Citizens in all roles need to be
able to construct causal explanations
of scientific phenomena and engage in coherent argumentation, supported
by evidence and sound reasoning. These skills are needed in many contexts,
from making everyday decisions to addressing complex global issues.
One goal of instruction in this area is to get past assessment questions
that can be answered using only memorized rules (e.g., SN1 reactions are favored with tertiary halide substrates), toward
answers that require reasoning with evidence (why is
an SN1 pathway favored under certain conditions?). Previous
work has suggested that these reasoning skills may not be effectively
taught, practiced, or learned in organic chemistry courses or directly
assessed on exams. In this study, we explored students’ ability
to construct scientific arguments using evidence in the context of
organic reaction mechanisms, specifically when comparing two proposed
reaction mechanisms, making a claim as to which was most plausible,
and providing reasoning. We used a qualitative coding scheme to analyze
(1) the features and concepts students discussed in their arguments
on exams, including the concept of granularity, (2) the connections
(links) made between features and concepts, (3) the modes of reasoning
revealed in the arguments, and (4) how the ideas and claims were explicitly
compared. We found that ∼60% of arguments with correct claims
established causal relationships between the relative stability of
the carbocation intermediates and the relative activation energy barriers
to the formation of these intermediates. However, the vast majority
of students did not go to sufficient granularity to meet the expectations
in the course, which they could have done by invoking Hammond’s
postulate and hyperconjugation in their arguments. Incorrect claims
were often supported by causal arguments but these arguments were
incorrectly based on drawing a causal relationship between the relative
steric hindrance of the starting materials and activation energy.
Over 60% of students provided a linear causal mechanistic argument
to justify their claim, independent of whether their claims were correct.
Over 90% of arguments at least partially compared key concepts explicitly,
with over 20% doing so completely. The findings suggest that the majority
of students in this study understood the need to provide cause-and-effect
relationships to justify their answer, beyond identifying reaction
features and their effects; however, students may have struggled to
identify which features of those molecules were relevant.