Implementation of reasoning chain construction tasks to support student explanations in general chemistry

The assessment of student understanding, and of student reasoning skills more broadly, hinges upon the ability to elicit and interpret student-generated explanations. In practice, however, the explanations that students provide in response to traditional prompts do not always reveal as much about student reasoning as teachers and researchers in chemistry education might prefer. In this article, we describe the application of a novel methodology, the reasoning chain construction task, applied in a general chemistry course at a large research institution using a well-known question on chemical bonding. In a reasoning chain construction task, students respond to a chemistry question by drawing from a list of reasoning elements (all of which are true) in order to assemble a chain of reasoning in support of a conclusion. Our findings indicate that use of this type of task can lead students to generate richer explanations while not impacting the overall distribution of student conclusions. These explanations provide teachers and researchers with insights into what information students deem helpful and relevant for responding to a prompt that is wholly lacking from traditional free-response implementations of the same question. We interpret our results through the theoretical framework of dual-process theories of reasoning.

This document is the Accepted Manuscript version of a Published Work that appeared in final form in Journal of Chemical Education, copyright © 2021 American Chemical Society and Division of Chemical Education, Inc., after peer review and technical editing by the publisher. To access the final edited and published work see https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jchemed.1c00729.

Files

Metadata

Work Title Implementation of reasoning chain construction tasks to support student explanations in general chemistry
Access
Open Access
Creators
  1. Megan L. Nagel
  2. Beth A. Lindsey
Keyword
  1. First-year undergraduate
  2. Chemical education research
  3. Problem solving
  4. Decision making
  5. Covalent bonding
License In Copyright (Rights Reserved)
Work Type Article
Publisher
  1. American Chemical Society (ACS)
Publication Date December 3, 2021
Publisher Identifier (DOI)
  1. 10.1021/acs.jchemed.1c00729
Source
  1. Journal of Chemical Education
Deposited May 27, 2022

Versions

Analytics

Collections

This resource is currently not in any collection.

Work History

Version 1
published

  • Created
  • Added 211012_mln_revisions-1.pdf
  • Added Creator Megan L. Nagel
  • Added Creator Beth A. Lindsey
  • Published
  • Updated Work Title, Keyword, Description Show Changes
    Work Title
    • Implementation of reasoning chain construction tasks to support student explanations in general chemistry
    • ! Implementation of reasoning chain construction tasks to support student explanations in general chemistry
    Keyword
    • First-year undergraduate, Chemical education research, Problem solving, Decision making , Covalent bonding
    Description
    • <p>The assessment of student understanding, and of student reasoning skills more broadly, hinges upon the ability to elicit and interpret student-generated explanations. In practice, however, the explanations that students provide in response to traditional prompts do not always reveal as much about student reasoning as teachers and researchers in chemistry education might prefer. In this article, we describe the application of a novel methodology, the reasoning chain construction task, applied in a general chemistry course at a large research institution using a well-known question on chemical bonding. In a reasoning chain construction task, students respond to a chemistry question by drawing from a list of reasoning elements (all of which are true) in order to assemble a chain of reasoning in support of a conclusion. Our findings indicate that use of this type of task can lead students to generate richer explanations while not impacting the overall distribution of student conclusions. These explanations provide teachers and researchers with insights into what information students deem helpful and relevant for responding to a prompt that is wholly lacking from traditional free-response implementations of the same question. We interpret our results through the theoretical framework of dual-process theories of reasoning. </p>
    • The assessment of student understanding, and of student reasoning skills more broadly, hinges upon the ability to elicit and interpret student-generated explanations. In practice, however, the explanations that students provide in response to traditional prompts do not always reveal as much about student reasoning as teachers and researchers in chemistry education might prefer. In this article, we describe the application of a novel methodology, the reasoning chain construction task, applied in a general chemistry course at a large research institution using a well-known question on chemical bonding. In a reasoning chain construction task, students respond to a chemistry question by drawing from a list of reasoning elements (all of which are true) in order to assemble a chain of reasoning in support of a conclusion. Our findings indicate that use of this type of task can lead students to generate richer explanations while not impacting the overall distribution of student conclusions. These explanations provide teachers and researchers with insights into what information students deem helpful and relevant for responding to a prompt that is wholly lacking from traditional free-response implementations of the same question. We interpret our results through the theoretical framework of dual-process theories of reasoning.
  • Updated Creator Beth A. Lindsey
  • Updated Work Title Show Changes
    Work Title
    • ! Implementation of reasoning chain construction tasks to support student explanations in general chemistry
    • Implementation of reasoning chain construction tasks to support student explanations in general chemistry
  • Updated Creator Beth A. Lindsey
  • Updated