Beyond rote learning in organic chemistry: the infusion and impact of argumentation in tertiary education

International Journal of Science Education

Volumn 39, Issue 9, 2017, Pages 1154-1172

  Pabuccu, Aybuke ^a   Erduran, Sibel ^b,c,d  

^a ABANT IZZET BAYSAL UNIVERSITY   (Turkey)

^b UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD   (United Kingdom)

^c NATIONAL TAIWAN NORMAL UNIVERSITY   (Taiwan)

^d UNIVERSITY OF LIMERICK   (Ireland)

Author keywords

Argumentation; chemistry education; higher education; organic chemistry

Indexed keywords

EID: 85018280884     PISSN: 09500693     EISSN: 14645289     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/09500693.2017.1319988     Document Type: Article

References (36)

1. Abraham, M., Varghese, V., & Tang, H., (2010). Using molecular representations to aid student understanding of stereochemical concepts. Journal of Chemical Education, 87(12), 1425–1429. doi:10.1021/ed100497f
2. Barrows, S. E., & Eberlein, T. H., (2004). Cis and trans isomerization in cyclic alkenes:A topic for discovery using the results of molecular modeling. Journal of Chemical Education, 81(10), 1529–1532. doi:10.1021/ed081p1529
3. Bodner, G., & Domin, D., (2000). Mental models:The role of representation in problem solving in chemistry. University Chemistry Education, 4(1), 24–30.
4. Bradley, A., Ulrich, S. M., Jones, M., & Jones, S. M., (2002). Teaching the sophomore organic course without a lecture. Are you crazy? Journal of Chemical Education, 79, 514–519. doi:10.1021/ed079p514
5. Cetin, P. S., Kaya, E., & Geban, O., (2014). Students’, pre-service teachers’ and in-service teachers’ views about constructivist implementations. Necatibey Faculty of Education Electronic Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 8(2), 143–163.
6. Christian, K., & Talanquer, V., (2012). Content-related interactions in self-initiated study groups. International Journal of Science Education, 34, 2231–2255. doi:10.1080/09500693.2012.708064
7. Clauss, A. D., & Nelsen, S. F., (2009). Integrating computational molecular modeling into the undergraduate organic chemistry curriculum. Journal of Chemical Education, 86(8), 955–958. doi:10.1021/ed086p955
8. De Arellano, D. C. R., & Towns, M., (2014). Students understanding of alkyl halide reactions in undergraduate organic chemistry. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 15, 501–515. doi:10.1039/C3RP00089C
9. Duffy, A. M., (2006). Students’ ways of understanding aromaticity and electrophilic aromatic substitution reactions (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). San Diego:University of California.
10. Ekstrorn, R. B., French, J. W., & Harman, H. H., (1976). Manual for kit of factor referenced cognitive tests. Princeton, NJ:Educational Testing Service.
11. Erduran, S., & Jimenez-Aleixandre, M. P., (Eds.). (2007). Argumentation in science education:Perspectives from classroom-based research. Dordrecht:Springer. 285p.
12. Erduran, S., & Pabuccu, A., (2012). Bonding chemistry and argument:Teaching and Learning argumentation through chemistry stories, a booklet. Retrieved from http://www.bristol.ac.uk/education/news/2012/63.html
13. Erduran, S., & Pabuccu, A., (2015). Promoting argumentation in the context of chemistry stories. In Ingo, Eilks & Avi, Hofstein (Eds.), Relevant chemistry education–from theory to practice (pp. 143–161). Rotterdam:Sense Publishers.
14. Erduran, S., Simon, S., & Osborne, J., (2004). TAPping into argumentation:Developments in the application of Toulmin’s argument pattern for studying science discourse. Science Education, 88, 915–933. doi:10.1002/sce.20012
15. Furberg, A., & Ludvigsen, S., (2008). Students’ meaning making of socio scientific issues in computer mediated settings:Exploring learning through interaction trajectories. International Journal of Science Education, 30(13), 1775–1799. doi:10.1080/09500690701543617
16. Graulich, N., (2015). The tip of the iceberg in organic chemistry classes:How do students deal with the invisible? Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 16, 9–21. doi:10.1039/C4RP00165F
17. Grove, N. P., & Bretz, S. L., (2010). Perry’s scheme of intellectual and epistemological development as a framework for describing student difficulties in learning organic chemistry. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 11, 207–211. doi:10.1039/C005469K
18. Grove, N., Hershberger, J., & Bretz, S. L., (2008). Impact of a spiral curriculum on student attrition and learning. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 9, 157–162. doi:10.1039/B806232N
19. Harle, M., & Towns, M., (2011). A review of spatial ability literature, its connection to chemistry, and implications for instruction. Journal of Chemical Education, 88, 351–360. doi:10.1021/ed900003n
20. Jimenez-Aleixandre, M. P., Bugallo, A., & Duschl, R. A., (2000). ‘Doing the lesson’ or ‘doing science’; argument in high school genetics. Science Education, 84(6), 757–792. doi:10.1002/1098-237X(200011)84:6<757::AID-SCE5>3.0.CO;2-F
21. Kelly, G. J., & Takao, A., (2002). Epistemic levels in argument:An analysis of university oceanography students’ use of evidence in writing. Science Education, 86(3), 314–342. doi:10.1002/sce.10024
22. Kim, B., (2009). The effects of prompts-based argumentation scaffolds on peer-led interactive argumentation (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Columbia:University of Missouri.
23. Kuhn, T., (1962/1970). The structure of scientific revolutions (2nd ed.). Chicago, IL:University of Chicago Press.
24. Kulatunga, U., Moog, R. S., & Lewis, J. E., (2013). Argumentation and participation patterns in general chemistry peer-led sessions. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 50(10), 1207–1231. doi:10.1002/tea.21107
25. Kumi, B. C., Olimpo, J. T., Bartlett, F., & Dixon, B. L., (2013). Evaluating the effectiveness of organic chemistry textbooks in promoting representational fluency and understanding of 2D–3D diagrammatic relationships. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 14, 177–187. doi:10.1039/C3RP20166J
26. Newman, M., (1955). A notation for the study of certain stereochemical problems. Journal of Chemical Education, 32(7), 344–347. doi:10.1021/ed032p344
27. Nussbaum, E. M., & Jacobson, T. E., (2004, July). Reasons that students avoid intellectual arguments. Poster session presented at the annual meeting of the American Psychological Association, Honolulu, HI.
28. Olimpo, J. T., Kumi, B. C., Wroblewskic, R., & Dixon, B. L., (2015). Examining the relationship between 2D diagrammatic conventions and students’ success on representational translation tasks in organic chemistry. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 16, 143–153. doi:10.1039/C4RP00169A
29. Pabuccu, A., & Erduran, S., (2016). Investigating students’ engagement in epistemic and narrative practices of chemistry in the context of a story on gas behavior. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 17, 523–531. doi:10.1039/C6RP00011H
30. Pellegrinet, S. C., & Mata, E. G., (2005). A set of hands-on exercises on conformational analysis. Journal of Chemical Education, 82, 73–74. doi:10.1021/ed082p73
31. Popper, K., (1959). The logic of scientific discovery. London:Hutchinson.
32. Pribyl, J. R., & Bodner, G. M., (1987). Spatial ability and its role in organic chemistry:A study of four organic courses. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 24(3), 229–240. doi:10.1002/tea.3660240304
33. Simon, S., & Johnson, S., (2008). Professional learning portfolios for argumentation in school science. International Journal of Science Education, 30(5), 669–688. doi:10.1080/09500690701854873
34. Simon, S., Osborne, J., & Erduran, S., (2003). Systemic teacher development to enhance the use of argumentation in school science activities. In J., Wallace, & J., Loughran (Eds.), Leadership and professional development in science education:New possibilities for enhancing teacher learning (pp. 198–217). London:Routledge Falmer.
35. Springer, M. T., (2014). Improving students’ understanding of molecular structure through broad-based use of computer models in the undergraduate organic chemistry lecture. Journal of Chemical Education, 91, 1162–1168. doi:10.1021/ed400054a
36. Zohar, A., & Nemet, F., (2002). Fostering students’ knowledge and argumentation skills through dilemmas in human genetics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(1), 35–62. doi:10.1002/tea.10008