In the 2013 Inorganic Curriculum Survey, respondents were asked about the resources they used when they teach inorganic chemistry. About 20% of respondents selected "other" and provided information about these resources. A number of people mentioned specific websites. This collection consists of the websites submitted in the survey.
It is the classic game of telephone (or whatever local varient name you might use). Put a bunch of people in a line. Start by whispering something to the first person and then have them whisper it to the next. This process continues until the last person states out loud what they heard. Usually the starting and ending statements are quite different. When students are reading a paper, it is fairly likely that they feel anything the paper they are reading says about a reference is correct.
This in-class group activity provides several examples of varying difficulty for students to assign MLXZ classifications and electron counts to organometallic complexes. Though some of the problems are straightforward, some are really ambiguous, and the intent is for student groups to grapple with the issues raised by each one and present their findings to the class to spark further discussion.
The slides provide review questions for a senior-level treatment of the spectroscopy and reactivity of metal carbonyl complexes. These are intended to be dispersed through one to three class periods.
The first slide is a review of electron counting and the 18-electron rule.
The second slide quizzes the students on the relationship between the electron-density of the metal center and the strength of the C-O bonds in the carbonyl ligands. It is intended to be given after a discussion of how IR can be used to assess the strength of M-C and C-O bonds in the compounds.
This is a collection of LOs that I used to teach a junior-senior seminar course on organometallics during Fall 2014 at Harvey Mudd College.
This set of questions was used to promote discussion within small groups (3 to 4 students) on how changing ligand properties can have dramatic effects on the product distributions in Pd-catalyzed cross coupling reactions. The questions are pretty difficult and not always straightforward, partly because they are derived from the primary literature and thus inherently "messy".
This learning object is designed to spark discussion and educate students taking an inorganic chemistry course about laboratory safety. It uses the article "Learning from UCLA" by Jyllian N. Kemsley (Chemical & Engineering News (2009), Vol. 87 Issue 31, pp.
In this activity, students will compare and contrast two closely related structures, [Pd(dcpf)PR3]2+ (dcpf = 1,1'-bis(dicyclohexylphosphino)ferrocene; R = Me or Ph). They will be required to obtain the cif files from the supporting information of a paper. They will then make a variety of measurments in the two stuctures. These measurements can be made using a variety of different freely available programs. Instructions are provided for Mercury 3.3 and Olex2. Finally, students will be required to provide a rationale for the differences in the two structures.
The following paper will be given to the students to study at home along with the questions in the attached document. Students will be allowed to discuss their answers in small groups and refine their answers, before the corresct answer is revealed.
The students will not need to see the actual spectra that are in the SI to be able to address the given questions, the spectra can be projected to the class when the answers of the student groups are discussed
Origins of Enantioselectivity during Allylic Substitution Reactions Catalyzed by Metallacyclic Iridium Complexes.