Reasoning, Granularity, and Comparisons in Students' Arguments on Two Organic Chemistry Items

Autor/inn/en	Deng, Jacky M.; Flynn, Alison B.
Titel	Reasoning, Granularity, and Comparisons in Students' Arguments on Two Organic Chemistry Items
Quelle	In: Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 22 (2021) 3, S.749-771 (23 Seiten)Infoseite zur Zeitschrift PDF als Volltext Verfügbarkeit
Zusatzinformation	ORCID (Deng, Jacky M.) ORCID (Flynn, Alison B.)
Sprache	englisch
Dokumenttyp	gedruckt; online; Zeitschriftenaufsatz
ISSN	1756-1108
DOI	10.1039/d0rp00320d
Schlagwörter	Organic Chemistry; Persuasive Discourse; Science Process Skills; Science Tests; Scientific Concepts; Abstract Reasoning; College Students; Foreign Countries; Canada + Suchen Sie Ihr Suchwort? Organische Chemie; Persuasion; Persuasive Kommunikation; Abstraktes Denken; Denken; Collegestudent; Ausland; Kanada
Abstract	In a world facing complex global challenges, citizens around the world need to be able to engage in scientific reasoning and argumentation supported by evidence. Chemistry educators can support students in developing these skills by providing opportunities to justify how and why phenomena occur, including on assessments. However, little is known about how students' arguments vary in different content areas and how their arguments might change between tasks. In this work, we investigated the reasoning, granularity, and comparisons demonstrated in students' arguments in organic chemistry exam questions. The first question asked them to decide and justify which of three bases could drive an acid--base equilibrium to products (Q1, n = 170). The majority of arguments exhibited relational reasoning, relied on phenomenological concepts, and explicitly compared between possible claims. We then compared the arguments from Q1 with arguments from a second question on the same final exam: deciding and justifying which of two reaction mechanisms was more plausible (Q2, n = 159). The arguments in the two questions differed in terms of their reasoning, granularity, and comparisons. We discuss how course expectations related to the two questions may have contributed to these differences, as well as how educators might use these findings to further support students' argumentation skill development in their courses. (As Provided).
Anmerkungen	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
Erfasst von	ERIC (Education Resources Information Center), Washington, DC
Update	2024/1/01