Standard

Let’s frame it differently – Analysis of instructors’ mechanistic explanations. / Eckhard, Julia; Rodemer, Marc; Langner, Axel; Bernholt, Sascha; Graulich, Nicole.

In: Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 17.09.2021.

Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articleResearchpeer-review

Harvard

Eckhard, J, Rodemer, M, Langner, A, Bernholt, S & Graulich, N 2021, 'Let’s frame it differently – Analysis of instructors’ mechanistic explanations', Chemistry Education Research and Practice. https://doi.org/10.1039/d1rp00064k

APA

Eckhard, J., Rodemer, M., Langner, A., Bernholt, S., & Graulich, N. (2021). Let’s frame it differently – Analysis of instructors’ mechanistic explanations. Chemistry Education Research and Practice. https://doi.org/10.1039/d1rp00064k

Vancouver

Eckhard J, Rodemer M, Langner A, Bernholt S, Graulich N. Let’s frame it differently – Analysis of instructors’ mechanistic explanations. Chemistry Education Research and Practice. 2021 Sep 17. https://doi.org/10.1039/d1rp00064k

Author

Eckhard, Julia ; Rodemer, Marc ; Langner, Axel ; Bernholt, Sascha ; Graulich, Nicole. / Let’s frame it differently – Analysis of instructors’ mechanistic explanations. In: Chemistry Education Research and Practice. 2021.

BibTeX

@article{260023d5d5824064919c52c6382dcb9c,
title = "Let{\textquoteright}s frame it differently – Analysis of instructors{\textquoteright} mechanistic explanations",
abstract = "Research in Organic Chemistry education has revealed students{\textquoteright} challenges in mechanistic reasoning. When solving mechanistic tasks, students tend to focus on explicit surface features, apply fragmented conceptual knowledge, rely on rote-memorization and, hence, often struggle to build well-grounded causal explanations. When taking a resource perspective as a lens, students{\textquoteright} difficulties may arise from either an unproductive or a missing activation of cognitive resources. Instructors{\textquoteright} explanations and their guidance in teaching situations could serve as a lynchpin to activate these resources. Compared to students{\textquoteright} challenges in building mechanistic explanations in Organic Chemistry, little is known about instructors{\textquoteright} explanations when solving mechanistic tasks and how they shape their targeted explanations for students in terms of the construction and embedding of cause–effect rationales. This qualitative study aims to contribute to the growing research on mechanistic reasoning by exploring instructors{\textquoteright} explanatory approaches. Therefore, we made use of the framing construct, intended to trigger certain frames with explicit instruction. Ten Organic Chemistry instructors (university professors and lecturers) were asked to solve case comparison tasks while being prompted in two scenarios: an expert frame and a teaching frame. Our analysis shows that there is a shift from instructors{\textquoteright} mechanistic explanations in the expert frame towards more elaborated explanations in the teaching frame. In the teaching frame, contrary to what might be expected, complete cause–effect relationships were not always established and instructors differed in how they shaped their explanations. Additional explanatory elements were identified in both frames and their shift in use is discussed. Comparing approaches between frames sheds light on how instructors communicate mechanistic explanations and allows us to derive implications for teaching Organic Chemistry.",
author = "Julia Eckhard and Marc Rodemer and Axel Langner and Sascha Bernholt and Nicole Graulich",
year = "2021",
month = sep,
day = "17",
doi = "10.1039/d1rp00064k",
language = "English",
journal = "Chemistry Education Research and Practice",
issn = "1109-4028",
publisher = "Royal Society of Chemistry",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - Let’s frame it differently – Analysis of instructors’ mechanistic explanations

AU - Eckhard, Julia

AU - Rodemer, Marc

AU - Langner, Axel

AU - Bernholt, Sascha

AU - Graulich, Nicole

PY - 2021/9/17

Y1 - 2021/9/17

N2 - Research in Organic Chemistry education has revealed students’ challenges in mechanistic reasoning. When solving mechanistic tasks, students tend to focus on explicit surface features, apply fragmented conceptual knowledge, rely on rote-memorization and, hence, often struggle to build well-grounded causal explanations. When taking a resource perspective as a lens, students’ difficulties may arise from either an unproductive or a missing activation of cognitive resources. Instructors’ explanations and their guidance in teaching situations could serve as a lynchpin to activate these resources. Compared to students’ challenges in building mechanistic explanations in Organic Chemistry, little is known about instructors’ explanations when solving mechanistic tasks and how they shape their targeted explanations for students in terms of the construction and embedding of cause–effect rationales. This qualitative study aims to contribute to the growing research on mechanistic reasoning by exploring instructors’ explanatory approaches. Therefore, we made use of the framing construct, intended to trigger certain frames with explicit instruction. Ten Organic Chemistry instructors (university professors and lecturers) were asked to solve case comparison tasks while being prompted in two scenarios: an expert frame and a teaching frame. Our analysis shows that there is a shift from instructors’ mechanistic explanations in the expert frame towards more elaborated explanations in the teaching frame. In the teaching frame, contrary to what might be expected, complete cause–effect relationships were not always established and instructors differed in how they shaped their explanations. Additional explanatory elements were identified in both frames and their shift in use is discussed. Comparing approaches between frames sheds light on how instructors communicate mechanistic explanations and allows us to derive implications for teaching Organic Chemistry.

AB - Research in Organic Chemistry education has revealed students’ challenges in mechanistic reasoning. When solving mechanistic tasks, students tend to focus on explicit surface features, apply fragmented conceptual knowledge, rely on rote-memorization and, hence, often struggle to build well-grounded causal explanations. When taking a resource perspective as a lens, students’ difficulties may arise from either an unproductive or a missing activation of cognitive resources. Instructors’ explanations and their guidance in teaching situations could serve as a lynchpin to activate these resources. Compared to students’ challenges in building mechanistic explanations in Organic Chemistry, little is known about instructors’ explanations when solving mechanistic tasks and how they shape their targeted explanations for students in terms of the construction and embedding of cause–effect rationales. This qualitative study aims to contribute to the growing research on mechanistic reasoning by exploring instructors’ explanatory approaches. Therefore, we made use of the framing construct, intended to trigger certain frames with explicit instruction. Ten Organic Chemistry instructors (university professors and lecturers) were asked to solve case comparison tasks while being prompted in two scenarios: an expert frame and a teaching frame. Our analysis shows that there is a shift from instructors’ mechanistic explanations in the expert frame towards more elaborated explanations in the teaching frame. In the teaching frame, contrary to what might be expected, complete cause–effect relationships were not always established and instructors differed in how they shaped their explanations. Additional explanatory elements were identified in both frames and their shift in use is discussed. Comparing approaches between frames sheds light on how instructors communicate mechanistic explanations and allows us to derive implications for teaching Organic Chemistry.

U2 - 10.1039/d1rp00064k

DO - 10.1039/d1rp00064k

M3 - Journal article

JO - Chemistry Education Research and Practice

JF - Chemistry Education Research and Practice

SN - 1109-4028

ER -

ID: 1582097