Analysis of Ambiguous Information about Chemical Compounds in Online Databases
More details
Hide details
Charles University, Fakulty of Education, Department of Chemistry and Chemistry Education, Prague, CZECH REPUBLIC
Charles University, Fakulty of Education, Department of Mathematics and Mathematical Education, Prague, CZECH REPUBLIC
Martin Rusek   

Charles University, Fakulty of Education, Department of Chemistry and Chemistry Education, Magdaleny Rettigove 4, Prague, Czech Republic
Online publish date: 2017-09-29
Publish date: 2017-09-29
EURASIA J. Math., Sci Tech. Ed 2017;13(10):6533–6543
The Wolfram applications enable direct access to several main information sources (databases) and enable the data to be analysed easily. This offers developing information literacy on authentic material in chemistry education. For chemical compound identification: CAS, CID and Beilstein Numbers are used. In this paper, the authors focused on the ambiguousness of carbohydrate identification using these numbers. Altogether, there are 1498 compounds listed under the CAS Number, whereas CID and Beilstein Numbers are not assigned to every compound with CAS. During the analysis, several hundred entries with duplicate records were found, providing ambiguous information about the compounds. The authors focus on ambiguous database records, further analyse the physical properties of two compounds with several assigned identification numbers. This approach offers a suggestion on how to work with this topic in education, offering fruitful educational content.
1. Abramovich, S. (2014). Revisiting mathematical problem solving and posing in the digital era: Toward pedagogically sound uses of modern technology. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 45(7), 1034-1052.
2. Bell, R. L., Gess-Newsome, J., & Luft, J. (2008). Technology in the secondary science classroom: NSTA Press.
3. Beneš, P., Rusek, M., & Kudrna, T. (2015). Tradice a současný stav pomůckového zabezpečení edukačního chemického experimentu v České republice. Chemické Listy, 109(2), 159-162.
4. Eilks, I., Wittec, T., & Pietzner, V. (2009). A Critical Discussion of The Efficacy of Using Visual Learning Aids From The Internet To Promote Understanding, Illustrated With Examples Explaining The Daniell Voltaic Cell. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 5(2), 145-152.
5. Ersoy, M., & Akbulut, Y. (2014). Cognitive and affective implications of persuasive technology use on mathematics instruction. Computers & Education, 75, 253-262. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2014.03.009.
6. Filippoupoliti, A., & Koliopoulos, D. (2014). Informal and non-formal education: An outline of History of Science in museums. Science & Education, 23(4), 781-791. doi: 10.1007/s11191-014-9681-2.
7. Fraillon, J., Ainley, J., Schulz, W., Friedman, T., & Gebhardt, E. (2014). Preparing for Life in Digital Age. Amsterdam: Springer International Publishing.
8. Greenhow, C., & Lewin, C. (2016). Social media and education: reconceptualizing the boundaries of formal and informal learning. Learning, Media and Technology, 41(1), 6-30. doi:10.1080/17439884.2015.1064954.
9. Jančaříková, K. (2017). Teaching Aids and Work with Models in e Learning Environments. The Electronic Journal of e-Learning, 15(3), 244-258.
10. Kim, M., & Aktan, T. (2014). How to Enlarge the Scope of the Curriculum Integration of Mathematics and Science (CIMAS): A Delphi Study. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 10(5), 455-469. doi:10.12973/eurasia.2014.1115a.
11. Král, L., & Řezníčková, D. (2013). The proliferation and implementation of GIS as an educational tool at gymnasiums/grammar schools in Czechia. Geografie, 118(3), 265-283.
12. Lebedeva, O., & Zaitseva, L. (2014). Question Answering Systems in Education and their Classifications. Paper presented at the Joint International Conference on Engineering Education & International Conference on Information Technology.
13. Libman, D., & Huang, L. (2013). Chemistry on the Go: Review of Chemistry Apps on Smartphones. Journal of Chemical Education, 90(3), 320-325. doi:10.1021/ed300329e.
14. OECD. (2016). Pisa 2015 Results (Volume 1): Excellence and Equity in Education Paris: PISA, OECD Publishing.
15. Pence, H. E., & Williams, A. J. (2016). Big data and chemical education. Journal of Chemical Education, 93(3), 504-508. doi:10.1021/acs.jchemed.5b00524.
16. Rusek, M. & Dlabola, Z. (2011). “Projectivity” of Projects and Ways of its Achievement. Project-Based Education in Chemistry and Related Fields, IX, 12-23.
17. Rusek, M., Stárková, D., Chytrý, V., & Bílek, M. (2017). Adoption of ICT Innovations by Secondary School Teachers and Pre-service Teachers within Education. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 16(4), 510-523.
18. Sha, L., Looi, C. K., Chen, W., & Zhang, B. H. (2012). Understanding mobile learning from the perspective of self-regulated learning. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 28(4), 366-378. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2729.2011.00461.x.
19. Weisstein, E. (2014). Computable Data, Mathematics, and Digital Libraries in Mathematica and Wolfram Alpha. In S. M. Watt, J. H. Davenport, A. P. Sexton, P. Sojka & J. Urban (Eds.), Intelligent Computer Mathematics: International Conference, CICM 2014, Coimbra, Portugal, July 7-11, 2014. Proceedings (pp. 26-29). Cham: Springer International Publishing.