Reasoning about benefits, costs, and risks of chemical substances: Mapping different levels of sophistication

S. Cullipher, H. Sevian, Vicente A Talanquer

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

8 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

The ability to evaluate options and make informed decisions about problems in relevant contexts is a core competency in science education that requires the use of both domain-general and discipline-specific knowledge and reasoning strategies. In this study we investigated the implicit assumptions and modes of reasoning applied by individuals with different levels of training in chemistry when engaged in a task that demanded the evaluation of the benefits, costs, and risks (BCR) of using different chemical substances. We were interested in identifying and characterizing different levels of sophistication in the use of chemistry concepts and ideas in BCR reasoning. Our qualitative study elicited reasoning patterns that ranged from intuitive to mixed to normative, with students mostly in mid-undergraduate years demonstrating reasoning that was a mixture of intuitive and chemical ways of thinking. Intuitive reasoning was governed primarily by affective impressions about the substances under evaluation. Consideration of compositional, structural, and energetic features of substances was observed with increased training in chemistry, with a tendency to mix particle-level explanations with intuitive assumptions. Normative thinking shifted toward proactive use of appropriate disciplinary knowledge, recognition of a need for more data about bulk properties particularly on large scales, and consideration of pros, cons, and trade-offs. Implications are discussed for ways to improve the undergraduate chemistry curriculum so that students gain proficiency in making productive judgments and informed decisions.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)377-392
Number of pages16
JournalChemistry Education Research and Practice
Volume16
Issue number2
DOIs
StatePublished - 2015

Fingerprint

chemistry
costs
Costs
Students
evaluation
Curricula
student
Education
curriculum
ability
science
education

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Chemistry (miscellaneous)
  • Education

Cite this

Reasoning about benefits, costs, and risks of chemical substances : Mapping different levels of sophistication. / Cullipher, S.; Sevian, H.; Talanquer, Vicente A.

In: Chemistry Education Research and Practice, Vol. 16, No. 2, 2015, p. 377-392.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{92f66633278948fca874f52cdf5ba544,
title = "Reasoning about benefits, costs, and risks of chemical substances: Mapping different levels of sophistication",
abstract = "The ability to evaluate options and make informed decisions about problems in relevant contexts is a core competency in science education that requires the use of both domain-general and discipline-specific knowledge and reasoning strategies. In this study we investigated the implicit assumptions and modes of reasoning applied by individuals with different levels of training in chemistry when engaged in a task that demanded the evaluation of the benefits, costs, and risks (BCR) of using different chemical substances. We were interested in identifying and characterizing different levels of sophistication in the use of chemistry concepts and ideas in BCR reasoning. Our qualitative study elicited reasoning patterns that ranged from intuitive to mixed to normative, with students mostly in mid-undergraduate years demonstrating reasoning that was a mixture of intuitive and chemical ways of thinking. Intuitive reasoning was governed primarily by affective impressions about the substances under evaluation. Consideration of compositional, structural, and energetic features of substances was observed with increased training in chemistry, with a tendency to mix particle-level explanations with intuitive assumptions. Normative thinking shifted toward proactive use of appropriate disciplinary knowledge, recognition of a need for more data about bulk properties particularly on large scales, and consideration of pros, cons, and trade-offs. Implications are discussed for ways to improve the undergraduate chemistry curriculum so that students gain proficiency in making productive judgments and informed decisions.",
author = "S. Cullipher and H. Sevian and Talanquer, {Vicente A}",
year = "2015",
doi = "10.1039/c5rp00025d",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "16",
pages = "377--392",
journal = "Chemistry Education Research and Practice",
issn = "1109-4028",
publisher = "Ioannina University School of Medicine",
number = "2",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Reasoning about benefits, costs, and risks of chemical substances

T2 - Mapping different levels of sophistication

AU - Cullipher, S.

AU - Sevian, H.

AU - Talanquer, Vicente A

PY - 2015

Y1 - 2015

N2 - The ability to evaluate options and make informed decisions about problems in relevant contexts is a core competency in science education that requires the use of both domain-general and discipline-specific knowledge and reasoning strategies. In this study we investigated the implicit assumptions and modes of reasoning applied by individuals with different levels of training in chemistry when engaged in a task that demanded the evaluation of the benefits, costs, and risks (BCR) of using different chemical substances. We were interested in identifying and characterizing different levels of sophistication in the use of chemistry concepts and ideas in BCR reasoning. Our qualitative study elicited reasoning patterns that ranged from intuitive to mixed to normative, with students mostly in mid-undergraduate years demonstrating reasoning that was a mixture of intuitive and chemical ways of thinking. Intuitive reasoning was governed primarily by affective impressions about the substances under evaluation. Consideration of compositional, structural, and energetic features of substances was observed with increased training in chemistry, with a tendency to mix particle-level explanations with intuitive assumptions. Normative thinking shifted toward proactive use of appropriate disciplinary knowledge, recognition of a need for more data about bulk properties particularly on large scales, and consideration of pros, cons, and trade-offs. Implications are discussed for ways to improve the undergraduate chemistry curriculum so that students gain proficiency in making productive judgments and informed decisions.

AB - The ability to evaluate options and make informed decisions about problems in relevant contexts is a core competency in science education that requires the use of both domain-general and discipline-specific knowledge and reasoning strategies. In this study we investigated the implicit assumptions and modes of reasoning applied by individuals with different levels of training in chemistry when engaged in a task that demanded the evaluation of the benefits, costs, and risks (BCR) of using different chemical substances. We were interested in identifying and characterizing different levels of sophistication in the use of chemistry concepts and ideas in BCR reasoning. Our qualitative study elicited reasoning patterns that ranged from intuitive to mixed to normative, with students mostly in mid-undergraduate years demonstrating reasoning that was a mixture of intuitive and chemical ways of thinking. Intuitive reasoning was governed primarily by affective impressions about the substances under evaluation. Consideration of compositional, structural, and energetic features of substances was observed with increased training in chemistry, with a tendency to mix particle-level explanations with intuitive assumptions. Normative thinking shifted toward proactive use of appropriate disciplinary knowledge, recognition of a need for more data about bulk properties particularly on large scales, and consideration of pros, cons, and trade-offs. Implications are discussed for ways to improve the undergraduate chemistry curriculum so that students gain proficiency in making productive judgments and informed decisions.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84968752878&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84968752878&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1039/c5rp00025d

DO - 10.1039/c5rp00025d

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:84968752878

VL - 16

SP - 377

EP - 392

JO - Chemistry Education Research and Practice

JF - Chemistry Education Research and Practice

SN - 1109-4028

IS - 2

ER -