Skip to main content

Alena Moon

Title: Associate Professor

Department: Chemistry

College: College of Science

Curriculum Vitae

Curriculum Vitae Link

Education

  • PhD, Purdue University, 2016
    Major: Chemistry
    Specialization: Chemical and Engineering Education
    Dissertation: Analysis of Scientific Argumentation in Two Physical Chemistry Classrooms Using the Pogil Approach

Current Scheduled Teaching

CHEM 6940.757Individual ResearchSpring 2025

Previous Scheduled Teaching

CHEM 1410.004General Chemistry for Science MajorsFall 2024 Syllabus SPOT
CHEM 1410.204General Chemistry for Science MajorsFall 2024
CHEM 6940.757Individual ResearchFall 2024

Published Intellectual Contributions

    Book Chapter

  • Towns, M., Cole, R., Moon, A., Stanford, C. (2019). Argumentation in Physical Chemistry. Argumentation in Chemistry Education. Royal Society of Chemistry. https://books.rsc.org/books/edited-volume/766/chapter-abstract/492585/Argumentation-in-Physical-Chemistry?redirectedFrom=fulltext
  • Bain, K., Rodriguez, J., Moon, A., Towns, M. (2019). Mathematics in Chemical Kinetics: Which Is the Cart, and Which Is the Horse?. 1316 25-46. ACS Symposium Series. https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/bk-2019-1316.ch003
  • Conference Proceeding

  • Winograd, B., Dood, A., Moeller, R., Moon, A., Gere, A., Shultz, G. (2022). Detecting High Orders of Cognitive Complexity in Students’ Reasoning in Argumentative Writing About Ocean Acidification.. 11th International Learning Analytics and Knowledge Conference. https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3448139.3448202
  • Stanford, C., Moon, A., Towns, M., Cole, R. (2018). The impact of guided inquiry materials on student representational level understanding of thermodynamics. Engaging Students in Physical Chemistry. ACS Symposium series. https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/bk-2018-1279.ch010
  • Journal Article

  • Al Fulaiti, H., Cole, A., Balabanoff, m., Moon, A. (2024). Toward a Model of Cognition for UV/Vis Spectroscopy. Journal of Chemical Education. 101 (8) 3062-3071. American Chemical Society. https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.jchemed.4c00120
  • Berg, S., Moon, A. (2023). A characterization of chemistry learners’ engagement in data analysis and interpretation.. Chemistry Education Research and Practice. 24 36-49. Royal Society of Chemistry. https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlelanding/2023/rp/d2rp00154c
  • Urbanek, M., Moritz, B., Moon, A. (2023). Exploring students’ dominant approaches to managing epistemic uncertainty when engaging in argument from evidence.. Chemistry Education Research and Practice. 24 1142-1152. Royal Society of Chemistry. https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlelanding/2023/rp/d3rp00035d
  • Balabanoff, M., Harrold, A., Moon, A. (2023). Knowledge analysis of chemistry students’ reasoning about the double-slit experiment.. Electronic Journal for Research in Science & Mathematics Education. 27 (1) https://ejrsme.icrsme.com/article/view/22117
  • Zhou, J., Moon, A. (2023). “To be honest, I didn’t even use the data”: Organic chemistry students’ engagement in data analysis and interpretation.. Journal of Chemical Education. 100 (1) 80-90. https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.jchemed.2c00840
  • Balabanoff, M., Kaur, S., Barbera, J., Moon, A. (2022). A construct modeling approach to characterizing students’ understanding of wave-particle duality. International Journal of Science Education. 44 (6) 873-895. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/09500693.2022.2055190?casa_token=bqG7nUfPcUEAAAAA%3AM8i-N8eHoYjKeAMzEYjHrdePWwy-Fx_vyw-ZreDguaV8nK0ecycgIeknkL-R9dZXPcQD-skcjHxgDg
  • Balabanoff, M., Alfulaiti, H., DeKorver, B., Mack, M., Moon, A. (2022). Development of the Water Instrument: A comprehensive measure of students’ conceptual knowledge of fundamental concepts in general chemistry.. Chemistry Education Research and Practice. 23 (2) 348-360. https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlelanding/2022/rp/d1rp00270h
  • Berg, S., Moon, A. (2022). Prompting hypothetical social comparisons to support chemistry students’ data analysis and interpretation.. Chemistry Education Research and Practice. 23 (1) 124-136. https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlelanding/2022/rp/d1rp00213a
  • Lazenby, K., Balabanoff, M., Becker, N., Moon, A., Barbera, J. (2021). From ideas to items: A primer on the development of ordered multiple-choice items for investigating the progression of learning in higher education STEM.. Journal of Chemical Education. 98 (3) 714–729. https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.jchemed.0c01121
  • Balabanoff, M., Alfulaiti, H., Bhusal, s., Harrold, A., Moon, A. (2020). An exploration of chemistry students’ conceptions of light and matter in the context of the photoelectric effect.. International Journal of Science Education. 42 (6) 861-881. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/09500693.2020.1736358
  • Zotos, E., Moon, A., Shultz, G. (2020). Investigation of chemistry graduate teaching assistants' teacher knowledge and teacher identity. Journal of Research in Science Teaching. 57 (6) 943-967. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/tea.21618
  • Moon, A., Moeller, R., Gere, A., Shultz, G. (2019). Application and testing of a framework for characterizing the quality of scientific reasoning in chemistry students’ writing on ocean acidification. Chemistry Education Research and Practice. 20 (3) https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlelanding/2019/rp/c9rp00005d
  • Moon, A., Zotos, E., Finkenstaedt-Quinn, S., Gere, A., Shultz, G. (2018). Investigation of the role of writing-to-learn in promoting student understanding of light-matter interactions. Chemistry Education Research and Practice. 19 (3) https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlelanding/2018/rp/c8rp00090e
  • Bain, K., Rodriguez, J., Moon, A., Towns, M. (2018). The characterization of cognitive processes involved in chemical kinetics using a blended processing framewor. Chemistry Education Research and Practice. 19 (2) https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlelanding/2018/rp/c7rp00230k
  • Moon, A., Gere, A., Shultz, G. (2018). Writing in the STEM classroom: Faculty conceptions of writing and its role in the classroom. Science Education. 102 (5) https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/sce.21454
  • Moon, A., Stanford, c., Cole, R., Towns, M. (2017). Analysis of inquiry materials to explain complexity of chemical reasoning in physical chemistry students’ argumentation. Journal of Research in Science Teaching. 54 (10) https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/tea.21407
  • Moon, A., Stanford, C., Cole, R., Towns, M. (2017). Decentering: A characteristic of effective student-student discourse in inquiry-oriented physical chemistry classrooms. Journal of Chemical Education. 94 (7) https://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/acs.jchemed.6b00856
  • Finkenstaedt-Quinn, S., Halim, A., Chambers, T., Moon, A., Goldman, R., Gere, A., Shultz, G. (2017). Investigation of the influence of a writing-to-learn assignment on student understanding of polymer properties. Journal of Chemical Education. 94 (11) https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.jchemed.7b00363#
  • Rodriguez, J., Bain, K., Moon, A., DeKorver, B., Mack, M., Towns, M. (2017). The Citation index of chemistry education research in the Journal of Chemical Education from 2008 to 2016: A closer look at the impact factor. Journal of Chemical Education. 94 (5) https://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/acs.jchemed.7b00062
  • Stanford, C., Moon, A., Towns, M., Cole, R. (2016). Analysis of instructor facilitation strategies and their influences on student argumentation: A case study of a POGIL physical chemistry classroom. Journal of Chemical Education. 93 (9) https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.jchemed.5b00993
  • Moon, A., Stanford, C., Cole, R., Towns, M. (2016). The nature of students’ chemical reasoning employed in scientific argumentation in physical chemistry.. Chemistry Education Research and Practice. 17 (2) https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlelanding/2016/rp/c5rp00207a
  • Bain, K., Moon, A., Mack, m., Towns, M. (2014). Review of research on the teaching and learning of thermodynamics at the university level.. Chemistry Education Research and Practice. 15 (3) https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlelanding/2014/rp/c4rp00011k

Contracts, Grants and Sponsored Research

    Grant - Research

  • Moon, A., "Collaborative research: supporting chemistry students' science practice self-efficacy," sponsored by National Science Foundation, Federal, $364595 Funded. (2023).
  • Moon, A., "Supporting students' critical evaluation of evidence in collaborative socioscientific argumentation," sponsored by National Science Foundation, Federal, $299983 Funded. (2022).
  • Moon, A., "Quantum business, arts, and science for society," sponsored by University of Nebraska Lincoln, Other, $629692 Funded. (2022 - 2024).
  • Moon, A., "Developing educational measurement competency to promote investigation of students' understanding of light," sponsored by National Science Foundation, Federal, $300000 Funded. (2019 - 2021).
  • Moon, A., "Undergraduate research scholarship," sponsored by UNL UCARE, Other, $7200 Funded. (2020 - 2021).
  • Moon, A., "Development of an instrument to comprehensively assess core concepts in a year-long chemistry sequence," sponsored by UNL Research Council, Other, $10000 Funded. (2019 - 2019).
  • Moon, A., "Focus group interviews: A novel approach to facilitating co-construction of scientific arguments in undergraduate chemistry," sponsored by UNL Research Council, Other, $9593 Funded. (2019 - 2019).
  • Moon, A., "Development of automated text analysis tools for characterizing quality of scientific arguments," Other, $1400 Funded. (2018 - 2018).
,
Overall
Summative Rating
Challenge and
Engagement Index
Response Rate

out of 5

out of 7
%
of
students responded
  • Overall Summative Rating (median):
    This rating represents the combined responses of students to the four global summative items and is presented to provide an overall index of the class’s quality. Overall summative statements include the following (response options include a Likert scale ranging from 5 = Excellent, 3 = Good, and 1= Very poor):
    • The course as a whole was
    • The course content was
    • The instructor’s contribution to the course was
    • The instructor’s effectiveness in teaching the subject matter was
  • Challenge and Engagement Index:
    This rating combines student responses to several SPOT items relating to how academically challenging students found the course to be and how engaged they were. Challenge and Engagement Index items include the following (response options include a Likert scale ranging from 7 = Much higher, 4 = Average, and 1 = Much lower):
    • Do you expect your grade in this course to be
    • The intellectual challenge presented was
    • The amount of effort you put into this course was
    • The amount of effort to succeed in this course was
    • Your involvement in course (doing assignments, attending classes, etc.) was
CLOSE