hypervalent_iodine

Thanks, iNow. I had written a response to your first comment last night, but my trigger finger closed the tab before I hit reply. I suppose for the biological and chemical sciences, lab work would constitute 'first hand experience'. It is absolutely beneficial when implemented properly. One problem I see in some of the courses the the university I attend is that first year students tend to disconnect what they do and learn in the lab from the lecture content and as a result they tend not to learn anything because they simply can't see the point. I think some of that comes down to the fact that undergrad labs are little more than mere recipe following; it's a necessary format because students really have no clue what they're doing when they first enter a lab, but comes at a cost when you consider that your typical student will put minimal thought into why they are being told to do what they're being told to do. In that vein of thought, there is this paper, which was written by one of my old lecturers earlier this year, and presents the case of undergraduate research experiences. The concept of what they are doing in that course I think is fantastic, as it provides a nice transition for students who to gain experience in doing self-motivated and hands on research. Implementing it on a larger scale is perhaps the biggest problem. Exposure to peers is very useful. Where I am, first year chemistry and biology subjects have study sessions led by second and third years, which act as a place for stuents to go to discuss whatever problems they are having with the lecture content. It's been quite successful and my own experience from leading sessions has shown that (at least in an anecdotal sense) that students seem get a lot out of it. Even with all that in place, however, there still seems to be a gap in student understanding. Perhaps it is a problem in implementation or perhaps in the way courses are taught. I quite like Capn's blog about inquiry-based learning. I think that perhaps replacing current lecture format is perhaps a bit too far, but I certainly think that inquiry based learning should start to take up a larger focus of course structure.

How strange. Just testing: Ah. So I think the wiki image might have some copyright issues or something to that effect.

I think you can, but the methods I remember reading of usually required platinum electrodes. I don't know if getting those would be possible for our friend here, since I assume they'd come at quite a cost. That being said, I don't really know why anyone would have 7 kg of mercury to start with.

! Moderator Note Once again, rajaksrna, personal comments are not permitted. Enjoy your time away.

rajaksrna has been issued with a one week vacation for what amounts to insistent trolling, personal comments, plagiarism and soap boxing as well as almost killing me as a result of the sheer volume of irony that came crashing down around me when I nearly moved one of his threads from religion to speculations.

Vaccines, IIRC, are difficult for malaria because of their innate immune defense mechanisms which results in an incomplete response by the host. There's also the issue of short generation time, which gives rise to the ability to develop multi-drug resistance and the fact that the antigens displayed by an individual parasite can differ to those displayed by another quite wildly. The latter is certainly true when you compare individuals at different stages of their life cycle, but is also true when comparing individuals from the same stage. As well, single-antigen vaccines haven't proven particularly efficacious (I think as a result of the development cycle of the parasite), so development of a vaccine requires selection of multiple antigens within the same formula (i.e. a subunit vaccine). So you're having to design a complicated vaccine to work against a parasite with a complicated life cycle and a complicated response to the host immune system. It makes life rather difficult.

You insolence will get you very badly hurt. Why do you even need it?

rajaksrna, No one ever said you couldn't provide evidence to answer a question. If you have actual evidence to support what you are saying, you are welcome to show it. In fact, we ask that you do exactly that. For the record, by evidence I do not mean simply linking a thread to your own theory about God.

We aren't obliged to tell you the specifics on what you should write for your assignment. As a more general answer to your problem, a basic outline for an assignment of this sort would be to define the question, explain the theory behind the question and formulate an answer based on that theory. The next thing you have to do is fill it out in a way that flows well, makes sense, is concise, correct and doesn't waffle on some random tangent. Do you understand the theory behind what you're trying to talk about?

! Moderator Note rajaksrna, this stops now. Thread hijacking is not allowed. Once again, I ask that you read the rules that you agreed to when you signed up and start abiding by them or your time here will be very short. Do not respond to this modnote.

! Moderator Note yrreg, it is put up or shut up time. You are required to address the questions that have been asked of you in this thread with a proper answer instead of telling members that they are being flippant for asking them. Do not respond to this modnote.

In about a year or so I plan on obtaining a graduate certificate in higher education in conjunction with what I am already doing in my current studies. Part of the assessment in this involves designing and implementing something within a course offered at the university. Although this is a fair ways off, I'm told I need to start brain storming now, which has got me to thinking about the broader state of science education at university / college level. The point of this thread is not to help me with my assignment; if anything I hope to maybe glean some inspiration and insight. Rather, what I aim to do is discuss the wider issue regarding the way we teach courses and whether or not things should be changed. My opinion is that some sort of change is required in order to fix an obvious problem with students that enter into and graduate from the tertiary education system, which is that students don't seem to be learning what they need to learn and more importantly, that they aren't understanding the material. A lot of this seems to come down to how learning is facilitated in high school, however I don't think that the blame lies entirely at their doorstep. In any case, I am interested to hear other thoughts on this. A relevant thread: What can we do for science education? As well as a couple of blog entries (enter shameless self promotion): Shut up and listen to your students - By Cap'n Refsmmat Where are they all? - By yours truly

! Moderator Note Aman shah, you already have a topic on this, you don't need another. Thread closed.

! Moderator Note Keep the conversation on topic and civil, please.

! Moderator Note Apparently no one caught what was said in this thread when it was being said a month ago, but since recent comments look to be going down the same track I will now tell you once and once only to keep this discussion civil and void of personal comments. This goes for everybody. Do not respond to this modnote.

! Moderator Note rajakrsna, copy/pasting work from other sites without including a citation is called plagiarism and like soap boxing, is against the rules.

Santalum has been banned as a sockpuppet of Greg Boyles

! Moderator Note rajakrsna, This is a reminder that soapboxing is prohibited, as per the rules that you agreed to when signing up. Start inviting discussion into this thread or it will be closed. I sometimes wish that obnoxious font type was as well. It's not, but it would be nice if you could use plain old black and white anyway.

! Moderator Note kumarevo, Please respond to the questions being asked of you with clear and concise answers rather than restating things you've already said. This is a discussion forum, not a soapbox platform.

! Moderator Note Anthony Mannucci, this is not a place for advertising your book. I have removed the link as well as your reference to it in a previous post. Don't do it again.

There is a difference between having faith in something and having blind faith in something. Science doesn't tend to entertain the latter.

Are we talking w/w % or w/v %?

NaOCl is a solid and I somewhat doubt you are using ionic liquids in class. You would be using a solution of some sort, so your question really doesn't need density but does require that you know the concentration of your solution.

If you look closely along the baseline, you'll see that it is a nonet. The peaks are a bit tiny because of how huge the methyl peaks are, but they are definitely there.

No problems and certainly feel free to come back if you have any other questions. Edit: Just re-read my last post and realised I had my stupid cap on. The precipitates won't be ammonium salts. Possibly the addition of HCl at the end is to generate ammonium salts, which will stay dissolved in your aqueous reaction mix, and allow your compound to crash out of solution. This way you keep out the impurities and starting material.