View in EDS

'That's Not a Super Important Point': Second-Semester Organic Chemistry Students' Lines of Reasoning When Comparing Substitution Reactions

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: 'That's Not a Super Important Point': Second-Semester Organic Chemistry Students' Lines of Reasoning When Comparing Substitution Reactions
Language: English
Authors: Ina Zaimi (ORCID 0000-0001-7759-5389), Field M. Watts (ORCID 0000-0002-1800-1816), David Kranz (ORCID 0000-0002-2054-6882), Nicole Graulich (ORCID 0000-0002-0444-8609), Ginger V. Shultz (ORCID 0000-0002-7285-748X)
Source: Chemistry Education Research and Practice. 2025 26(1):112-125.
Availability: Royal Society of Chemistry. Thomas Graham House, Science Park, Milton Road, Cambridge, CB4 0WF, UK. Tel: +44-1223 420066; Fax: +44-1223 423623; e-mail: cerp@rsc.org; Web site: http://www.rsc.org/cerp
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 14
Publication Date: 2025
Sponsoring Agency: National Science Foundation (NSF), Graduate Research Fellowship Program (GRFP)
Contract Number: 000884418
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Education Level: Higher Education
Postsecondary Education
Descriptors: Undergraduate Students, College Science, Organic Chemistry, Science Process Skills, Thinking Skills, Abstract Reasoning, Problem Solving, Multivariate Analysis
DOI: 10.1039/D4RP00086B
ISSN: 1756-1108
Abstract: Solving organic chemistry reactions requires reasoning with multiple concepts and data (i.e., multivariate reasoning). However, studies have reported that organic chemistry students typically demonstrate univariate reasoning. Case comparisons, where students compare two or more tasks, have been reported to support students' multivariate reasoning. Using a case-comparison task, we explored students' multivariate reasoning. Our study was guided by the resources framework. One conceptual resource activates another conceptual resource and, successively, a set of conceptual resources. This successively activated set of resources is expressed in a line of reasoning. Pairing this framework with qualitative methods, we interviewed eleven second-semester organic chemistry students while they compared two substitution reaction mechanisms and chose the mechanism with the lower activation energy. We analysed what conceptual resources and lines of reasoning were activated and the variation to which students engaged in multivariate reasoning. Students activated multiple conceptual resources and, moreover, extended their activated resources into both developed and undeveloped lines of reasoning. When constructing their explanations, most students engaged in univariate reasoning. These students provided a developed line of reasoning selected from multiple activated resources, or they provided an undeveloped line of reasoning constructed from only one activated resource. Few students engaged in multivariate reasoning. These students provided both developed and undeveloped lines of reasoning from multiple activated resources. Our findings highlight the variation with which students engage in both univariate and multivariate reasoning. Therefore, we recommend that case-comparison activities scaffold engagement with multiple lines of reasoning in addition to activating and developing them.
Abstractor: As Provided
Entry Date: 2025
Accession Number: EJ1456912
Database: ERIC
FullText Text:
  Availability: 0
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1456912
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: 'That's Not a Super Important Point': Second-Semester Organic Chemistry Students' Lines of Reasoning When Comparing Substitution Reactions
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Ina+Zaimi%22">Ina Zaimi</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7759-5389">0000-0001-7759-5389</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Field+M%2E+Watts%22">Field M. Watts</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1800-1816">0000-0002-1800-1816</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22David+Kranz%22">David Kranz</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2054-6882">0000-0002-2054-6882</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Nicole+Graulich%22">Nicole Graulich</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0444-8609">0000-0002-0444-8609</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Ginger+V%2E+Shultz%22">Ginger V. Shultz</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7285-748X">0000-0002-7285-748X</externalLink>)
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Chemistry+Education+Research+and+Practice%22"><i>Chemistry Education Research and Practice</i></searchLink>. 2025 26(1):112-125.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Royal Society of Chemistry. Thomas Graham House, Science Park, Milton Road, Cambridge, CB4 0WF, UK. Tel: +44-1223 420066; Fax: +44-1223 423623; e-mail: cerp@rsc.org; Web site: http://www.rsc.org/cerp
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 14
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2025
– Name: SourceSuprt
  Label: Sponsoring Agency
  Group: SrcSuprt
  Data: National Science Foundation (NSF), Graduate Research Fellowship Program (GRFP)
– Name: NumberContract
  Label: Contract Number
  Group: NumCntrct
  Data: 000884418
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Research
– Name: Audience
  Label: Education Level
  Group: Audnce
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Higher+Education%22">Higher Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Postsecondary+Education%22">Postsecondary Education</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Undergraduate+Students%22">Undergraduate Students</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22College+Science%22">College Science</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Organic+Chemistry%22">Organic Chemistry</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Science+Process+Skills%22">Science Process Skills</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Thinking+Skills%22">Thinking Skills</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Abstract+Reasoning%22">Abstract Reasoning</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Problem+Solving%22">Problem Solving</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Multivariate+Analysis%22">Multivariate Analysis</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1039/D4RP00086B
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 1756-1108
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: Solving organic chemistry reactions requires reasoning with multiple concepts and data (i.e., multivariate reasoning). However, studies have reported that organic chemistry students typically demonstrate univariate reasoning. Case comparisons, where students compare two or more tasks, have been reported to support students' multivariate reasoning. Using a case-comparison task, we explored students' multivariate reasoning. Our study was guided by the resources framework. One conceptual resource activates another conceptual resource and, successively, a set of conceptual resources. This successively activated set of resources is expressed in a line of reasoning. Pairing this framework with qualitative methods, we interviewed eleven second-semester organic chemistry students while they compared two substitution reaction mechanisms and chose the mechanism with the lower activation energy. We analysed what conceptual resources and lines of reasoning were activated and the variation to which students engaged in multivariate reasoning. Students activated multiple conceptual resources and, moreover, extended their activated resources into both developed and undeveloped lines of reasoning. When constructing their explanations, most students engaged in univariate reasoning. These students provided a developed line of reasoning selected from multiple activated resources, or they provided an undeveloped line of reasoning constructed from only one activated resource. Few students engaged in multivariate reasoning. These students provided both developed and undeveloped lines of reasoning from multiple activated resources. Our findings highlight the variation with which students engage in both univariate and multivariate reasoning. Therefore, we recommend that case-comparison activities scaffold engagement with multiple lines of reasoning in addition to activating and developing them.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2025
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1456912
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1456912
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1039/D4RP00086B
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 14
        StartPage: 112
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Undergraduate Students
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: College Science
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Organic Chemistry
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Science Process Skills
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Thinking Skills
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Abstract Reasoning
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Problem Solving
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Multivariate Analysis
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: 'That's Not a Super Important Point': Second-Semester Organic Chemistry Students' Lines of Reasoning When Comparing Substitution Reactions
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Ina Zaimi
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Field M. Watts
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: David Kranz
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Nicole Graulich
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Ginger V. Shultz
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 01
              Type: published
              Y: 2025
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-electronic
              Value: 1756-1108
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 26
            – Type: issue
              Value: 1
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Chemistry Education Research and Practice
              Type: main
ResultId 1