provide a link to examples of their prelecture resources (Flash resource).
  3. Benefits of prelecture quizzes, Teaching of Psychology, 2006, 33(2), 109 – 112: Tests the use of pre-lecture quizzes and found that students felt that lectures were more organised, felt better prepared for exams, and performed better on essay questions when compared to students who had not completed pre-lecture quizzes.
  4. Student-Centered Learning: A Comparison of Two Different Methods of Instruction, Journal of Chemical Education, 2004, 81(7), 985 – 988: Lecturer introduced pre-lecture quizzes to facilitate just in time teaching – teaching based on student misunderstandings/difficulties identified just prior to the lecture. The students took the approach seriously as they were given some credit for it. the approach was considered successful by staff and students in the programme.
  5. From the Textbook to the Lecture: Improving Prelecture Preparation in Organic Chemistry, Journal of Chemical Education, 2002, 79(4), 520 – 523: This paper describes attempts to encourage students to prepare for lectures. The authors argue that engagement with the textbook results in more active learning by students. Pre-lecture activities (“HWebs”) were to be completed by students prior to each lecture, and were based on the content of that lecture. The lecture itself remained relatively unchanged. The analysis found that student performance on HWebs correlated with their end of semester grade. While students generally liked the material, the felt that the system penalized them for being incorrect on material they had not yet been taught. Students did generally agree that use of the HWebs helped them understand the material in lectures. and the lecturers found that the nature of the lecture did gradually evolve to more explanation and discussion.
  6. Preparing the mind of the learner, University Chemistry Education, 1999, 3, 43: This paper uses examination statistics to demonstrate the effectiveness of pre-lectures, with a particular effect noted for students who did not have a strong background in chemistry. The pre-lecture is defined as an activity prior to block of lectures aimed at either stimulting the prior knnowledge that may be present but inaccessible/forgotten and/or to establish the essential background knowledge so that learning takes place on a solid foundation. The students involves were in a year 1 of 4 (Scottish) degree and included those who had to take chemistry in their first year as well as those who were pursuing a chemistry degree, and students with a low level of prior knowledge were enrolled on the module. The pre-lecture took the form of a short quiz at the start of the pre-lecture, which students marked themselves, followed by the class breaking into groups comprised of a mixture of self-designated “needing help” and “willing to help”.The remainder of the pre-lecture activity allowed for the group to work through activities. The evaluation took the form of comparing the exam results of students in this group (who had little or no chemistry) and the students in the group that did not have pre-lectures but had a good level of chemistry knowledge. The results demonstrated that there was a significant difference between these groups in the years that pe-lectures were not offered, but not in the years pre-lectures were offered. A range of confounding factors, including mathematics knowledge were examined and found not to affect the results. The results are surprising, given that the students without pre-lectures received approximately 10% more teaching time as this was the time given over to the pre-lectures for the group that had them.
  7. Preparing the mind of the learner – part 2, University Chemistry Education,2001, 5, 52: This second paper from the Centre for Science Education on this topic. Based on the evidence from the first study on the benefits of pre-lectures, this work looks at the development and implementation of “Chemorganisers”. These aimed to enable the preparation of students for their lecture course, ease the load on the working memory space and change students’ attitudes towards learning. The structure and purpose of Chemorganiser design is explained in detail, along with an example. Evaluation was carried out by comparing the exam marks between the two groups described in the previous paper. In the year Chemorganisers were instigated, this difference was insignificant.
  8. Developing Study Skills in the Context of the General Chemistry Course: The Prelecture Assignment, Journal of Chemical Education, 1985, 62(6) 509-510: This short paper reports on the inclusion of using instructional activities during a lecture course to allow students develop study habits.Students are asked to read a section of a text book prior to the lecture and are asked questions at the start of the lecture. Evaluation took the form of student survey, who said that they liked the pre-lecture assignments and that it encouraged in-class discussion.

Image Credit

Cognitive considerations… in practice

I posted a summary last time of what best practice from cognitive science research preached about designing online resources. Putting it into practice threw up some interesting considerations. I’ve summarised these below in light of developing my first pre-lecture resource, as well as reflections stimulated by conversations about it with my colleague Claire.

The first pre-resource is for my first lecture in introductory chemistry which is based around the structure of the atom, the main components (protons, electrons and neutrons) as derived from the Rutherford model, the notion of elements and then progresses onto a discussion of isotopes, introducing the technique of mass spectrometry.  There are a lot of new terms – I counted 17 in the lecture notes* – and I derived four learning outcomes for the lecture. Both of these exclude the case studies used in the lecture, which also incorporates a demonstration.

1. The purpose of the pre-resource:

The first step was to define the main goal of the lecture, based on Norman Reid’s advice to me on this. I decided that while it didn’t encompass everything I did in the lecture, the main goal was “to describe the structure of the atom and how this leads to the definition of an element”. This would arise out of a discussion of the Rutherford experiment.  I decided to concentrate the pre-lecture resource on this goal, which threw up my first concern that the content would be very dry. I was torn between wanting to “advertise” the themes in the first lecture and rigidly focussing on the ultimate aim of the pre-resource – to introduce the viewer to some of the terminology. The resulting resource tended very much towards the latter. I suppose this makes sense, as it means the lecture can concentrate on the more interesting aspects such as applications, contexts and so on, but it was hard not to include some of this. I had to keep reminding myself that the resource was not a summary of the lecture, more a preparation for it.

2. Design

I made a simple tabbed design which uses tabs to outline the main structure – so that everything is visible at once. There are some flaws with this – for example a student who just clicks on tabs will miss two pages, although a left hand menu will highlight this.

3. Presentation of text

Keeping in mind the modality ideas discussed in the principles post, most of the text presented in the resource is spoken, with key phrases, aims and terminology given in written form. Having scripted the resource, I added the text to the notes, which can be viewed in the presentation. The first version was a bit robotic, so after reviewing other aspects, I re-recorded the audio to try to make it a bit more casual.

4. Effect on my consideration of how to deliver

Despite having taught this content for several years, being forced to choose a small amount of content meant that I really had to think again about how I introduce this topic. For example, in considering terminology, I had a dilemma about how to phrase the wording about electrons. The Rutherford model is an over-simplification, albeit a useful one, and I like to get the message across early on about its limitations, but discussing with Claire, decided to stick to the particle notion for the pre-resource, and gradually introduce the cloud model of electrons a little later through the lectures themselves. Other changes after initial review included including a definition of the atom to begin with as well as a rationale – why what was being presented was important. I have to say the exercise of distilling down to this core level has really made me think about how this content – the very basics of chemistry – can be effectively presented. One failing that I have not yet overcome is a way to integrate the content into the prior knowledge of students, although the definitions used would relate to what students who had studied chemistry before would be used to, and the lecture is based around one of the most identifiable symbols of science – the structure of the atom (which is how I start the lecture).

I also decided that some active work could be encouraged, so ask students to do some study of their own on the Rutherford experiment before the lecture – this will tie in with changes in the lecture itself on encouraging discussion, which will be discussed elsewhere in a post on scientific literacy.

5. Quiz

At the end of the resource, I had a short quiz. There isn’t much scope with this material at this stage to introduce fading, etc, so it is fairly cut-and-dry. Because I was initially going to tie this in with assessment, I did not include any feedback or right answers. The result was that it was a bit abrupt. Claire also felt the questions were tough, which they were on looking at them again, and suggested an easy starter. Therefore I decided not to include a mark for the assessment – merely to log the fact the students do them (via SCORM), and push the assessment elements to other aspects of in-class work. This freed me up to give feedback for each question (answer specific), and allow students to review the quiz and/or print off the sheet. I think this makes for a more useful learning object.

For comparative purposes, the resource before and after analysis are linked here. the next stage will be to implement them – roll on next week!

*New terms include atom, electron, proton, neutron, nucleus, alpha-particles, radioactivity, element, atomic number, mass number, isotopes, deuterium, tritium, density, atomic mass unit, mass spectroscopy, ionised.

Cognitive Considerations in Designing E-Resources

This post aims to consider cognitive load theory and what considerations should be drawn from it in the design of electronic instructional materials. Sweller (2008) discusses several strategies for harnessing the principles of CLT in e-learning design. Several of these strategies are described by Clark and Mayer (2008), so overlap between both are discussed in tandem below. Mayer’s multimedia learning model (Mayer 2005) is used here as the underlying framework for the principles discussed. Before these are discussed, there is a brief explanation of what CLT is, along with the processes involved in learning new information.

What is Cognitive Load Theory?

Cognitive load theory (CLT) is model for instructional design based on knowledge of how we acquire, process and retain new information. It proposes that a successful use of the model will result in more effectual learning, and the retaining of information in the long term memory, which can be recalled when required in a given context. The theory distinguishes three types of cognitive load (Sweller 2008, Ayres and Paas, 2009):

  1. Intrinsic load is caused by the complexity of the material. This depends on the level of expertise of the learner – in other words it depends on the learner’s understanding of the subject.
  2. Extraneous load depends on the quality or nature of the instructional materials. Poor materials or those that require a large amount of working memory to process will increase the load and leave little capacity for learning.
  3. Germane load is the mental effort required for learning. Because of the limited capacity of the working memory, germane load (the extent of learning) is dependent on the extent of the extraneous load, and also on the material and expertise of the learner – the intrinsic load. An expert on a topic is able to draw from prior knowledge, and release working memory capacity for germane load processing.

The mechanism of information processing was summarised succinctly by Mayer for the purposes of multimedia learning. This is similar in many respects to the information processing model familiar to many chemists through the work of Alex Johnstone (Johnstone, Sleet and Vianna 1994, Johnstone 1997). Mayer’s model is shown in the figure below (Clarke and Mayer 2008).

Cognitive Theory and Multimedia Learning (from Clarke and Mayer, 2008 and Mayer, 2005)

Information is presented to users in the form of words and pictures (there are other channels too, but these are the most pertinent to e-learning). The user senses these (what Johnstone refers to as a perception filter) and some of this is processed in the working memory, which can hold and process just some information at any time (this can be quantified using the M-capacity test). If this material can be related to existing prior knowledge, it is integrated with it, and effective learning occurs – the new experiences/information are stored in the long-term memory.

Considerations for Presentation of Information

1. Split-Attention

Learning materials that provide two sources of mutually dependent information (e.g. audio and visual) will require the learner to process both channels and integrate them, requiring working memory. Design of the materials should therefore ensure that as, for example, a reference to the diagram is being verbalised, the associated diagram reference is clear for the viewer to see. The alternative is that learners require working memory to process the diagram to find the reference being verbalised. Clark and Mayer call this the contiguity principle, and provide two strategies for considering it in practice, namely to place printed words near the corresponding graphics (including, for example, feedback on the same screen as the question and integration of text legends) and to synchronize spoken words with the corresponding graphics.

2. Modality

Because the working memory has “channels”, the most significant being  the visual/pictorial and auditory/verbal information channels, consideration of the nature or mode of information can be beneficial. In the split-attention effect, above, it was argued that they different modes must be integrated effectively to ensure that working memory was not overloaded. This can be teased out a little further. If learning material contains a diagram and explanation, (mutually dependent), the explanation can be in text or audio form. Presenting the explanation in text form means that learners’ visual/pictorial channel will be overloaded more quickly, as they must process the diagram and read the text. If the text is presented as audio, both channels are being used effectively. Clark and Mayer also discuss the modality principle, advising that words should be presented as audio and not on screen. However, they limit it to situations where there are mutually dependent visual/auditory information being presented (see below). Additionally, they argue that there are occasions where text is necessary – for example a mathematical formula or directions for an exercise, that learners may need to reread and process.

3. Redundancy

The split-attention and modality effects considered mutually dependent information. If there is multiple representations of the same material, each self-sufficient, or if there is material of no direct use to  learning, it can be considered redundant. The time required to attend to unnecessary information or process multiple versions of the same information means that the working memory capacity is reduced. Clark and Mayer also discuss the redundancy effect, especially recommending that on-screen text is not used in conjunction with narration, except in situations where there are no diagrams, or the learner has enough time to process pictures and text, or the learner may have difficulty processing the speech.

Consideration for Design of Interactions

1. Worked Examples

Worked examples have been shown to reduce cognitive load. The reason is that students who were exposed to worked examples and who then were required to solve problems did not need to spend extraneous load on the process of solving the examples, and could concentrate on the problem itself instead. Clark and Mayer agree, and discuss five strategies for incorporating worked examples into e-learning instruction, including fading, below. (Crippen and Brooks (2009) have previously discussed the case for worked examples in chemistry.)

2. Expertise-Reversal

While the case for worked examples is strong, the situation becomes problematic when learners who are already expert engage with the material. In this scenario, their learning may be at best the same as solving problems without worked examples and at worst hampered by the presence of worked examples. The nature of delivery of material (considered for example in the split-attention and modality sections) can also differ for experts, as some material may become redundant. A potential solution offered by Sweller is to present learners with a partially completed problem and asked to indicate the next step required. The response was then used to direct the further instruction pathways.

3. Fading

Fading is related to worked examples, and involves a progressive reduction in the information presented in worked examples, so that learners are initially provided with many details on how to process a worked example, with the amount of guidance (scaffolding) reduced as more examples are provided. Clark and Mayer discuss this in some detail, and highlight it as a potential remedy for the expertise-reversal effect. For a three step problem, they propose that in the first worked example, all three steps are shown, and in each subsequent example, one step is left to the learner until they are required to complete an entire problem. They do acknowledge though that there is not yet sufficient evidence for how fast fading should proceed. Clarke and Mayer state that some students may not engage with the worked out components of a faded example, and propose that a worked out step of a faded example could be coupled with  request requiring learners to state a reason/principle why a particular step was used. This is aimed to ensure learners are interacting with material that may otherwise be passive.

Having considered these principles, the next task is to implement them into a design framework. This will be discussed in a subsequent post.


Ayres, P. and Paas, F. (2009) Interdisciplinary perspectives inspiring a new generation of cognitive load research, Educational Psychology Review, 21, 1-9.

Clarke, R. C. and Mayer, R. E. (2008) E-Learning and the science of instruction, Pfeiffer (Wiley): San Francisco, 2nd Ed.

Crippen, K. C. and Brooks, D. W. (2009) Applying cognitive theory to chemistry instruction: the case for worked examples, Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 10, 35 – 41.

Johnstone, A. H., Sleet, R. J. and Vianna, J. F. (1994) An information processing model of learning: Its application to an undergraduate laboratory course in chemistry, Studies in Higher Education, 19(1), 77-87.

Johnstone, A. H. (1997), ‘…And some fell on good ground’, University Chemical Education,1, 8-13.

Mayer, R. E. (2005) Cognitive theory of multimedia learning, in Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning, R. E. Mayer, Cambridge University Press: Cambridge.

Sweller, J. (2008) Routledge: Human Cognitive Architechture, in Handbook of research on educational communications and technology, Spector, J. M., Merrill, M. D., van Merrienboer, J. and Driscoll, M. P., New York, 3rd Ed.

Constructivism in Chemistry

This post summarises what it means to me as a chemistry teacher/lecturer to subscribe to the theory of constructivism in chemistry education, highlighting the teaching and learning stances that are adopted to align with this viewpoint. Some counter arguments to the principle of constructivism in chemistry are given which fall into two general categories: epistemological arguments and pedagogic arguments.

Image of Chemistry Building
What do we mean as chemical educators when we say we subscribe to constructivism?


Constructivism is a theory of learning which describes how learners build on existing or prior knowledge to incorporate new knowledge, based on their learning experiences. The theory is based on the principle that knowledge is not “discovered”, but constructed in the mind of the learner. Bodner was among the first or chemistry educators to consider chemistry education through a constructivist lens, basing his thoughts on the work of Herron, Piaget and von Glaserfield (Bodner, 1986, 2006, Bodner and Klobuchar, 2001). Writing in 1986, he said:

Anyone who has studied chemistry, or tried to teach it to others, knows that active students learn more than passive students. Chemists should therefore have a natural affinity  for a model which replaces a more or less passive recipient of knowledge with an active learner. The problem with constructivism arises when one tries to look at the logical consequences of the assumption that knowledge is constructed in the mind of the learner.

He continued with the analogy of a key and a lock, based on von Glaserfield. A match of the key would open the lock, as it would be an exact replica of the key. This represents the traditional view of knowledge where the knowledge in one learner’s mind is considered to be exactly the same as the knowledge in a second learner’s mind. A fit that would open the lock, but may be a different configuration to the original key is the analogy for a constructivist viewpoint. In this case, the learner has their own understanding of the knowledge, that arrives to the same correct conclusions, but this understanding may differ from another learner. The proviso here of course is that the knowledge must “fit” – as the learner constructs knowledge, it is continually tested to ensure that it applicable to whatever theory or problem is under consideration. In other words, it is not sufficient for independent learners to have their own viewpoint and consider themselves correct regardless of the challenge to this viewpoint.

Implications for Teaching and Learning Chemistry

Many constructivists writing on the topic of implication of a constructivist viewpoint quote Ausubel’s statement: “The most important single factor influencing learning is what the learner already knows.” (Bodner, 1986, Sirhan, Gray, Johnstone and Reid, 1999, Reid, 2008, Byers and Eilks, 2009). This statement manifests itself in various forms.

The construction of new knowledge depends on students capacity to integrate their experiences as they occur – determined by their working memory – with their existing knowledge. Therefore, it follows that the better organised their existing knowledge, and the more capable learners are with a topic in terms of language, terminology, etc, the better they will assimilate their new experiences into their existing knowledge (Johnstone, 1997). As experts in chemistry, we can quickly study a new aspect of chemistry and assimilate it much more readily than a new learner, who may find constructing a knowledge about a new subject difficult if no attempt is made to link it to some form of prior knowledge (Byers and Eilks, 2009). Furthermore, we may apply algorithms or short-cuts to solving a problem in our discipline, that to a novice learner would be an insurmountable task because they do not have the requisite knowledge to understand the origin of the short cuts (see the work of Johnstone and Reid). In this case, novices will rely on algorithms, or learning by rote, or following instructions, without understanding why they are doing so.

Students who are constructing new knowledge on poor foundations or incorrect knowledge (misconceptions) will run into difficulties as they try to integrate their new and existing knowledge. There is a large body of literature on misconceptions in chemistry, but fundamentally we can say that as teachers, we need to understand our learners’ misconceptions so that we can challenge them and help the learner reconstruct the knowledge (see the work of D. F. Treagust). Misconceptions can be firmly entrenched, and from a constructivist viewpoint, they cannot be “corrected” simply by telling learners the correct method or principle – learners themselves have to work through scenarios that will demonstrate the flaw in their current conception and therefore construct a new mental model of the topic under consideration.

Subscribing to constructivism will also mean that the traditional lecture environment is considered a very poor learning experience. Byers has suggested that the mechanism of “information transfer” could be considered a two-stage process – a short term memorisation of information followed by a longer term process of reflection and assimilation of information into learners’ knowledge structure (Byers, 2001). Teaching needs to provide a space for that reflection time facilitating meaningful learning and knowledge development. How does this manifest itself in practice? Given that the construction of knowledge involves linking new concepts to prior knowledge and the challenging of these new concepts in the development of a mental model on a new topic, several strategies can be employed. These include (Byers and Eilks, 2009): building on prior knowledge and experiences while challenging misconceptions by provoking cognitive conflicts; facilitating active learning through group and peer work (Cooper, 2005), engaging feedback, scaffolding new experiences; communication between peers of different abilities (Sirhan and Reid, 2001), multiple representations of materials to promote a better conceptualisation of new knowledge and allow for challenge and development of mental models as they are built and a move away from the “product” of learning towards the “process” of learning in the development of independent learners. Bodner quotes Rosalind Driver on the characteristics of a teacher with a constructivist viewpoint (Bodner, 2001):

  • “They question students’ answers, whether they are right or wrong, to make sure that the same words are being used to describe the same phenomena.
  • They insist that students explain the answers they give.
  • They don’t allow students to use words or equations without explaining them.
  • They encourage students to reflect on their answers, which is an essential part of the learning process.”

Coll and Talyor (2001) put it more succinctly when they cite Hand and Vance in their paper on new skills a lecturer should require to teach from a constructivist viewpoint:  “negotiation, group work, and thinking on your feet.” I take it from their paper that this isn’t meant as a compliment to the method.

Counter-Arguments to Constructivism

While the principles of constructivism have gained general acceptance, in practice at least, as a form of science education (Byers and Eilks, 2009), it is not without its critics, who argue that its rise has gone largely unchallenged. Criticism is levelled both an the underlying philosophy that constructivism is an educational theory at all, not least that it is not suitable for a science discipline as well as the problems of implementing constructivist principles in practice.

At the philosophical level, Scerri, an anti-constructivist (Wink, 2006) applauds “chemical constructivists for encouraging teachers to be more conscious of the fact that students come to the study of chemical topics from a great variety of backgrounds” but argues that aligning to constructivism in chemistry (education) is fundamentally anti-scientific (Scerri, 2003) because of its basis in the concept that knowledge is “mind-dependent”. He is editor of the journal Foundations of Chemistry and in 2006 an entire issue was devoted to the topic of constructivism in chemistry. Wink, (2006) writing in this special issue seems to find a pragmatic middle road by arguing that there is a difference between epistemological and pedagogic constructivism, in a nice paper on the intellectual considerations around defining constructivism.

Another criticism of constructivism is that following the work of Vygotsky, it is considered that learning takes place in a social context – but the principle of constructivism at its heart states that learning is an independent activity. Bodner addresses this (Bodner, 2006):

It is tempting to think about radical constructivism and social constructivism as opposite ends of a continuum. At one end, learners construct knowledge in isolation, based on their experiences of the world in which they live. At the other end, learning is embedded in social and cultural factors. Most situations in which learning occurs, however fall somewhere between these two extremes. Learning is a complex process that occurs within a social context, as the social constructivists point out, but it is ultimately the individual who does the learning, as the radical constructivists would argue.

At a practical level, two problems with constructivism have been outlined (Coll and Taylor, 2001): large class sizes and a large curriculum work against an approach that seeks to find and challenge students’ views and the ontological beliefs underpinning constructivism mean that it is impossible for teachers to debunk dubious theory. While I am not informed enough to say, I think Wink’s article addresses this latter concern. The former I do not believe to be an argument against constructivism, more an argument against the current practice in higher education!

I would love to hear from others who have a viewpoint on constructivism as an educational theory.

Bibliography and References

  • G. M. Bodner, J. Chem. Ed.,1986, 63, 873–878.
  • G. M. Bodner, M. Klobuchar and D. Geelen, J. Chem. Ed.,2001, 78, 1107-.
  • G. M. Bodner, in: Theoretical Frameworks for research in chemistry/science education, 2006, pp. 2 – 26, Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
  • B. Byers, 2001, U. Chem. Ed., 5, 24-30.
  • B. Byers, in: Innovative Methods in Teaching and Learning Chemistry in Higher Education, 2009, pp. 5 – 21, I. Eilks and B. Byers (Eds.), London:RSC.
  • R. J. Coll and T. G. N. Taylor, CERAPIE, 2001, 2, 215 – 226.
  • M.M. Cooper. An Introduction to Small Group Learning. In T. Greenbowe, N. Pienta and M.M. Cooper (Eds.), The Chemists’ Guide to Effective Teaching, pp. 117–128. Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall, 2005.
  • A.H. Johnstone, Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 1991, 7, 75–83.
  • A. H. Johnstone, U. Chem. Ed., 1997, 1 8-13
  • N. Reid, 2008, Chem. Ed. Res. Pract., 9, 51-59.
  • E. R. Scerri, J. Chem. Ed., 2003, 80, 468-474.
  • E. R. Scerri, Foundations of Chemistry, 2006, Special Issue on constructivism in chemistry
  • G. Sirhan, C. Gray, A. H. Johnstone and N. Reid, U. Chem. Ed., 1999, 3, 43
  • G. Sirhan, N. Reid, U. Chem. Ed., 2001, 5, 52.
  • D. J. Wink, Foundations of Chemistry, 2006, 8, 111–151.
  • The Role of Constructivism in Teaching and Learning Chemistry: