学生对取代反应和消除反应的概念和预测:他们在纸上看到了什么?†

IF 2.6 2区 教育学 Q1 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH Chemistry Education Research and Practice Pub Date : 2024-11-29 DOI:10.1039/D4RP00204K
Kevin H. Hunter, Lauren A. Groenenboom, Ayesha Farheen and Nicole M. Becker
{"title":"学生对取代反应和消除反应的概念和预测:他们在纸上看到了什么?†","authors":"Kevin H. Hunter, Lauren A. Groenenboom, Ayesha Farheen and Nicole M. Becker","doi":"10.1039/D4RP00204K","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p >The current study aims to contribute to the literature on how organic chemistry students weigh various factors when predicting products of substitution and elimination reactions. This study focuses specifically on these mechanism types, as they are often the first instances where students must consider the “how” and the “why” of how reactions occur. Previous literature highlights that such reasoning can be challenging. To better support our students, it is essential to understand how they conceptualize these mechanisms. Here, we present results from an investigation into how students compare bimolecular and unimolecular substitution and elimination reactions (S<small><sub>N</sub></small>1, S<small><sub>N</sub></small>2, E1, E2). Students completed tasks involving case comparisons and “predict-the-product” exercises. Through the analysis of nine semi-structured interviews using coordination class theory, we found that (1) students placed a greater emphasis on the importance of the starting substrate in the outcome of a reaction, and (2) focused less on the function of the nucleophile or base in each reaction. Using coordination class theory, we identified visual features and knowledge elements that students coordinated, allowing us to create “resource graphs” that represented students’ conceptualizations. These graphs helped visualize the trajectories of students’ predictions by illustrating how they balanced multiple factors. We discuss implications for supporting students in distinguishing among reaction mechanisms.</p>","PeriodicalId":69,"journal":{"name":"Chemistry Education Research and Practice","volume":" 1","pages":" 334-350"},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Student conceptualizations and predictions of substitution and elimination reactions: what are they seeing on the page?†\",\"authors\":\"Kevin H. Hunter, Lauren A. Groenenboom, Ayesha Farheen and Nicole M. Becker\",\"doi\":\"10.1039/D4RP00204K\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p >The current study aims to contribute to the literature on how organic chemistry students weigh various factors when predicting products of substitution and elimination reactions. This study focuses specifically on these mechanism types, as they are often the first instances where students must consider the “how” and the “why” of how reactions occur. Previous literature highlights that such reasoning can be challenging. To better support our students, it is essential to understand how they conceptualize these mechanisms. Here, we present results from an investigation into how students compare bimolecular and unimolecular substitution and elimination reactions (S<small><sub>N</sub></small>1, S<small><sub>N</sub></small>2, E1, E2). Students completed tasks involving case comparisons and “predict-the-product” exercises. Through the analysis of nine semi-structured interviews using coordination class theory, we found that (1) students placed a greater emphasis on the importance of the starting substrate in the outcome of a reaction, and (2) focused less on the function of the nucleophile or base in each reaction. Using coordination class theory, we identified visual features and knowledge elements that students coordinated, allowing us to create “resource graphs” that represented students’ conceptualizations. These graphs helped visualize the trajectories of students’ predictions by illustrating how they balanced multiple factors. We discuss implications for supporting students in distinguishing among reaction mechanisms.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":69,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Chemistry Education Research and Practice\",\"volume\":\" 1\",\"pages\":\" 334-350\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-11-29\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Chemistry Education Research and Practice\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"95\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlelanding/2025/rp/d4rp00204k\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"教育学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Chemistry Education Research and Practice","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlelanding/2025/rp/d4rp00204k","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目前的研究旨在为有机化学学生在预测取代和消除反应的产物时如何权衡各种因素的文献做出贡献。本研究特别关注这些机制类型,因为它们通常是学生必须考虑反应如何发生的“如何”和“为什么”的第一个实例。先前的文献强调,这样的推理可能具有挑战性。为了更好地支持我们的学生,有必要了解他们如何概念化这些机制。在这里,我们提出了一项关于学生如何比较双分子和单分子取代和消除反应(SN1, SN2, E1, E2)的调查结果。学生们完成的任务包括案例比较和“预测产品”练习。通过使用配位课堂理论对9个半结构化访谈进行分析,我们发现(1)学生更强调起始底物在反应结果中的重要性,(2)较少关注亲核试剂或碱在每个反应中的作用。使用协调类理论,我们确定了学生协调的视觉特征和知识元素,允许我们创建代表学生概念化的“资源图”。这些图表通过说明学生如何平衡多种因素,帮助可视化学生预测的轨迹。我们讨论了支持学生区分反应机制的意义。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Student conceptualizations and predictions of substitution and elimination reactions: what are they seeing on the page?†

The current study aims to contribute to the literature on how organic chemistry students weigh various factors when predicting products of substitution and elimination reactions. This study focuses specifically on these mechanism types, as they are often the first instances where students must consider the “how” and the “why” of how reactions occur. Previous literature highlights that such reasoning can be challenging. To better support our students, it is essential to understand how they conceptualize these mechanisms. Here, we present results from an investigation into how students compare bimolecular and unimolecular substitution and elimination reactions (SN1, SN2, E1, E2). Students completed tasks involving case comparisons and “predict-the-product” exercises. Through the analysis of nine semi-structured interviews using coordination class theory, we found that (1) students placed a greater emphasis on the importance of the starting substrate in the outcome of a reaction, and (2) focused less on the function of the nucleophile or base in each reaction. Using coordination class theory, we identified visual features and knowledge elements that students coordinated, allowing us to create “resource graphs” that represented students’ conceptualizations. These graphs helped visualize the trajectories of students’ predictions by illustrating how they balanced multiple factors. We discuss implications for supporting students in distinguishing among reaction mechanisms.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.80
自引率
26.70%
发文量
64
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: The journal for teachers, researchers and other practitioners in chemistry education.
期刊最新文献
Back cover Student conceptualizations and predictions of substitution and elimination reactions: what are they seeing on the page?† Self-regulated learning strategies for success in an online first-year chemistry course ‘Seeing’ chemistry: investigating the contribution of mental imagery strength on students’ thinking in relation to visuospatial problem solving in chemistry† Student's study behaviors as a predictor of performance in general chemistry I
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1