Exploring the Needs for the Development of Organic Reaction Teaching Model: Experts’ Collective Opinion
Keywords:
instructional model, organic reaction mechanism, experts’ opinion
Abstract
This article reported the findings of a study carried out to investigate the need for developing an organic reaction mechanism teaching model. Qualitative data was obtained through a semi-structured interview among five chemistry subject matter experts to explore their opinion on the issues centered on the teaching and learning of organic reaction mechanisms. The interviews were interpreted and analyzed using thematic analysis. Five themes comprising of many codes and quotations were identified. The analysis of the findings shows that organic reaction mechanisms are one of the most significant and central concepts in science. However, students are faced with challenges in learning the concepts. Thus, the need for an alternative model of teaching the concept of organic reaction mechanisms.
Downloads
Download data is not yet available.
References
Achimugu, L. (2018). Effectiveness of Enriched Demonstration and Lecture Instructional Strategies on Senior Secondary School Students ’ Achievement in Chemistry. Journal of Contemporary Educational Research, 2(1), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.26689/jcer.v2i1.246
Anzovino, M. E., & Bretz, S. L. (2016). Organic chemistry students’ fragmented ideas about the structure and function of nucleophiles and electrophiles: A concept map analysis. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 17(4), 1019–1029. https://doi.org/10.1039/c6rp00111d
Azraai, O., Ibrahim, D. A., & Talib, O. (2015). Taksonomi Bloom Asal Taksonomi Bloom Baharu(Old Bloom's Taxonomy New Bloom's Taxonomy). JPBU, 8, 12–21.
Bhattacharyya, G. (2013). From source to sink: Mechanistic reasoning using the electron-pushing formalism. Journal of Chemical Education, 90(10), 1282–1289. https://doi.org/10.1021/ed300765k
Bhattacharyya, G. (2019). Construction by De-construction. Journal of Chemical Education. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jchemed.8b00579
Bodé, N. E., Deng, J. M., & Flynn, A. B. (2019). Getting Past the Rules and to the WHY: Causal Mechanistic Arguments When Judging the Plausibility of Organic Reaction Mechanisms. Journal of Chemical Education, 96(6), 1068–1082. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jchemed.8b00719
Bodé, N. E., & Flynn, A. B. (2016). Strategies of Successful Synthesis Solutions: Mapping, Mechanisms, and More. Journal of Chemical Education, 93(4), 593–604. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jchemed.5b00900
Bongers, A., Northoff, G., & Flynn, A. B. (2019). Working with mental models to learn and visualize a new reaction mechanism. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 20(3), 554–569. https://doi.org/10.1039/c9rp00060g
Carle, M. S., Visser, R., & Flynn, and A. B. (2018). Nitrogen-doped Carbon Nanodots for bioimaging and delivery of paclitaxel. Journal of Materials Chemistry B, 6(35). https://doi.org/10.1039/x0xx00000x
Cheng, M. M. W., & Gilbert, J. K. (2017). Modeling students’ visualisation of chemical reaction. International Journal of Science Education, 39(9), 1173–1193. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2017.1319989
Cooper, M. M., Stowe, R. L., Crandell, O. M., & Klymkowsky, M. W. (2019). Organic Chemistry, Life, the Universe and Everything (OCLUE): A Transformed Organic Chemistry Curriculum. Journal of Chemical Education. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jchemed.9b00401
Creswell, J. W. (2014). A concise introduction to mixed methods research. SAGE publications.
Cruz-Ramírez De Arellano, D., & Towns, M. H. (2014). Students’ understanding of alkyl halide reactions in undergraduate organic chemistry. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 15(4), 501–515. https://doi.org/10.1039/c3rp00089c
Englander, M. (2016). The interview: Data collection in descriptive phenomenological human scientific research. Journal of Phenomenological Psychology, 47(1), 13–35. https://doi.org/10.1163/156916212X632943
Flynn, A. B., & Featherstone, R. B. (2017). Language of mechanisms: exam analysis reveals students’ strengths, strategies, and errors when using the electron-pushing formalism (curved arrows) in new reactions. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 18(1), 64–77. https://doi.org/10.1039/c6rp00126b
Gabel, D. (1999). Improving Teaching and Learning through Chemistry Education Research: A Look to the Future. Journal of Chemical Education, 76(2–4), 548–554. https://doi.org/10.1021/ed076p548
Gilbert, J. K. (2005). Visualization: A Metacognitive Skill in Science and Science Education. In Visualization in Science Education (pp. 9–27). https://doi.org/10.1007/1-4020-3613-2_2
Gilbert, J. K., & Treagust, D. (2009). Multiple representations in chemical education (Vol. 4). Dordrecht: Springer.
Goyena, R. (2019). Multiple Representation in Chemical Education. In Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling (Vol. 53). https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107415324.004
Grossman, R. B. (2003). The Art of Writing Reasonable Organic Reaction Mechanisms, 2nd Edition (Grossman, Robert B.). In Journal of Chemical Education (Vol. 80). https://doi.org/10.1021/ed080p1259
Johnstone, A. (1993). Symposium on Evolution in Chemical Education The Development of Chemistry the Teaching. The Forum, 70(9), 701–705.
Johnstone, A. H. (1991). Seldom What They Seem. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 7, 75–83.
Levy, D. E. (2008). Arrow-pushing in organic chemistry: an easy approach to understanding reaction mechanisms. John Wiley & Sons.
Merrienboer, J. J. G. Van, Kirschner, P. A., Kester, L., & Merriënboer, J. J. G. Van. (2010). Taking the Load Off a Learner ’ s Mind : Instructional Design for Complex Learning Taking the Load Off a Learner ’ s Mind : Instructional Design for Complex Learning. Educational Psychologist, 38(1), 37–41. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15326985EP3801
Mohtar, L. E., Halim, L., Rahman, N. A., Maat, S. M., Iksan, Z. H., & Osman, K. (2019). A model of interest in stem careers among secondary school students. Journal of Baltic Science Education. https://doi.org/10.33225/jbse/19.18.404
Morse, J. M. (2000). Determining Sample Size. Qualitative Health Research, 10(1), 3–5. https://doi.org/10.1177/104973200129118183
Nakhleh, M. B. (1992). Why some students don’t learn chemistry: Chemical misconceptions. Journal of Chemical Education, 69(3), 191–196. https://doi.org/10.1021/ed069p191
Othman, T., Nawawi, M., Ali, W. Z. W., & Mahmud, R. (2012). Simple Explicit Animation (SEA) Approach in Teaching Organic Chemistry. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 69(Iceepsy), 227–232. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.11.403
Richey, R. C., & Klein, J. D. (2005). Developmental research methods: Creating knowledge from instructional design and development practice. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 16(2), 23–38. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02961473
Sevian, H., & Talanquer, V. (2014). Rethinking chemistry: A learning progression on chemical thinking. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 15(1), 10–23. https://doi.org/10.1039/c3rp00111c
Taber, K. S. (2013a). Modelling Learners and Learning in Science Education. In Modelling Learners and Learning in Science Education. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-7648-7
Taber, K. S. (2013b). Revisiting the chemistry triplet: drawing upon the nature of chemical knowledge and the psychology of learning to inform chemistry education. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 14(2), 156–168.
Talanquer, V. (2011). Macro, submicro, and symbolic: The many faces of the chemistry “triplet.” International Journal of Science Education, 33(2), 179–195. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690903386435
Treagust, D. F., Chittleborough, G., & Mamiala, T. L. (2003). The role of submicroscopic and symbolic representations in chemical explanations. International Journal of Science Education, 25(11), 1353–1368. https://doi.org/10.1080/0950069032000070306
Tsaparlis, G., & Sevian, H. (2013). Concepts of matter in science education (Vol. 19). Springer.
Weinrich, M. L., & Sevian, H. (2017). Capturing students’ abstraction while solving organic reaction mechanism problems across a semester. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 18(1), 169–190. https://doi.org/10.1039/c6rp00120c
Wilson, S. B., & Varma-Nelson, P. (2018). Characterization of first-semester organic chemistry peer-led team learning and cyber peer-led team learning students’ use and explanation of electron-pushing formalism. Journal of Chemical Education, 96(1), 25–34.
Anzovino, M. E., & Bretz, S. L. (2016). Organic chemistry students’ fragmented ideas about the structure and function of nucleophiles and electrophiles: A concept map analysis. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 17(4), 1019–1029. https://doi.org/10.1039/c6rp00111d
Azraai, O., Ibrahim, D. A., & Talib, O. (2015). Taksonomi Bloom Asal Taksonomi Bloom Baharu(Old Bloom's Taxonomy New Bloom's Taxonomy). JPBU, 8, 12–21.
Bhattacharyya, G. (2013). From source to sink: Mechanistic reasoning using the electron-pushing formalism. Journal of Chemical Education, 90(10), 1282–1289. https://doi.org/10.1021/ed300765k
Bhattacharyya, G. (2019). Construction by De-construction. Journal of Chemical Education. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jchemed.8b00579
Bodé, N. E., Deng, J. M., & Flynn, A. B. (2019). Getting Past the Rules and to the WHY: Causal Mechanistic Arguments When Judging the Plausibility of Organic Reaction Mechanisms. Journal of Chemical Education, 96(6), 1068–1082. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jchemed.8b00719
Bodé, N. E., & Flynn, A. B. (2016). Strategies of Successful Synthesis Solutions: Mapping, Mechanisms, and More. Journal of Chemical Education, 93(4), 593–604. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jchemed.5b00900
Bongers, A., Northoff, G., & Flynn, A. B. (2019). Working with mental models to learn and visualize a new reaction mechanism. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 20(3), 554–569. https://doi.org/10.1039/c9rp00060g
Carle, M. S., Visser, R., & Flynn, and A. B. (2018). Nitrogen-doped Carbon Nanodots for bioimaging and delivery of paclitaxel. Journal of Materials Chemistry B, 6(35). https://doi.org/10.1039/x0xx00000x
Cheng, M. M. W., & Gilbert, J. K. (2017). Modeling students’ visualisation of chemical reaction. International Journal of Science Education, 39(9), 1173–1193. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2017.1319989
Cooper, M. M., Stowe, R. L., Crandell, O. M., & Klymkowsky, M. W. (2019). Organic Chemistry, Life, the Universe and Everything (OCLUE): A Transformed Organic Chemistry Curriculum. Journal of Chemical Education. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jchemed.9b00401
Creswell, J. W. (2014). A concise introduction to mixed methods research. SAGE publications.
Cruz-Ramírez De Arellano, D., & Towns, M. H. (2014). Students’ understanding of alkyl halide reactions in undergraduate organic chemistry. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 15(4), 501–515. https://doi.org/10.1039/c3rp00089c
Englander, M. (2016). The interview: Data collection in descriptive phenomenological human scientific research. Journal of Phenomenological Psychology, 47(1), 13–35. https://doi.org/10.1163/156916212X632943
Flynn, A. B., & Featherstone, R. B. (2017). Language of mechanisms: exam analysis reveals students’ strengths, strategies, and errors when using the electron-pushing formalism (curved arrows) in new reactions. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 18(1), 64–77. https://doi.org/10.1039/c6rp00126b
Gabel, D. (1999). Improving Teaching and Learning through Chemistry Education Research: A Look to the Future. Journal of Chemical Education, 76(2–4), 548–554. https://doi.org/10.1021/ed076p548
Gilbert, J. K. (2005). Visualization: A Metacognitive Skill in Science and Science Education. In Visualization in Science Education (pp. 9–27). https://doi.org/10.1007/1-4020-3613-2_2
Gilbert, J. K., & Treagust, D. (2009). Multiple representations in chemical education (Vol. 4). Dordrecht: Springer.
Goyena, R. (2019). Multiple Representation in Chemical Education. In Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling (Vol. 53). https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107415324.004
Grossman, R. B. (2003). The Art of Writing Reasonable Organic Reaction Mechanisms, 2nd Edition (Grossman, Robert B.). In Journal of Chemical Education (Vol. 80). https://doi.org/10.1021/ed080p1259
Johnstone, A. (1993). Symposium on Evolution in Chemical Education The Development of Chemistry the Teaching. The Forum, 70(9), 701–705.
Johnstone, A. H. (1991). Seldom What They Seem. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 7, 75–83.
Levy, D. E. (2008). Arrow-pushing in organic chemistry: an easy approach to understanding reaction mechanisms. John Wiley & Sons.
Merrienboer, J. J. G. Van, Kirschner, P. A., Kester, L., & Merriënboer, J. J. G. Van. (2010). Taking the Load Off a Learner ’ s Mind : Instructional Design for Complex Learning Taking the Load Off a Learner ’ s Mind : Instructional Design for Complex Learning. Educational Psychologist, 38(1), 37–41. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15326985EP3801
Mohtar, L. E., Halim, L., Rahman, N. A., Maat, S. M., Iksan, Z. H., & Osman, K. (2019). A model of interest in stem careers among secondary school students. Journal of Baltic Science Education. https://doi.org/10.33225/jbse/19.18.404
Morse, J. M. (2000). Determining Sample Size. Qualitative Health Research, 10(1), 3–5. https://doi.org/10.1177/104973200129118183
Nakhleh, M. B. (1992). Why some students don’t learn chemistry: Chemical misconceptions. Journal of Chemical Education, 69(3), 191–196. https://doi.org/10.1021/ed069p191
Othman, T., Nawawi, M., Ali, W. Z. W., & Mahmud, R. (2012). Simple Explicit Animation (SEA) Approach in Teaching Organic Chemistry. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 69(Iceepsy), 227–232. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.11.403
Richey, R. C., & Klein, J. D. (2005). Developmental research methods: Creating knowledge from instructional design and development practice. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 16(2), 23–38. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02961473
Sevian, H., & Talanquer, V. (2014). Rethinking chemistry: A learning progression on chemical thinking. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 15(1), 10–23. https://doi.org/10.1039/c3rp00111c
Taber, K. S. (2013a). Modelling Learners and Learning in Science Education. In Modelling Learners and Learning in Science Education. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-7648-7
Taber, K. S. (2013b). Revisiting the chemistry triplet: drawing upon the nature of chemical knowledge and the psychology of learning to inform chemistry education. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 14(2), 156–168.
Talanquer, V. (2011). Macro, submicro, and symbolic: The many faces of the chemistry “triplet.” International Journal of Science Education, 33(2), 179–195. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690903386435
Treagust, D. F., Chittleborough, G., & Mamiala, T. L. (2003). The role of submicroscopic and symbolic representations in chemical explanations. International Journal of Science Education, 25(11), 1353–1368. https://doi.org/10.1080/0950069032000070306
Tsaparlis, G., & Sevian, H. (2013). Concepts of matter in science education (Vol. 19). Springer.
Weinrich, M. L., & Sevian, H. (2017). Capturing students’ abstraction while solving organic reaction mechanism problems across a semester. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 18(1), 169–190. https://doi.org/10.1039/c6rp00120c
Wilson, S. B., & Varma-Nelson, P. (2018). Characterization of first-semester organic chemistry peer-led team learning and cyber peer-led team learning students’ use and explanation of electron-pushing formalism. Journal of Chemical Education, 96(1), 25–34.
