Reply to the ‘Comment on “What resources do high school students activate to link energetic and structural changes in chemical reactions? – A qualitative study”’ by K. S. Taber, Chem. Educ. Res. Pract., 2024, 25, https://doi.org/10.1039/D3RP00232B

Our article “What resources do high school students activate to link energetic and structural changes in chemical reactions? – A qualitative study” was recently commented on by Keith Taber. In his comment he focuses on the dominant role of the octet rule in students' reasoning and suggests that students rely on an octet framework. In the first part of this response, Taber's argument about the pervasive inappropriate use of the octet rule is supported by empirical evidence. Re-analysis of the data confirms that students often seem to assume initial atomicity, use anthropomorphic language, and closely associate the octet rule with stability. These points make the octet rule a convenient answer for students to fill the “explanatory vacuum” often left in chemistry education, e.g. for explaining the driving force of reactions. In the second part, we discuss how these observations might be rationalized. Rather than a static misconception perspective, we suggest that student's application of the octet rule can be viewed from a dynamic, resource-oriented view of learning. Three examples are introduced to illustrate the variety in students’ applications of the octet rule. For a better understanding, more detailed research on how students really think and learn about the octet rule and energetics is necessary.