Reasonable reasoning: Multi-variate problem-solving in organic chemistry

Chemistry Education Research and Practice

Volumn 11, Issue 4, 2010, Pages 281-292

  Kraft, Adam ^a   Strickland, Amanda M ^b   Bhattacharyya, Gautam ^c  

^a PURDUE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b MOUNT HOLYOKE COLLEGE   (United States)

^c CLEMSON UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Cased based reasoning (CBR); Electron pushing; Models based reasoning (MBR); Multi variate thinking; Organic chemistry; Problem solving; Rules based reasoning (RBR)

Indexed keywords

EID: 80054100566     PISSN: None     EISSN: 11094028     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1039/c0rp90003f     Document Type: Article

References (32)

1. Berends I. and van Lieshout E., (2009), The effect of illustrations in arithmetic problem-solving: effects of increased cognitive load, Learn. Instruc., 19, 345-353.
2. Bhattacharyya G., (2006), Practitioner development in organic chemistry: how graduate students conceptualize organic acids, Chem. Educ. Res. Pract., 7, 240-247.
3. Bhattacharyya G., (2007), Unpublished data.
4. Bhattacharyya G., (2008), Who am I? What am I doing here? Professional identity and the epistemic development of organic chemists, Chem. Educ. Res. Pract., 9, 84-92.
5. Bhattacharyya G. and Bodner G. M., (2005), "It gets me to the product": how students propose organic mechanisms, J. Chem. Educ., 82, 1402-1407.
6. Bradley A., Ulrich S., Jones M. and Jones S., (2002), Teaching the sophomore organic course without a lecture. Are you crazy?, J. Chem. Educ., 79, 514-419.
7. Bruner J., Goodnow J. and Austin G., (1956), A study of thinking, Chapman and Hall: London.
8. Chi M., Feltovich P. and Glaser R., (1981), Categorization and representation of physics problems by experts and novices, Cognitive Sci., 5, 121-152.
9. Clayden J., Greeves N., Warren S. and Wothers P., (2001), Organic chemistry, Oxford University Press: New York.
10. Cooper M., Sandí-Ureña S. and Stevens R., (2008), Reliable multi- method assessment of metacognition use in chemistry problem- solving, Chem. Educ. Res. Pract., 9, 18-24.
11. Ericsson K. A. and Simon H. A., (1984), Protocol analysis: verbal reports as data, MIT Press: Cambridge, MA.
12. Ferguson R. L. and Bodner G. M., (2008), Making sense of the arrow-pushing formalism among chemistry majors enrolled in organic chemistry, Chem. Educ. Res. Pract., 9, 102-113.
13. Greeno J. and Hall R., (1997), Practicing representation: learning with and about representational forms, Phi Delta Kappan, 78, 361-367.
14. Hmelo-Silver C., Marathe S. and Liu L., (2007), Fish swim, rocks sit, and lungs breathe: expert-novice understandings of complex systems, J. Learn. Sci., 16, 307-331.
15. Hurley S. and Novick L., (2006), Context and structure: the nature of students' knowledge about three spatial diagram representations, Teach. Reas., 12, 281-308.
16. Kalyuga S., (2006), Rapid cognitive assessment of learners' knowledge structures, Learn. Instr., 16, 1-11.
17. Kolodner J., (1993), Case-based reasoning, Morgan Kaufman: San Mateo, CA.
18. Kozma R., (2003), The material features of multiple representations and their cognitive and social affordances for science and understanding, Learn. Instr., 13, 205-226.
19. Kuhn D., (2007), Reasoning about multiple variables: control of variables is not the only challenge, Sci. Educ., 91, 710-726.
20. Kuhn, D. and Dean, D., (2004), Connecting scientific reasoning and causal inference, J. Cognitive Dev., 5, 261-288.
21. Kuhn, D., Iordanou, K., Pease, M., and Wirkala, C., (2008), Beyond control of variables: what needs to develop to achieve skilled scientific thinking?, Cognitive Dev., 23, 435-451.
22. Kuhn D., Pease M. and Wirkala C., (2009), Coordinating the effects of multiple variables: a skill fundamental to scientific thinking, J. Exp. Child Psychol., 103, 268-284.
23. Larkin J., McDermott J., Simon D. and Simon H., (1980), Expert and novice performance in solving physics problems, Science, 208, 1335-1342.
24. Larkin J. and Simon H., (1987), Why a diagram is (sometimes) worth 10,000 words, Cognitive Sci., 11, 65-99.
25. Lesh R.; Hoover M.; Hole B., Kelly A. and Post T., (2000), Principles for developing thought-revealing activities for students and teachers, in Handbook of research design in mathematics and science education; Kelly, A., Lesh, R., eds., Lawrence Erlbaum and Associates: Mahwah, NJ, pp. 591-646.
26. rd ed., Harper and Row: New York.
27. Nersessian N., (1999), Model-based reasoning in conceptual change, in Model-based reasoning in scientific discovery, ed. L. Magnani, N. Nersessian, and P. Thagard, Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers: New York.
28. rd ed., Sage: Thousand Oaks, CA.
29. Sandí-Ureña S., Cooper M. and Stevens R., (2010), Enhancement of metacognition use and awareness by means of a collaborative intervention, Int. J. Sci. Educ., DOI: 10.1080/09500690903452922.
30. Seufert T., (2003), Supporting coherence formation in learning from multiple representations, Learn. Instr., 13, 227-237.
31. Stenning K. and Oberlander J., (1995), A cognitive theory of graphical and linguistic reasoning: logic and implementation, Cognitive Sci., 19, 97-140.
32. Strickland A. M., Kraft A. and Bhattacharyya G., (2010), What happens when representations fail to represent? Graduate students' interpretations of organic chemistry diagrams, Chem. Educ. Res. Pract., 11, 293-301.