Members of the CER community may be interested in the article 
 
     "Do we need to memorize that?" Or Cognitive Science for Chemists
 
recently published online by the journal Foundations of Chemistry.  A
pre-print is posted at   www.ChemReview.Net/CogSciForChemists.pdf 
 
The article summarizes recent cognitive science research that addresses the
specific case of how students can and cannot learn to solve the
"well-structured" (WS) problems that are the focus of introductory
"chemistry for science major" courses.  For those problems and courses, a
few of the findings are:
 
--  Limitations in human working memory mean that students must solve
problems primarily by applying facts and algorithms that they have
previously "memorized to automaticity" so that they can quickly and
accurately be recalled.  
  
--  Students who try to solve problems by applying reasoning or critical
thinking strategies without "automaticity" in the recall of the fundamental
facts and algorithms will generally not be able to solve at the success rate
necessary for work in the sciences. 
  
-- To solve problems by "thinking like a scientist," students need the
long-term-memory of a scientist, and that memory takes many years to
construct. 
  
-- Cognitive research strongly supports active learning (inquiry,
demonstrations, etc.) as a way to introduce topics briefly or to practice
the application of newly memorized elements of knowledge in the wide variety
of contexts that build conceptual understanding.  
 
It was evident in the process leading up to publication of the article that
some of these findings were viewed as controversial among some educators.
The co-authors of the article wish to thank Foundations of Chemistry editor
Eric Scerri for giving instructors the opportunity to explore these issues.

 
The question of how the student brain solves problems is central to the work
we do.  The co-authors are trained in chemistry, not cognitive science, so
our interpretation of what the experts are telling us is rightfully open to
argument and vigorous challenge if the findings of cognitive experts who
express doubt or opposing viewpoints can be cited.  
 
For at least 10 years, experts in cognition have been writing for educators
about the central role during WS problem solving of "automaticity."  In the
mathematics education community, these findings have been discussed and
debated, and the importance of "fluency" in recall is now cited frequently.

 
Though "working memory" has occasionally been discussed in articles on
chemistry education, the need for "automaticity" has rarely been addressed.
Wouild the CER list be an appropriate place to together consider what
leading cognitive scientists have to say?
 
-- Eric A. (rick) nelson