In organic chemistry, meaningful learning is essential when reflecting about multiple reaction pathways and selecting reaction centerstopics that require a complex and multivariate reasoning approach to problem-solving. Meaningful learning is characterized by abstract, analytical thinking that might be time-consuming, whereas rote learning, on the other side of the continuum, facilitates simple heuristic-based recall of information. To challenge organic chemistry students to shift their problem-solving approach from rote learning to meaningful learning, we designed task sequences that initially required students to use heuristics followed by an enforced reflection about alternative reaction pathways. Twenty-nine students who were enrolled in a third-year organic chemistry course participated in the study. They solved two tasks, each with four subtasks, which sequentially provoked the use of different problem-solving approaches. The tasks are centered on the chemical concept of nucleophilicity and electrophilicity. In the first step, students were prompted to predict the product of an easy and familiar reaction. This step aimed at provoking the use of heuristics. Afterward, students received five alternative product cards and were prompted to reflect on the plausibility and the alternative mechanistic pathways leading to these products. Evaluation of these task sequences revealed (a) to what extent students were engaged in reflecting on their own problem-solving approaches and (b) the aspects students perceived as important for adopting a more meaningful approach to solving typical tasks in organic chemistry. Implications and limitations of the designed tasks are discussed.

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...

Building reasonable scientific arguments is a fundamental skill students need to participate in scientific discussions. In organic chemistry, students’ argumentation and reasoning skills on reaction mechanisms are described as indicators...

In chemistry, building arguments and applying concept knowledge is closely linked to evaluating claims, supporting claims with evidence, and justifying the linkage of evidence to claim with reasoning. However, previous studies revealed that, when building arguments, students experience challenges either in differentiating between argument components, in applying concept knowledge, or in building multivariate arguments. Scaffolding may remediate these challenges by supporting students as they focus on the expected argument structure and/or activate the required concept knowledge. As students enter the classroom with different prior knowledge, supports need to be adapted to students' needs. Thus, we designed a two-part argumentation training. The first part is a diagnostic training, in which students receive training for building arguments while their performance is analyzed. The second part consists of four trainings, adapted to the area in which each student experienced the greatest challenges, e.g., (1) in differentiating between argument components, (2) in applying concept knowledge, (3) in both areas, or (4) in building multivariate arguments. The tasks in the trainings center on building arguments on alternative reaction pathways in organic chemistry and combine a multitude of chemical concepts, such as nucleophilicity, basicity, enthalpy, or entropy. There were 64 students enrolled in an Organic Chemistry II course who participated in the training. Evaluation of the two-part training revealed (a) the effectiveness of the training and (b) how students evaluated the training themselves.

A focus in chemistry education research often lies on the “product” of a problem-solving process and less often on the “process”. A process-oriented lens on problem-solving allows us to elicit how a reasoning process occurs and what students experience during the reasoning process, such as an interplay of conceptual knowledge and students' expression of epistemic stances. By explicitly examining students' expression of epistemic stances, it is also possible to elicit how these stances influence how students make judgements on claims and how they justify them with evidence and reasoning. In this chapter, we use an in-depth process-oriented lens to analyze students' reasoning processes while reflecting about alternative reaction pathways in organic chemistry. Two cases of two representative students are used to illustrate (1) how epistemic stances and argument components are linked in students' reasoning process and (2) how epistemic stances are related to turning points in students' reasoning process. We also draw implications for teaching and research to support students in their reasoning process.