Investigating Students' Argumentation When Judging the Plausibility of Alternative Reaction Pathways in Organic Chemistry

Autor/inn/en	Lieber, Leonie; Graulich, Nicole
Titel	Investigating Students' Argumentation When Judging the Plausibility of Alternative Reaction Pathways in Organic Chemistry
Quelle	In: Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 23 (2022) 1, S.38-54 (17 Seiten)Infoseite zur Zeitschrift PDF als Volltext Verfügbarkeit
Zusatzinformation	ORCID (Lieber, Leonie) ORCID (Graulich, Nicole)
Sprache	englisch
Dokumenttyp	gedruckt; online; Zeitschriftenaufsatz
ISSN	1756-1108
Schlagwörter	Chemistry; Science Instruction; Organic Chemistry; Persuasive Discourse; Decision Making; Majors (Students); Undergraduate Students; Scientific Principles; Problem Solving; Teaching Methods; Logical Thinking; Task Analysis; Foreign Countries; Models; Abstract Reasoning; Germany + Suchen Sie Ihr Suchwort? Chemie; Teaching of science; Science education; Natural sciences Lessons; Naturwissenschaftlicher Unterricht; Organische Chemie; Persuasion; Persuasive Kommunikation; Decision-making; Entscheidungsfindung; Problemlösen; Teaching method; Lehrmethode; Unterrichtsmethode; Aufgabenanalyse; Ausland; Analogiemodell; Abstraktes Denken; Denken; Deutschland
Abstract	Building scientific arguments is a central ability for all scientists regardless of their specific domain. In organic chemistry, building arguments is a necessary skill to estimate reaction processes in consideration of the reactivities of reaction centres or the chemical and physical properties. Moreover, building arguments for multiple reaction pathways might help students overcome the tendency toward one-reason decision-making and offer them an authentic perspective on organic processes. Reasoning about multiple alternative organic reaction pathways requires students to build arguments and then judge and weigh the plausibility of these pathways. However, students often struggle to build strong arguments and use scientific principles appropriately to justify their claims. In the present study, the argumentation patterns of 29 chemistry majors students were analysed using a simplified version of Toulmin's argumentation model (claim-evidence-reasoning). The students solved various tasks related to alternative reaction pathways of a substitution reaction. They supported their claims with evidence and justified the evidence through reasoning. We investigated (a) the extent to which the students use evidence and reasoning in their argumentation (referred to as their argumentation approach), (b) how students with different argumentation approaches rationalised changes in their initial claims, and (c) how students used reasoning to justify their arguments. The results indicate that students need further support to appropriately use evidence and reasoning and to apply conceptual knowledge to build well-grounded arguments. (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