This is an open access article published under an ACS AuthorChoice License, which permits

copying and redistribution of the article or any adaptations for non-commercial purposes.

Article

Cite This: J. Chem. Educ. XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX pubs.acs.org/jchemeduc

Arguing from Spectroscopic Evidence

Ryan L. Stowe*,† and Melanie M. Cooper
Department of Chemistry, Michigan State University, 578 South Shaw Lane, East Lansing, Michigan 48824, United States
*
S Supporting Information

ABSTRACT: Constructing and critiquing evidence-based

claims is centrally important to aspiring medical professionals
and to scientists more generally. Accordingly, The National
Academy of Science’s Framework for K−12 Science Education
See https://pubs.acs.org/sharingguidelines for options on how to legitimately share published articles.

describes engaging in argument from evidence as one of the

practices that characterize work in science. However, despite
the central role argumentation plays in construction and
refinement of evidence-based explanations and models, it is
Downloaded via 179.32.107.65 on September 4, 2019 at 02:00:28 (UTC).

very often absent from K−16 science learning environments.

Here, we frame argumentation from spectroscopic evidence in
terms of flexible application of a series of procedures to pull
information from spectroscopic traces and use this evidence to
inform claims as to the structure of an unknown molecule.
Through analysis of responses to several multipart assessment
items, we examined how students analyzed, interpreted and used spectroscopic evidence to inform their claims. We found that
students were fairly adept at analyzing and interpreting data from infrared and 13C NMR traces as well as indicating
correspondence between proton environments in their structural prediction and appropriate 1H NMR peaks. Unfortunately,
none of these tasks were significantly associated with student success in proposing a claim consistent with an entire corpus of
spectroscopic data. Further, scaffolding of the task prompt had no impact on student ability to successfully construct evidence-
based structural predictions. Our findings indicate that students will require significant support to use their procedural
knowledge flexibly in order to iteratively construct and critique claims supported by spectroscopic evidence.
KEYWORDS: Second-Year Undergraduate, Organic Chemistry, Problem Solving/Decision Making, Spectroscopy,
Chemical Education Research
FEATURE: Chemical Education Research

■ INTRODUCTION
A significant portion of students enrolled in introductory organic
chemistry aspire to careers in the healthcare sector. Accordingly,
much of the rhetoric justifying organic chemistry as a medical
school and dental school prerequisite focuses on analogies
between competencies desired in medical professionals and
those alleged to be fostered by the course.1,2 We have previously
argued that these competencies can be precisely defined and
operationalized as the Science and Engineering Practices (SEPs)
defined by A Framework for K−12 Science Education (the
Framework).3 The Practices describe processes characteristic of
work in science and encompass both ways of thinking inherent
in experimental design (e.g., “design and carry out inves-
tigations” and “analyze and interpret data”) and ways of
communicating and refining scientific ideas in communities
(e.g., “engage in argument from evidence” and “evaluate and
communicate information”).
Diagnosis, which is the construction of a claim as to the cause
of a collection of symptoms, is centrally important to nearly all
healthcare practitioners. Diagnosis may be regarded as the SEP
“engaging in argument from evidence”, as it requires medical
professionals to construct tentative causal accounts of symptoms
© XXXX American Chemical Society and
Division of Chemical Education, Inc.
supported by sound interpretation of evidence.4 The process of
pulling information from various strands of data, itself the SEP
“analyze and interpret data”, to gather evidence that supports or
refutes a diagnosis is heavily reliant upon the use of procedural
knowledge (i.e., the “rules of the game” for solving a given
problem). For example, interpretation of an electrocardiogram
(EKG) requires awareness of the parameters of a normal rhythm
(including the normal amplitude, deflection, and duration of
each component) and that one must make comparisons between
these ideal parameters and a patient’s observed EKG trace.
There may be a number of procedures that might characterize
these comparisons, with some being more or less efficient for a
given scenario. Flexible command of many such approaches
coupled with knowledge of when a given procedure is most
appropriate has been characterized as “deep procedural
knowledge” by researchers in mathematics education.5−7 Such
knowledge is essential to efficient and accurate interpretation
Received: June 12, 2019
Revised: July 19, 2019
A DOI: 10.1021/acs.jchemed.9b00550
J. Chem. Educ. XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX
Journal of Chemical Education
and use of evidence and therefore a vital component of the
overall practice of diagnosis.
The dialogic process of construction and critique of claims
that characterizes diagnosis is analogous to student engagement
in argumentation in the context of spectroscopy. That is, when
asked to determine the identity of an unknown from analysis of
spectroscopic data, students must pull evidence from various
spectra, construct a claim informed by this evidence, and analyze
whether that tentative claim is in fact consistent with all of the
evidence assembled. Students do not begin this process by
“knowing the answer”, unless the problem is an exact
reproduction of one discussed previously, and so their relation
of evidence to claim is meant to persuade the instructor or their
peers of the reasonableness of the claim itself. Importantly, the
structural hallmarks of argumentation (i.e., construction and
critique of evidence-based claims) may occur via dialogue
among members of a group or internally, via an individual using
different mental “voices” for claim building and vetting.8 Here,
we are focused on tasks designed to require argumentative
discourse in the minds of individual students. We are aware of no
existing peer-reviewed literature that examines spectroscopic
analysis through the lens of argumentation. Prior reports instead
focus on strategies believed to foster “problem solving
skills”,9−14 describing the differences between expert and novice
analyses of spectroscopic data,15−18 or characterizing invalid
chemical assumptions and heuristics that are believe to constrain
student reasoning during IR and 1H NMR spectroscopic
interpretation.19 We can find no published strategies that
contain strong evidence that a particular intervention improves
student ability to argue from spectroscopic evidence; that is,
extant literature does not compare the success of large student
cohorts engaged in the described intervention with those not so
engaged.
Despite the significant role argumentation plays in refining
knowledge claims within the scientific community,20 it is very
often absent from instruction in both K−12 and higher
education spaces.21 Our work here is an attempt to characterize
student engagement in argumentation from spectroscopic
evidence in the context of scaffolded assessment items.22 In
particular, we are interested in the following questions:
1. How successful are students at deploying procedural
resources to analyze and interpret data from a variety of
spectroscopic sources?
2. What associations exist between student analysis and
interpretation of spectroscopic data and their use of this
evidence to inform claims as to the identity of an
unknown?
3. To what degree do analysis, interpretation, and use of
different strands of spectroscopic data predict student
success at proposing a structure consistent with all
assembled evidence?
4. How does varying the structure of the prompt impact
student success in constructing a claim consistent with
provided spectroscopic evidence?
■ ON PROCEDURAL KNOWLEDGE
Most work defining and exemplifying various aspects of
procedural knowledge derives from the mathematics education
literature. Indeed, there has been vigorous discussion for
decades among mathematics education scholars about appro-
priate learning environment emphasis on “procedural” versus
“conceptual” knowledge, as well as what “procedural” and
B DOI: 10.1021/acs.jchemed.9b00550
Article
“conceptual” mean with regard to knowledge.23 At present, there
is significant consensus that mathematics education should
minimize rote reproduction of algorithms. In pursuit of de-
emphasizing the “plug and chug” focus of traditional
mathematics courses, there have been several high profile
initiatives that advocate teaching the conceptual basis for a
particular procedure before the procedure itself.24−26 We will
focus here on what is meant by “procedural knowledge” as well
as whether such knowledge can be anything other than rote
application of memorized rules.
Hiebert and Lefevre defined procedural knowledge as “chains
of prescriptions for manipulating symbols” in the mid-1980s.
They painted a contrast between procedural and conceptual
knowledge, which was said to be “rich in relationships. It can be
thought of as a connected web of knowledge.”27 Star has taken
issue with Hiebert and Lefevre’s characterization of procedural
and conceptual knowledge in mathematics, claiming that they
have conflated knowledge type (procedural−conceptual) and
quality (novice−expert).6,7 He has noted that flexible, context-
sensitive application of procedures represents a deep (that is,
expert-like) understanding of both the procedures themselves
and what constitutes an appropriate procedure for a given
scenario. It should be noted that procedure “appropriateness” is
not always defined in a clear-cut manner. Star has defined the
most appropriate use of procedures as that which is most
efficient (i.e., requires the fewest steps to reach a solution).28
This definition of “appropriateness” does not map well onto the
use of procedural knowledge to construct and critique claims
informed by spectroscopic data, where there is no defined “most
step efficient solution”. Context sensitivity, that is, recognition of
when information from a particular data source would be helpful
in refining a claim, is more germane to discerning when a
procedure would be most appropriate for the data analysis that
informs argumentation from spectroscopic evidence.
Here, we describe application of a chain of procedures to solve
a problem as activation of a series of intellectual resources. Such
“resources” were first proposed by Hammer as an extension of
diSessa’s “knowledge in pieces” approach to conceptual
change.29,30 These resources represent small-grain knowledge
elements of a variety of types, including ideas extrapolated from
experience, notions about the nature and appropriate use of
knowledge, and knowledge of algorithms and heuristics.31−34
They are not “correct” or “incorrect” in and of themselves, but
they may be activated in ways that are not appropriate for a
particular scenario. For example, the resource that “more effort
begets more result” has been activated in all manner of
idiosyncratic, incorrect student explanations for differences in
boiling point.35 As students gain facility with patterns of resource
activation, “locally coherent sets of resources may... become
established as resources in their own right.”34 Thus, the term
“resource” alone does not necessarily imply a fixed grain size;
some resources are smaller grain than others.
Analysis and Interpretation of Spectroscopic Data as
Activation of Resources
To analyze and interpret data from the spectroscopic traces
commonly examined in organic chemistry (e.g., infrared, 13C
NMR, and 1H NMR), one must be familiar with a range of
algorithms as well as when those algorithms could be
productively used. Our use of “algorithm” here is meant to
indicate that, if one follows a set of well-behaved rules, one can
successfully pull relevant information from a spectrum. In other
words, analysis and interpretation of spectroscopic data requires
J. Chem. Educ. XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX
Journal of Chemical Education
procedural knowledge. In characterizing data analysis and
interpretation as “procedural”, we are assuming that the spectra
analyzed are fairly unambiguous and that more advanced
conceptual knowledge is not required for interpretation, as
would be the case if a spectrum were to show, for instance, long-
range proton coupling. All of the spectroscopic traces examined
in the course context for this study were unambiguous. Each
procedure is likely learned as activation of a series locally
coherent resources that, over time, become compiled into
resources themselves. For the purposes of the analyses that
follow, we define several algorithms elementary to spectroscopic
data analysis. These include
• Determining the number of carbon environments by
counting the peaks in a 13C NMR spectrum
• Recognizing the presence or absence of functional groups
(e.g., hydroxyl and carbonyl functionality) in an infrared
spectrum
• Determining the number of protons on carbons adjacent
to a given environment from the splitting of a particular
1
H NMR peak
• Determining the number of protons in a given environ-
ment from the integration of a particular 1H NMR peak
Each of these procedures are almost certainly composed of
smaller-grain knowledge elements for many students. Indeed,
helping students compile the locally coherent resources that
make up each algorithm into a larger-grain resource that can be
deployed with little mental effort is a central goal of our
treatment of spectroscopy. However, a finely grained analysis of
the character of students’ procedural knowledge is beyond the
scope of this study. We cannot know, from written responses to
prompts, whether students have compiled the procedures noted
above into resources. It should be mentioned that the
procedures we have described are by no means exhaustive and
students almost certainly bring other resources to bear on
argumentation problems beyond what we noted. For example,
helpful heuristics such as “a 6H doublet around 1 ppm in a
proton NMR typically corresponds to two methyl groups in an
isopropyl functionality” are undoubtedly cultivated among the
student populace as they work through many spectroscopy
problems.
The reader may note that we have not made mention of the
physical basis for spectroscopic techniques when describing the
procedures needed to analyze and interpret spectroscopic
evidence; this was intentional. One need not understand the
impact of nearby magnetic environments on proton NMR peak
splitting to learn that the multiplicity of a particular peak
corresponds to one more than the number of protons on
carbons adjacent to a given proton environment (the “n + 1”
rule). For the purposes of our analysis, we have only addressed
these four algorithms because (as the reader will see) even such
relatively simple resources are difficult for students to
coordinate. It is an open question whether possessing
conceptual knowledge improves one’s ability to argue from
spectroscopic evidence.
Argumentation from Spectroscopic Evidence through a
Resources Lens
The procedures we have characterized above can be used in
more or less efficient ways to support the construction and
critique of a variety of claims. As with “deep procedural
knowledge” more generally, facility with argumentation from
spectroscopic evidence relies upon students possessing the
requisite resources and also being strategic with their application
C DOI: 10.1021/acs.jchemed.9b00550
Article
in the context of a particular problem. For example, if one does
not know the “n + 1” rule, then they will be unable to say
anything about the number of protons on carbons adjacent to a
given proton environment. However, knowledge of this “rule”
does not guarantee that students will consistently and
methodically apply it when critiquing structural predictions.
Cartrette and Bodner characterized individuals that were “more
successful” in relating structural claims to spectroscopic
evidence as having a methodical strategy that involved effective
application of algorithms such as the “n + 1” rule to depict
fragments indicated by portions of a spectroscopic trace en route
to proposing a complete structural prediction.15 “More
successful” problem solvers also, without exception, carefully
checked consistency between their prediction and assembled
spectroscopic evidence by again employing a variety of
procedural resources. Here, we will examine student success at
relating evidence pulled from spectroscopic data to structural
predictions in the context of formative and summative
assessment prompts.
■
METHODS
Course Context
Our work occurred in the context of a transformed, large-
enrollment organic chemistry course known as Organic
Chemistry, Life, the Universe and Everything (OCLUE).22
This a two-semester course and has enrolled between 350 and
700 students since the fall of 2016. Students meet as a large
group for approximately 3 h/week and attend a weekly 50 min
recitation section, where they work in groups on tasks that
require the use of SEPs under the guidance of a graduate
teaching assistant. The data presented here derives from
OCLUE enactments from fall 2016 to fall 2018. Like the
transformed general chemistry course Chemistry, Life, the
Universe, and Everything (or CLUE),36 OCLUE is structured
around scaffolded progressions of core ideas37 that build in
complexity as students predict, explain, and model ever more
complex phenomena. These core ideas are not discrete topics
but rather large-grain ideas that can be taught at various levels of
sophistication, have significant power to explain phenomena,
and undergird all topics in the course.3,37 In both CLUE and
OCLUE these ideas are “energy”, “atomic/molecular structure
and properties”, “stability and change in chemical systems”, and
“electrostatic and bonding interactions.” Connections between
core ideas and phenomena are explicit in instruction in order to
help students develop and organize their knowledge as they
progress.
The physical basis for spectroscopic techniques as well as
analysis of spectroscopic data are introduced early in the first
semester of OCLUE and build in complexity throughout the
course. Infrared (IR) spectroscopy is introduced first, with
emphasis on recognizing peaks that correspond to carbonyl and
hydroxyl functional groups. Carbon nuclear magnetic resonance
spectroscopy (13C NMR) is discussed following IR spectroscopy
and before proton NMR, as 13C NMR is less information-rich
than proton NMR and should therefore impose less cognitive
load on students. Finally, proton NMR is introduced and
unpacked. Spectroscopy is introduced early in the first semester
to provide students with evidence about molecular structure; the
conceptual basis for various spectroscopic techniques precedes
student use of these techniques to make sense of data. For
example, students learn why electron density affects NMR
signals, and why carbons with electronegative substituents
J. Chem. Educ. XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX
Journal of Chemical Education
appear downfield prior to analyzing and interpreting 13C NMR.
As new functionality is explored throughout both semesters of
the course, the spectroscopic signatures of that functionality are
introduced and discussed. At the same time, the emphasis shifts
to the use of spectroscopic evidence to support claims about
molecular structure. In this report, we focus on student
engagement in argumentation from spectroscopic evidence,
rather than student understanding of the physical basis for that
evidence.
Student Participants
These studies were carried out at a large, midwestern research
university. All student participants were informed of their rights
as research subjects, and all data was obtained and handled in
accordance with the Institutional Review Board.
A total of 300 students participated in this study. All
participants were enrolled in both semesters of OCLUE within
a single academic year. Our sample is made up of students from
three cohorts, with each cohort consisting of 100 randomly
selected students who were enrolled in a two-semester OCLUE
enactment; 100 students were enrolled in the course from 2016
to 2017, 100 were enrolled from 2017 to 2018, and 100 were
enrolled from 2018 to 2019. To determine whether significant
differences existed in the demographic and academic measures
for our three cohorts, we ran a series of Mann−Whitney U tests
comparing, in a pairwise fashion, cohort ACT scores, grades in
the first semester of OCLUE, and overall GPA prior to enrolling
in organic chemistry. In cases where students had only taken the
SAT, SAT scores were converted to ACT scores using
concordance tables published by the ACT.38 Apart from the
instance mentioned below, no significant differences in the
demographic and academic measures of our cohorts were found.
The cohort enrolled in OCLUE during the 2017−2018
academic year had somewhat higher first-semester OCLUE
grades than the cohort enrolled during the 2018−2019 academic
year (mean of 3.6 vs 3.4, U = 4023.5, z = −2.655, p = 0.008, r =
0.18; small effect size). All statistical tests reported in this
contribution were conducted using version 24 of SPSS Statistics
for Mac.39 Our threshold for significance in this study was p ≤
0.01. Summaries of all statistical analyses of demographic and
academic measures are reported in Table S1, contained in the
Supporting Information.
Instruments
Our data corpus consisted of responses to four types of prompts
that were designed to engage students in analysis and
interpretation of spectroscopic data and construction of claims
consistent with assembled evidence (i.e., argumentation).
Prompt scaffolding varied in order to discern how students
could and should be supported in arguing from spectroscopic
evidence on written assessments. Assessment items were given
an summative assessments on midterm exams and as formative
assessments to be completed on the online homework system
beSocratic. beSocratic enables students to construct explan-
ations, predictions, and models in response to open-ended
questions.40−42 Below we will discuss each prompt variety with
focus on why each was scaffolded in a particular manner. Our
scaffolding strategies were informed by the criteria Laverty et al.
put forth in the 3-Dimensional Learning Assessment Protocol
(3D-LAP) for assessments that have the potential to elicit
evidence of student engagement in science and engineering
practices (SEPs).43 In particular, we focused on the criteria the
assessments had to fulfill to potentially elicit evidence of student
engagement in argument from evidence (Box 1).
D DOI: 10.1021/acs.jchemed.9b00550
Article
Box 1. 3D-LAP Criteria for Prompts with the Potential to
Engage Students in Argumentation from Evidence
1. Question gives an event, observation, or phenomenon
2. Question gives or asks student to make a claim based on a
given event, observation, or phenomenon
3. Question asks student to provide evidence in the form of
data or observations to support the claim
4. Question asks student to provide reasoning about why
the evidence supports the claim
Each prompt type disclosed below will be annotated to denote
the criteria they fulfill. Note that not all assessments used fulfill
all of the criteria given; these assessments are best categorized as
not having the potential to elicit evidence of student engagement
in argumentation. All infrared spectra used for our prompts were
derived from the Spectral Database for Organic Compounds.44
All 13C NMR and 1H NMR spectra were created using the NMR
prediction tools found in ChemDraw Professional 15.1 for Mac.
Following discussion of our different prompt varieties, we will
discuss our coding of these assessment tasks with focus on
analysis and interpretation of particular strands of spectroscopic
data, the correlation between pulling information from spectra
and leveraging this information in constructing claims, and
overall success at proposing claims consistent with provided
evidence.
Prompt Type 1: Low Structure
Assessment items of this variety were the least structured of the
prompts we administered to students. Students were shown
infrared, 1H NMR, and 13C NMR spectra; given a molecular
formula; and asked to construct a claim consistent with
assembled evidence, as shown in Figure 1. “Low structure”
Figure 1. Unstructured prompt asking students to propose a structure
consistent with several strands of spectroscopic evidence. This prompt
does not have the potential to engage students in argumentation from
evidence as defined by the 3D-LAP.
prompts presented students with several spectroscopic traces
that were collected by bombarding an unknown compound with
electromagnetic radiation (EMR) of different wavelengths and
detecting EMR absorbed or emitted (e.g., “an observation”).
Following this, respondents were asked to construct a claim
consistent with assembled spectroscopic data. Prompts of this
type never explicitly asked students to provide evidence that
J. Chem. Educ. XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX
Journal of Chemical Education
supported their claim or to link evidence to claim by way of
sound reasoning. Accordingly, they do not fulfill the 3D-LAP
criteria for having the potential to elicit evidence of student
engagement in argumentation from spectroscopic evidence
(Box 1). The most that can be concluded from responses to a
low structure prompt is whether students constructed a
consistent claim. These prompts were used as controls to
address RQ4 but could not provide information useful in
addressing RQs 1−3. These prompts were only given as part of
formative assessments.
Prompt Type 2: Moderate Structure
The second type of prompt embodies the minimum amount of
scaffolding we believe is required to meet the criteria laid forth in
the 3D-LAP for having the potential to elicit evidence of
engagement in argumentation. As shown in Figure 2, prompts of
Figure 2. Prompt designed to engage students in argumentation from
spectroscopic evidence. This represents an assessment with a moderate
amount of scaffolding.
this type provide students with an observation analogous to that
shown in Figure 1. Additionally, students are asked to propose a
claim consistent with the spectroscopic traces before them.
However, unlike low structure prompts, “moderate structure”
prompts ask students to justify their prediction by citing specific
strands of evidence; that is, they are being asked to relate
evidence to their claim by way of reasoning. There existed
minimal cuing as to what evidence would be appropriate to
mention nor how that should be related, and so this should still
be considered a fairly unstructured prompt. Moderate structure
prompts were used to examine the impact of prompt structure
on students’ ability to construct evidence-based claims as part of
addressing RQ4.
Prompt Type 3: High Structure
Our third prompt variety should be considered “highly
structured” relative to the first and second prompt types
shown in Figures 2 and 3. As with previously mentioned
prompts, students were called to propose a claim consistent with
spectroscopic evidence and relate specific strands of evidence to
their claim. However, unlike with moderate structure prompts,
students were explicitly cued to focus on particular pieces of
E DOI: 10.1021/acs.jchemed.9b00550
Article
Figure 3. Highly structured prompt designed to elicit evidence of
student engagement in argumentation from spectroscopic evidence.
The prompt spacing is condensed from that given to students. Adapted
with permission from ref 2. Copyright 2017 American Chemical
Society.
evidence they should pull from assembled traces (e.g., functional
groups indicated by the IR and number of carbon environ-
ments). Further, they were asked to indicate correspondence
between peaks in the 1H NMR and their prediction, that is,
directly relate aspects of their claim to the evidence, which we
consider as meeting the “reasoning” criteria of the 3D-LAP
(Figure 3). Prompts of this type are useful for addressing
whether students can analyze and interpret various strands of
spectroscopic data given explicit guidance to do so. “High
structure” prompts were given on a formative assessment
administered in the spring of 2018, as well as on midterm exams
given during the springs of 2017 and 2018. The data we will use
to answer RQs 1−3 are derived from responses to these
prompts.
Prompt Type 4: Critique Centered
The final prompt type we will discuss here was meant to elicit
evidence of student construction and critique of evidence-based
claims (Figure 4). Accordingly, students were given two sources
of spectroscopic data obtained from an unknown (infrared and
13
C NMR spectra), asked to pull information from each source,
and asked to construct two claims consistent with assembled
evidence. Following this, students were given an 1H NMR
spectrum corresponding to that same unknown, asked to analyze
and interpret an aspect of this spectrum, and subsequently asked
to rule out one or both of their prior claims. The final part of this
question asked for the construction of a claim consistent with all
data sources. A critique centered prompt was given as a
formative assessment during the fall 2018 semester. A critique-
centered prompt was used to examine the impact of prompt
scaffolding on students’ success in constructing evidence-based
claims as part of addressing RQ4.
Coding Protocol
The descriptors of student responses that formed the basis for
our analyses were binary in nature. That is, students either
J. Chem. Educ. XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX
Journal of Chemical Education
Figure 4. Assessment prompt meant to engage students in construction
and critique of claims grounded in spectroscopic evidence. The prompt
spacing is condensed from that given to students.
indicated the correct response to part of a prompt or they did
not. Accordingly, there was no nuanced interpretation of
responses to negotiate among raters. As a result of this, we did
not see need for extensive testing of the reliability of our coding.
The first author coded all the data analyzed for this contribution.
To spot-check the first author’s description of student responses,
the second author coded a random sample of 30 responses to
high structure exam items, and their codes were compared
against those assigned by the first author. In particular, both
authors coded (1) whether students indicated the number of
carbon environments shown in the 13C NMR, (2) whether
students noted the functionality shown in the infrared spectrum,
(3) whether students constructed a structural claim with an
appropriate number of carbon environments, (4) whether
students constructed a structural claim with the functionality
shown in the infrared spectrum, (5) whether students indicated
reasonable correlation between one or more peaks in the 1H
NMR spectrum and their claim, and (6) whether students
constructed a claim consistent with all assembled evidence.
These codes correspond to responses to different parts of the
high structure prompts. For example, part A (Figure 3) asks
students to describe the functionality indicated by the infrared
spectrum. Responses to part A provided evidence as to whether
students pulled reasonable information from the IR spectrum
regarding functional groups present in a molecule. Agreement
between the authors on the codes appropriate for student
responses to each prompt portion ranged from 83 to 100%. All
discrepancies that arose were the result of an error on the part of
F DOI: 10.1021/acs.jchemed.9b00550
Article
one of the authors, not disagreement about the meaning of a
code. Both authors met following joint coding and reached
consensus as to the proper code each of the 30 responses
merited for each question subpart.
RQ1: How successful are students at deploying procedural
resources to analyze and interpret data from a variety of
spectroscopic sources?
Student ability to deploy the algorithms mentioned earlier to
pull information from different spectroscopic sources was
analyzed using responses to portions of high structure prompts.
Such prompts explicitly asked students to describe the
functional groups indicated by an infrared spectrum and
determine the number of chemically distinct carbons shown
by a 13C NMR spectrum. Assessments structured in this manner
also asked students to indicate which proton environment in
their prediction corresponded to which 1H NMR peak (Figure
3). In order to address RQ1, we noted whether student answers
to appropriate question subparts indicated appropriate or
inappropriate resource deployment. For example, we coded
whether students correctly indicated the number of carbon
environments when asked to do so. In analyzing the use of
algorithms relevant to 1H NMR, it was difficult to deconvolute
the two algorithms mentioned previously (i.e., use of the “n + 1”
rule and peak integration). Accordingly, they were taken
together for the purposes of RQs 1−3. That is, student ability
to indicate reasonable correspondence between a proton
environment in their prediction and a 1H NMR peak was read
to indicate facility with interpreting information from both peak
splitting and integration. Additionally, although student analysis
and interpretation of 13C NMR and IR data was decoupled from
claim construction in high structure items, students were
required to use their interpretation of 1H NMR data in the
context of their structural prediction on part (e) of these
assessments. Accordingly, we describe student ability to
reasonably label the proton environments in their prediction
as “analysis, interpretation, and use” of proton NMR data. All
coding conducted as part of this work was binary; students either
correctly analyzed and interpreted particular information from
spectra, or they did not. Importantly, we did not and do not
assume that a correct or incorrect response indicates the best a
student is capable of; responses merely indicate those resources
activated in a particular moment in response to a given prompt.
RQ2: What associations exist between student analysis and
interpretation of spectroscopic data and their use of this
evidence to inform claims as to the identity of an
unknown?
Engagement in argumentation from spectroscopic evidence
requires that students use evidence from analyzed data to inform
the construction and critique of claims. Accordingly, we were
interested in what associations (if any) existed between student
ability to pull information from spectroscopic data (coded as
described under RQ2) and incorporation of this information
into their structural prediction. We coded whether the claims
students constructed in response to high structure prompts were
consistent with particular strands of spectral data. For example,
does the structural prediction have six carbon environments as
the 13C NMR suggests? Does the structural prediction have a
hydroxyl group as the infrared spectrum would indicate?
Following this, we analyzed association between analysis and
interpretation of data and the construction of claims consistent
with particular data sources via a series of χ2 tests. For results that
showed a significant association, the strength of the relationship
J. Chem. Educ. XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX
Journal of Chemical Education Article

Table 1. Three Experiments Conducted to Determine the Impact of Prompt Structure on Students’ Construction of Claims
Consistent with Spectroscopic Evidence
Experiment Comparison Prompt Experimental Prompt Purpose
Experiment 1 Low structure High structure Determine the impact of explicitly prompting for data analysis and argument
justification
Experiment 2 Low structure Critique centered Determine the impact of explicitly prompting students to construct and
critique claims
Experiment 3 Moderate structure, two Moderate structure, three Determine the impact of varying the amount of data students had to
spectroscopic traces spectroscopic traces consider when constructing claims

Figure 5. Percentage of students who analyzed, interpreted, or used spectroscopic data from several sources as prompted by highly structured
assessment items. “Exam 1” prompts were present on summative assessments, whereas “HW” prompts represent assessments given as part of a
homework assignment. The portions of multipart assessment items germane to analysis, interpretation, or use of spectroscopic data are found in the
“Prompts” box in the bottom right of the figure.

was calculated using Cramer’s V and interpreted using
guidelines published by Cohen.45 Accordingly, a small effect
would have a Cramer’s V of 0.1, a medium effect would have a
Cramer’s V of 0.3, and a large effect would have a Cramer’s V of
0.5.
RQ3: To what degree do analysis, interpretation, and use of
different strands of spectroscopic data predict student
success at proposing a structure consistent with all
assembled evidence?
Binary logistic regressions were performed to determine
whether student success in proposing claims consistent with
spectroscopic evidence could be predicted in part by their
success analyzing and interpreting particular strands of
spectroscopic data. Models were constructed for high structure
prompts with the outcome variable being “correct prediction” in
all instances and the predictor variables being “indicate the
correct number of carbon environments shown by the 13C
NMR”, “indicate the correct functionality shown by the infrared
spectrum”, and “indicate reasonable correspondence between
some of the proton environments in your prediction and some of
the 1H NMR peaks”. For this analysis, we will report whether any
predictor variable significantly increased the model’s predictive
validity relative to the intercept-only “null model”. High
structure prompts were chosen as the basis for our models
G DOI: 10.1021/acs.jchemed.9b00550
because of their very explicit prompting for invocation of the
algorithms mentioned previously.
RQ4: How does varying prompt structure impact student
success in constructing a claim consistent with provided
spectroscopic evidence?
Three experiments were conducted to determine whether
different prompt structures might impact student success in
constructing a claim consistent with spectroscopic evidence
(Table 1). Past studies indicate that the manner in which a
prompt is structured can powerfully affect the resources students
bring to bear in their responses.46 If students do not know what
we are asking, they might not construct the best explanation,
prediction, or model they are capable of generating. Accordingly,
we hypothesized that differently structured spectroscopic
argumentation prompts might impact student success in
proposing appropriate evidence-based claims.
Two of the three experiments conducted to address our first
research question focused on determining whether explicitly
requiring students to analyze, interpret, and use spectroscopic
data improved the percentage of our sample that constructed
appropriate claims. In both of these cases, the class was
randomly assigned to either an experimental or control
condition. The control condition was given a low structure
prompt, whereas the experimental condition was given a high
structure or “critique focused” prompt involving use of the same
J. Chem. Educ. XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX
Journal of Chemical Education
Figure 6. Percentage of students who analyzed and interpreted data from infrared and 13C NMR spectra as well as the percentage of students who
constructed a structural prediction consistent with these two types of spectroscopic data. “Exam 1” prompts were present on summative assessments,
whereas “HW” prompts represent assessments given as part of a homework assignment.
data set. To analyze whether prompt structure impacted the
reasonableness of student claims, we coded whether each
student constructed a claim consistent with assembled evidence
and compared the percentage of successful students in the
control versus experimental conditions. Association between
condition and constructing a reasonable claim was analyzed via a
Pearson’s χ2 test.
The third experiment was meant to shed light on whether
asking students to examine fewer strands of spectroscopic
evidence would impact their success in constructing a claim
consistent with that evidence. It has been well-established that
humans have a limited capacity to process information.47−50 In
light of this, one might guess that difficulties with engaging in
argumentation from spectroscopic evidence could emerge in
part from the various procedures that make up this practice,
overwhelming students’ working memory. Requiring fewer
processing tasks, by reducing the amount of data to analyze,
interpret, and use, might therefore positively impact student
ability to construct evidence-based claims. To test this, we
randomly assigned students to one of two groups. Both groups
were assigned a set of two moderate structure prompts with one
prompt asking for a claim consistent with two spectroscopic
traces (infrared and 13C NMR) and the other prompt asking for
a structural prediction consistent with three spectroscopic traces
(infrared, 13C NMR, and 1H NMR). Group 1 received all three
traces for Unknown A and two traces for Unknown B. Group 2
received two traces for Unknown A and three for Unknown B.
Each assessment response was coded according to whether the
claim presented was completely consistent with the assembled
evidence. We examined whether there was an association
between the percentage of students who proposed a reasonable
claim and the number of strands of data students were required
to analyze via a series of χ2 tests.
■
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
RQ 1: Success in Analyzing and Interpreting Particular
Strands of Spectroscopic Data
This research question focuses squarely on student facility with
the four algorithms previously highlighted as integral to the
analysis, interpretation, and use of spectroscopic data from
H DOI: 10.1021/acs.jchemed.9b00550
Article
infrared, 13C NMR, and 1H NMR traces. Accordingly, we will
unpack student responses to high structure prompts that
explicitly require use of relevant procedural resources (see
Figure 3 for an example of one such prompt). The percentage of
students from our sample who deployed these resources
appropriately is shown in Figure 5.
Recall that, for the purposes of the analyses encapsulated by
Figure 5, we defined “analyze and interpret spectroscopic data”
as application of a set of four procedures. Thus, analysis and
interpretation of data from an infrared spectrum signified that
students could correctly describe functional groups indicated by
a particular spectrum. As this contribution is focused on
productive activation of resources rather than describing
difficulties, students who described a functionality shown by
an IR trace and also described a functionality not indicated by
that same data source were counted as “analyzing and
interpreting data” here. Analysis and interpretation of 13C
NMR data focused on whether students could correctly describe
the number of carbon environments indicated by a spectrum.
It should be noted that analysis and interpretation of data
from 13C NMR and IR spectra were explicitly prompted for by
the high structure prompts, whereas students were not
specifically prompted to extract information from 1H NMR
spectra. Instead, they were asked to use evidence from a proton
NMR to justify their claims (see the portion of Figure 5 that
reads “Prompts”). For this reason, we consider indicating a
reasonable correspondence between at least some of the proton
environments in their structural prediction and the 1H NMR
spectrum as evidence students were “analyzing, interpreting, and
using” data from a proton NMR. As such correspondence had to
take into account information from peak splitting and
multiplicity, we considered this an indicator that students
could leverage both of the proton-NMR-relevant procedures
previously described to interpret 1H NMR data and use that data
to justify their prediction. Interestingly, no association existed
between the type of assessment (i.e., formative or summative)
and student success in analyzing, interpreting, and using data
from IR and 1H NMR spectra as prompted for by the high
structure assessments (p > 0.01 in all instances). No measures of
association could be calculated relating the type of assessment to
J. Chem. Educ. XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX
Journal of Chemical Education
success analyzing and interpreting 13C NMR data, because at
least one variable in each two-way table was a constant. Lack of
association between type of assessment and success in prompted
performances indicates that students were just as successful on
homework problems as they were on similarly structured exam
prompts.
From examination of Figure 5, it is readily apparent that most
student respondents proved adept at deploying the procedural
resources in the context of highly structured prompts on exams
and homework. In particular, nearly everyone could pull
information on functional groups from the infrared spectrum
and discern the number of carbon environments from the 13C
NMR. Both of these tasks are fairly straightforward and
practiced a great deal during lecture and on homework. Students
were similarly successful in labeling correspondence between 1H
NMR peaks and their claims, which required that two related
procedures (i.e., the “n + 1” rule and interpretation of peak
integration values) were simultaneously leveraged.
RQ 2: Association between Analysis and Interpretation of
Spectroscopic Data and Use of that Evidence to Inform
Claims
It is clear that most students can deploy algorithms to extract
information from spectra. What is less clear is whether this
evidence actually informs structural predictions. Here, we
explore whether there exist associations between analysis and
interpretation of data and use of this evidence in claim
construction. Our analysis leverages student responses to the
three high structure prompts previously discussed because these
prompts allow us to ascertain whether appropriate information
is being derived from the spectra. In particular, we focused on
association between the information students obtain from IR
and 13C NMR data and their predictions. The percentage of
students who analyzed and interpreted data from infrared and
carbon NMR spectra is presented alongside the percentage of
students whose structural predictions were consistent with this
data in Figure 6. As an example, a student who correctly stated
that a 13C NMR indicated that there were six different kinds of
carbon would be counted as “analyzing and interpreting” carbon
NMR data appropriately, whereas a student who constructed a
claim that had six carbon environments would be categorized as
using the aforementioned evidence in their argument. For the
purposes of this analysis, claims were not required to be
consistent with all assembled data, just the data that are relevant
to the claim. For example, if a student constructed a prediction
with the proper number of carbon environments that was
inconsistent with the given 1H NMR, they would still be counted
as using evidence from the 13C NMR spectrum.
The majority of students who responded to our three highly
structured prompts were able to analyze, interpret and use data
from infrared and 13C NMR spectra. This may indicate that
analysis and interpretation are perceived as part of an ensemble
of activities that should culminate in construction of an
evidence-based claim. Because almost all students could pull
information from IR and carbon NMR spectra, the association
between data analysis and interpretation and structural
prediction could not be analyzed via a χ2 test because 25% or
more of the cells in the contingency tables have expected counts
lower than 5, violating the assumptions of the test. That is, the
number of students who were unable to pull appropriate
information from infrared and carbon NMR spectra and also
unable to construct claims incorporating this information was
too few to run a χ2 test.
I DOI: 10.1021/acs.jchemed.9b00550
Article
One could persuasively argue that analysis, interpretation, and
use of data from an infrared spectrum is the simplest example of
argumentation from spectroscopic evidence encountered in
organic chemistry. Indeed, one need only recognize the
signature of a functional group and draw some sort of molecule
incorporating that functional group to have a claim consistent
with IR evidence. For example, one could interpret a strong
infrared peak around 1700 cm−1 as signifying the presence of a
carbonyl and then draw near infinite permutations of a carbonyl-
containing compound. It is perhaps a function of the relatively
simple nature of these tasks that most students were successful at
analyzing, interpreting, and using data from infrared spectra on
the formative and summative items we examined. As mentioned
under RQ1, most students could also correctly state the number
of chemically distinct carbons indicated by a carbon NMR,
which required only that they count the peaks in the spectrum.
However, construction of a structural prediction with an
appropriate number of different carbon environments proved
to be more challenging than assembling a prediction consistent
with IR evidence. This may be due to the fact that an actionable
understanding of “different carbon environments” requires
students to examine their claim as a whole and be sensitive to
any symmetry elements that might be present in the molecule
they drew.
RQ3: Degree to Which Facility with Particular Procedures
Predicts Student Success in Proposing a Structure
Consistent with All Assembled Spectroscopic Evidence
To determine whether analysis, interpretation, or use of
particular spectroscopic data sources predicted student success
in proposing a structure consistent with all assembled evidence
in the context of three highly structured prompts, we
constructed binary logistic regression models described by the
formula below:
logit(Y ) = B0 + B1X1 + B2 X 2 + B3X3
The outcome variable Y represents student construction of a
structural prediction consistent with all assembled evidence.
Predictor variables X1, X2, and X3 represent analysis and
interpretation of data from infrared and 13C NMR spectra (X1,
and X2, respectively) as well as indication of correspondence
between 1H NMR peaks and some part of a structural claim
(X3). The outcome variable and all predictor variables are
dichotomous. B0 conveys the likelihood students will construct
evidence-based claims if no predictor variables improve model
predictive validity. A model in which logit(Y) = B0 may be
thought of as a “null model”. The regression coefficients B1, B2,
and B3 describe the direction and magnitude of the relationship
between the relevant predictor variables and the logit of Y.51 In
all three models examined for this study, no predictor variable
significantly improved the predictive validity of a model relative
to the analogous null model. These three logistic regressions
suggest that, for our data set, success on tasks that required
analysis, interpretation, or use of spectroscopic data did not
predict student success in assembling a structural prediction
consistent with the full corpus of spectroscopic data.
RQ 4: Association between Prompt Structure and
Construction of Reasonable Claims
Thus far, we have seen that students can very often engage in the
algorithms needed to pull particular information from
spectroscopic data as well as use this information to inform
their predictions. We have also seen that, for high structure
prompts, facility with particular procedures does not predict
J. Chem. Educ. XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX
Journal of Chemical Education
Figure 7. Percentage of students who constructed claims consistent with spectroscopic evidence as part of experiments designed to show the impact of
prompt structure on student success.
success in constructing a claim consistent with all assembled
data. For our fourth research question, we sought to examine the
impact of different prompt structures on student construction of
reasonable claims. It is possible that assessment items that differ
from our high structure variant might be more successful in
cuing students into the processes of construction and critique
essential to creating a reasonable argument. To get at the impact
of varying prompt structure on student success in constructing
evidence-based claims, we analyzed the results of three
experiments. Two were designed to enable inferences into the
impact of different prompt scaffolds on the percentage of
students who successfully constructed evidence-based claims,
and the third was meant to shed light onto whether student
success might be improved by lowering the amount of data they
were required to analyze. The results of these three experiments
are summarized in Figure 7.
The percentage of students who constructed claims consistent
with the data set they were provided was approximately the same
regardless of whether they were given a high structure or low
structure prompt as part of experiment 1 (Figure 7). Therefore,
there was no significant association between prompt structure
and likelihood of constructing an evidence-based claim (p >
0.01). Our scaffolding strategy for high structure prompts was to
explicitly ask for focus on various facets of the assembled data set
with the hope that students would consider the evidence they
pulled (and wrote) when constructing and critiquing their
structural predictions. The results of this experiment would
indicate that this approach was not successful in realizing our
J DOI: 10.1021/acs.jchemed.9b00550
Article
goal. As this is a quantitative study, we cannot do more than
speculate as to the cause for the results of this first experiment.
The results of experiment 2 mirror those from experiment 1.
That is, the percentage of students who successfully constructed
an evidence-based claim in response to a “critique-centered”
prompt did not differ significantly from what would be expected
by chance. Accordingly, there was no significant association
noted between prompt structure and percentage of students
who proposed reasonable structures (p > 0.01). These results
indicate that our attempt to explicitly require construction and
critique of structural claims was not successful in the context of
this experiment. With regard to the results of experiment 1 and
experiment 2, it may be that each subpart of highly scaffolded
questions was perceived as a separate, stand-alone entity to be
answered and forgotten rather than considered in the context of
claim construction and critique. It would be interesting to
explore the impact of scaffolding from a students’ perspective
through think-aloud interviews conducted in the context of
different prompt types.
The third experiment differed from the first two in that the
aspect of prompt structure that changed between the
experimental and control groups was not scaffolding but the
amount of data to be analyzed. For this experiment, students
were randomly placed into two groups with one group receiving
three spectroscopic traces corresponding to Unknown A (1H
NMR, 13C NMR, and IR) and two traces corresponding to
Unknown B (13C NMR and IR) and the second group receiving
two spectroscopic traces corresponding to Unknown A (13C
NMR and IR) and three traces corresponding to Unknown B
J. Chem. Educ. XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX
Journal of Chemical Education
(1H NMR, 13C NMR, and IR). The three-trace variant of the
prompts used for experiment 3 have been reproduced in the
Supporting Information for this manuscript (Figures S1 and S2).
In the context of spectroscopic traces derived from Unknown A,
we can see that students given more data to analyze were more
successful than those given less. Indeed, in this case, there is a
significant association between the amount of data to be
analyzed and successful construction of evidence-based claims:
χ2(1) = 10.4, p = 0.001, Cramer’s V = 0.33. More students given
three spectroscopic traces to analyze constructed successful
claims than would be expected by chance. This runs counter to
our hypothesis that student success should be improved by
reducing the cognitive load of the problem via decreasing the
data that must be considered during claim construction.
However, this result was not replicated in the context of traces
derived from Unknown B. That is, no significant association was
found between the richness of the data set presented to students
and their success in constructing evidence-based claims (p >
0.01). We cannot account for the higher percentage of students
who successfully proposed the structure of Unknown A relative
to those who constructed a reasonable claim as to the structure
of Unknown B. Unknown A was 2-methylpropan-1-ol, whereas
Unknown B was 3-methylbutan-2-one; both produce spectro-
scopic traces of similar complexity. The results of both parts of
experiment 3 stand in opposition to our notion that
argumentation from spectroscopic evidence might be over-
whelming students’ processing capacity. We have no evidence
that students are more successful in constructing evidence-based
claims when presented with less data-rich contexts. Indeed,
given that the 1H NMR spectra were the most information-rich
data sources our students encountered, it may be that omitting a
proton NMR spectrum from a prompt prevented students from
using familiar procedural resources and forced reliance on less
familiar strategies. This may have negatively impacted student
ability to analyze, interpret, and use spectroscopic evidence to
construct a reasonable claim as to the identity of Unknown A.
■
CONCLUSIONS
Analysis of the data presented here indicates that many students
can successfully engage with the parts of homework and exam
prompts that ask them to pull specific information from
spectroscopic data. Virtually everyone whose responses were
examined was quite adept at recognizing functionality in an
infrared spectrum, discerning the number of chemically distinct
carbons from a 13C NMR spectrum, and correctly labeling
correspondence between proton environments in their struc-
tural prediction and peaks in an 1H NMR spectrum. It is possible
that the significant practice OCLUE-enrolled students have had
with spectroscopic analysis paid dividends in terms of ready and
appropriate deployment of certain procedural resources on
homework and exams. Additionally, the majority of students
were able to construct structural predictions that included
functionality indicated by the infrared spectrum and had an
appropriate number of carbon environments. However, logistic
regression models built from student responses to three
multipart prompts found no significant association between
successfully pulling data from a spectrum and overall model
predictive validity. Further, different prompt structures had no
impact on the success of students in constructing evidence-
based claims. In summary, students struggled mightily with
constructing a reasonable claim to their argument, despite being
able to analyze and interpret data from several sources.
K DOI: 10.1021/acs.jchemed.9b00550
Article
Deep versus Shallow Procedural Knowledge
We framed our initial discussion of analysis, interpretation, and
use of spectroscopic data in terms of activation of a series of
procedural resources. Recall that facility with such resources can
be characterized as “deep procedural knowledge” (i.e., flexible,
context-sensitive deployment of resources), or “shallow
procedural knowledge” (i.e., inability to deploy resources
reasonably and efficiently, despite knowing a procedure).
Tasks that simply ask students to analyze and interpret
spectroscopic data to provide straightforward information can
be readily answered by individuals who possess shallow
procedural knowledge. For example, one can recognize a
broad peak around 3400 cm−1 in an infrared spectrum as the
signature of a hydroxyl group without knowing anything about
how to flexibly use the trove of information found within proton
NMR spectra. Argumentation, that is, construction and critique
of evidence-based claims, requires one to both pull evidence
from all available data sources and iterate between claim
construction and evaluation of whether a certain claim is
consistent with assembled evidence. Facility with argumentation
from spectroscopic evidence, we argue, is predicated on deep
rather than shallow procedural knowledge. Given the relatively
modest success of our student sample at constructing a claim
consistent with spectroscopic data, one might think that the
students surveyed lack deep procedural knowledge. Although
this may be true for a subset of students, we would argue
focusing on what students lack is not terribly productive; it
would be more fruitful to focus on what these students brought
to the table (e.g., an ability to analyze and interpret data from
several sources) and how those resources might be woven
together to better enable successful engagement in internal and
external argumentative discourse.
Importance of Framing
Every assessment prompt discussed here has the potential to
engage students in an internal dialogic process of construction
and critique that bears the structural hallmarks of an
argument.8,52 That is, to address each item, individuals should
pull evidence from spectroscopic data and iteratively construct
and critique claims until they are satisfied that said claims are
consistent with the full data corpus. Indeed, methodically
double-checking the consistency of claims with evidence was
done by all of the “more successful” solvers of spectroscopy
problems in Cartrette and Bodner’s earlier work.15 However, the
fact that a task asks for students to support claims with evidence
does not at all guarantee that students will perceive said task as
serving a persuasive function. Literature on student under-
standings of the type of activity they are doing, that is, their
framing of that activity, suggests that students very often
perceive tasks or scenarios meant to provoke argumentation as a
classroom performance rather than a purposeful endeavor.53−55
Berland and Hammer characterize engaging in an argument to
please the teacher (i.e., “doing the lesson”) rather than as part of
figuring out a problem of interest to the classroom community as
“pseudoargumentation”.54,55 As the activities we have created
ask for students to figure out the identity of an unknown without
any reason for why they might want to do so; it is possible that
these activities were perceived as a rote performance rather than
an opportunity to figure out something meaningful. Our tasks
are very similar (though perhaps more scaffolded) than those
which appear on many organic chemistry tests across the
nation.2 Thus, if we ended up cuing many students into a frame
at odds with the scientific practice of argumentation, many
J. Chem. Educ. XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX
Journal of Chemical Education
others may do likewise. Studies in the K−12 science education
space indicate that students tend to draw on resources useful for
argumentation to a greater degree when they see a need for
argumentative discourse (e.g., they want to persuade their peers
of the reasonableness of a claim to make sense of a
phenomenon).55,56 Stated differently, students can very often
reasonably link claims to evidence and attend to alternative
arguments when they see a reason to do so, at least in the K−12
contexts studied.54 Thus, it is possible that students might be
more successful at engaging in argument from spectroscopic
evidence if they perceived a need to construct and critique
evidence-based claims.
Implications for Teaching
Argumentation from spectroscopic evidence, as with argumen-
tation more generally, is extremely challenging. To be successful,
students must pull information from various strands of data,
itself a scientific practice requiring facility with a range of
resources, and then iteratively construct and critique claims until
they arrive at one consistent with the full data corpus. Given that
so few students in our sample were able to arrive at reasonable
structural predictions on exams and homework, it may not be
reasonable to ask students to predict an unknown consistent
with spectroscopic data as one part of a larger, timed summative
exam. Ideally, we would want students (and future healthcare
professionals) to carefully reflect on consistency between
predictions and evidence, not quickly write down their “best
guess” and then move on because of time constraints. This may
mean that argumentation from spectroscopic evidence is better
suited to laboratory environments than lecture.
The broader focus of our analytical efforts also bears
mention−that is, emphasis on student resources rather than
constraints, deficiencies, or misconceptions. We see little value
in focusing substantial effort on parsing out all of the struggles
students have with engaging in a practice such as argumentation.
It is very likely that students have a range of small-grain
knowledge elements that can be called on in more or less
productive ways to address an assessment item or problem
posed during instruction.30,32,34,35,57−59 Characterizing resour-
ces strung together in less-than-optimal ways only serves to tell
the community that certain students at a certain point in time
had particular troubles with a particular task. A more fruitful
course of action would be to examine what students know and
can do across several related contexts to get a sense of the
stability of their patterns of resource activation. From there, one
can work toward designing learning environments that support
productive weaving of intuitive resources with those developed
by instruction to engage in the performances we value (such as
argumentation). Here, we have found that consistent integration
of spectroscopic analysis throughout OCLUE has equipped our
students to analyze and interpret spectroscopic data from
various sources; that is, our students can leverage several
procedural resources that will be needed for engaging in
argument from spectroscopic evidence. Our task going forward
is to consider how we might help students flexibly deploy their
ability to use data to construct and critique evidence-based
claims.
■ LIMITATIONS
As with all studies, the work presented here has several
limitations. First and most fundamentally, this was a quantitative
study in which a large number of student responses to several
multipart spectroscopic interpretation prompts were analyzed.
L DOI: 10.1021/acs.jchemed.9b00550
Article
We can only say what resources appeared to be used in the
context of the prompts we have discussed. We cannot speculate
as to whether students possess or know they possess the
intellectual resources relevant to these problems; it is possible
students would have been more successful on prompts worded
differently or if they had more time to address summative items.
Second, all students surveyed as part of this study enrolled in two
semesters of a transformed undergraduate organic chemistry
curriculum that placed substantial emphasis on argumentation
from spectroscopic evidence. As such, they had ample practice
cultivating the procedural resources needed to analyze and
interpret spectroscopic data. Our results cannot generalize
beyond this context; we do not know how students taught using
a more traditional curriculum might have fared on the prompts
discussed.
■
ASSOCIATED CONTENT
*
S Supporting Information
The Supporting Information is available on the ACS
Publications website at DOI: 10.1021/acs.jchemed.9b00550.
Demographic and academic measures as well as example
prompts (PDF, DOCX)
■ AUTHOR INFORMATION
Corresponding Author
*E-mail: rstowe@chem.wisc.edu.
ORCID
Ryan L. Stowe: 0000-0002-5548-495X
Melanie M. Cooper: 0000-0002-7050-8649
Present Address
†
R.L.S.: Department of Chemistry, University of Wisconsin
Madison, 1101 University Avenue, Madison, Wisconsin 53706,
United States
Notes
The authors declare no competing financial interest.
■
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This work was supported in part by the National Science
Foundation under DUE:1502552. We would also like to thank
Elizabeth Day for her assistance editing this manuscript and
advice on statistical analyses.
■ REFERENCES
(1) Moran, B. How to Get an A− in Organic Chemistry. The New York
Times, Nov 1, 2013, p ED14.
(2) Stowe, R. L.; Cooper, M. M. Practice What We Preach: Assessing
“Critical Thinking” in Organic Chemistry. J. Chem. Educ. 2017, 94 (12),
1852−1859.
(3) The National Research Council. A Framework for K−12 Science
Education: Practices, Crosscutting Concepts, and Core Ideas; National
Academies Press: Washington, DC, 2012.
(4) Osborne, J. F.; Patterson, A. Scientific Argument and Explanation:
A Necessary Distinction? Sci. Educ. 2011, 95 (4), 627−638.
(5) Maciejewski, W.; Star, J. R. Developing Flexible Procedural
Knowledge in Undergraduate Calculus. Res. Math. Educ. 2016, 18 (3),
299−316.
(6) Star, J. R. Foregrounding Procedural Knowledge. J. Res. Math.
Educ. 2007, 38 (2), 132−135.
(7) Star, J. R. Reconceptualizing Procedural Knowledge. J. Res. Math.
Educ. 2005, 36 (5), 404−411.
J. Chem. Educ. XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX
Journal of Chemical Education
(8) Ford, M. J. A Dialogic Account of Sense-Making in Scientific
Argumentation and Reasoning. Cognition Instruct. 2012, 30 (3), 207−
245.
(9) Pulliam, C. R.; Pfeiffer, W. F.; Thomas, A. C. Introducing NMR to
a General Chemistry Audience: A Structural-Based Instrumental
Laboratory Relating Lewis Structures, Molecular Models, and 13C
NMR Data. J. Chem. Educ. 2015, 92 (8), 1378−1380.
(10) Vosegaard, T. ISpec: A Web-Based Activity for Spectroscopy
Teaching. J. Chem. Educ. 2018, 95, 97.
(11) Debska, B.; Guzowska-Swider, B. Molecular Structures from 1H
NMR Spectra: Education Aided by Internet Programs. J. Chem. Educ.
2007, 84 (3), 556.
(12) Flynn, A. B. NMR Interpretation: Getting from Spectrum to
Structure. J. Chem. Educ. 2012, 89 (9), 1210−1212.
(13) Winschel, G. A.; Everett, R. K.; Coppola, B. P.; Shultz, G. V.;
Lonn, S. Using Jigsaw-Style Spectroscopy Problem-Solving To
Elucidate Molecular Structure through Online Cooperative Learning.
J. Chem. Educ. 2015, 92 (7), 1188−1193.
(14) Angawi, R. F. Using a Problem Solving-Cooperative Learning
Approach To Improve Students’ Skills for Interpreting 1H NMR
Spectra of Unknown Compounds in an Organic Spectroscopy Course.
J. Chem. Educ. 2014, 91 (6), 823−829.
(15) Cartrette, D. P.; Bodner, G. M. Non-Mathematical Problem
Solving in Organic Chemistry. J. Res. Sci. Teach. 2010, 47 (6), 643−660.
(16) Topczewski, J. J.; Topczewski, A. M.; Tang, H.; Kendhammer, L.
K.; Pienta, N. J. NMR Spectra through the Eyes of a Student: Eye
Tracking Applied to NMR Items. J. Chem. Educ. 2017, 94, 29.
(17) Domin, D.; Bodner, G. Using Students’ Representations
Constructed during Problem Solving To Infer Conceptual Under-
standing. J. Chem. Educ. 2012, 89 (7), 837−843.
(18) Cullipher, S.; Sevian, H. Atoms versus Bonds: How Students
Look at Spectra. J. Chem. Educ. 2015, 92 (12), 1996−2005.
(19) Connor, M. C.; Finkenstaedt-Quinn, S. A.; Shultz, G. V.
Constraints on Organic Chemistry Students’ Reasoning during IR and
1H NMR Spectral Interpretation. Chem. Educ. Res. Pract. 2019, 20, 522.
(20) Ford, M. Disciplinary Authority and Accountability in Scientific
Practice and Learning. Sci. Educ. 2008, 92 (3), 404−423.
(21) Osborne, J. Arguing to Learn in Science: The Role of
Collaborative, Critical Discourse. Science 2010, 328 (5977), 463−466.
(22) Cooper, M. M.; Stowe, R. L.; Crandell, O. M.; Klymkowsky, M.
W. Organic Chemistry, Life, the Universe and Everything (OCLUE): A
Transformed Organic Chemistry Curriculum. J. Chem. Educ. 2019,
under revision, DOI: 10.1021/acs.jchemed.9b00401
(23) Klein, D. A Quarter Century of US ‘Math Wars’ and Political
Partisanship. BSHM Bulletin: Journal of the British Society for the History
of Mathematics 2007, 22 (1), 22−33.
(24) Principles and Standards for School Mathematics; National Council
of Teachers of Mathematics: Reston, VA, 2000.
(25) Principles to Actions: Ensuring Mathematical Success for All;
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics: Reston, VA, 2014.
(26) Research Advisory Committee of the National Council of
Teachers of Mathematics. NCTM Curriculum and Evaluation
Standards for School Mathematics: Responses from the Research
Community. J. Res. Math. Educ. 1988, 19 (4), 338−344.
(27) Hiebert, J.; Lefevre, P. Conceptual and Procedural Knowledge in
Mathematics: An Introductory Analysis. In Conceptual and procedural
knowledge: The case of mathematics; Hiebert, J., Ed.; Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates: Hillsdale, NJ, 1986; pp 1−27.
(28) Star, J. R.; Newton, K. J. The Nature and Development of
Experts’ Strategy Flexibility for Solving Equations. ZDM Mathematics
Education 2009, 41, 557−567.
(29) Hammer, D. Student Resources for Learning Introductory
Physics. Am. J. Phys. 2000, 68, S52−S59.
(30) diSessa, A. A. Knowledge in Pieces. In Constructivism in the
Computer Age; Forman, G. E., Pufall, P. B., Eds.; Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates: Hillsdale, NJ, 1988; pp 49−70.
(31) Hammer, D. Epistemological Beliefs in Introductory Physics.
Cognition Instruct. 1994, 12 (2), 151−183.
M DOI: 10.1021/acs.jchemed.9b00550
Article
(32) Hammer, D.; Elby, A. On the Form of a Personal Epistemology.
In Personal Epistemology: The Psychology of Beliefs about Knowledge and
Knowing; Hofer, B. K., Pintrich, P. R., Eds.; Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates: Mahwah, NJ, 2002; pp 169−190.
(33) Hammer, D.; Elby, A. Tapping Epistemological Resources for
Learning Physics. J. Learn. Sci. 2003, 12 (1), 53−90.
(34) Hammer, D.; Elby, A.; Scherr, R. E.; Redish, E. F. Resources,
Framing, and Transfer. In Transfer of Learning from a Modern
Multidisciplinary Perspective; Mestre, J. P., Ed.; IAP: Greenwich, CT,
2005; pp 89−119.
(35) Cooper, M. M.; Corley, L. M.; Underwood, S. M. An
Investigation of College Chemistry Students’ Understanding of
Structure−Property Relationships. J. Res. Sci. Teach. 2013, 50 (6),
699−721.
(36) Cooper, M.; Klymkowsky, M. Chemistry, Life, the Universe, and
Everything: A New Approach to General Chemistry, and a Model for
Curriculum Reform. J. Chem. Educ. 2013, 90 (9), 1116−1122.
(37) Cooper, M. M.; Posey, L. A.; Underwood, S. M. Core Ideas and
Topics: Building Up or Drilling Down? J. Chem. Educ. 2017, 94 (5),
541−548.
(38) ACT/SAT Concordance Tables. ACT Website. https://www.act.
or g/con tent/ da m/a ct/u nsecur ed/documen ts/ACT- SAT-
Concordance-Tables.pdf (accessed June 10, 2019).
(39) SPSS Statistics for Mac; IBM Corp.: Armonk, NY, 2017.
(40) Bryfczynski, S.; Pargas, R. P.; Cooper, M. M.; Klymkowsky, M.;
Dean, B. C. Teaching Data Structures with BeSocratic. In ITiCSE ’13,
Proceedings of the 18th ACM Conference on Innovation and
Technology in Computer Science Education, Canterbury, England,
July 1−3, 2013; ACM: New York, NY, 2013; pp 105−110,
DOI: 10.1145/2462476.2465583.
(41) Bryfczynski, S.; Pargas, R. P.; Cooper, M. M.; Klymkowsky, M.;
Hester, J.; Grove, N. P. Classroom Uses for BeSocratic. In The impact of
pen and touch technology on education; Hammond, T., Valintine, S.,
Adler, A., Payton, M., Eds.; Springer International Publishing: New
York, 2015; pp 127−136.
(42) Cooper, M. M.; Underwood, S. M.; Bryfczynski, S. P.;
Klymkowsky, M. W. A Short History of the Use of Technology To
Model and Analyze Student Data for Teaching and Research. In Tools of
Chemistry Education Research; ACS Symposium Series; American
Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2014; Vol. 1166, pp 219−239,
DOI: 10.1021/bk-2014-1166.ch012.
(43) Laverty, J. T.; Underwood, S. M.; Matz, R. L.; Posey, L. A.;
Carmel, J. H.; Caballero, M. D.; Fata-Hartley, C. L.; Ebert-May, D.;
Jardeleza, S. E.; Cooper, M. M. Characterizing College Science
Assessments: The Three-Dimensional Learning Assessment Protocol.
PLoS One 2016, 11 (9), No. e0162333.
(44) Spectral Database for Organic Compounds SDBSWeb; National
Institute of Advanced Industrial Science and Technology, 2018.
https://sdbs.db.aist.go.jp (accessed May 22, 2019).
(45) Cohen, J. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences, 2nd
ed.; Routledge: Hillsdale, NJ, 1988.
(46) Cooper, M. M.; Kouyoumdjian, H.; Underwood, S. M.
Investigating Students’ Reasoning about Acid−Base Reactions. J.
Chem. Educ. 2016, 93 (10), 1703−1712.
(47) Miller, G. A. The Magical Number Seven, plus or Minus Two:
Some Limits on Our Capacity for Processing Information. Psychol. Rev.
1956, 63 (2), 81−97.
(48) De Ribaupierre, A.; Fagot, D.; Lecerf, T. Working Memory
Capacity and Its Role in Cognitive Development: Are Age Differences
Driven by the Same Processes Across the Lifespan? In Cognitive
Development and Working Memory: A Dialogue between Neo-Piagetian
Theories and Cognitive Approaches; Barrouillet, P., Gaillard, V., Eds.;
Psychology Press: Hove, East Sussex, 2011; pp 105−133,
DOI: 10.4324/9780203845837.
(49) Cowan, N.; Chen, Z.; Rouder, J. N. Constant Capacity in an
Immediate Serial-Recall Task: A Logical Sequel to Miller (1956).
Psychol. Sci. 2004, 15 (9), 634−640.
J. Chem. Educ. XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX
Journal of Chemical Education Article

(50) Mathy, F.; Feldman, J. What’s Magic about Magic Numbers?

Chunking and Data Compression in Short-Term Memory. Cognition
2012, 122 (3), 346−362.
(51) Peng, C.-Y. J.; Lee, K. L.; Ingersoll, G. M. An Introduction to
Logistic Regression Analysis and Reporting. J. Educ. Res. 2002, 96 (1),
3−14.
(52) Ford, M. Grasp of Practice’ as a Reasoning Resource for Inquiry
and Nature of Science Understanding. Sci. & Educ. 2008, 17 (2−3),
147−177.
(53) Enyedy, N.; Goldberg, J. Inquiry in Interaction: How Local
Adaptations of Curricula Shape Classroom Communities. J. Res. Sci.
Teach. 2004, 41 (9), 905−935.
(54) Berland, L. K.; Hammer, D. Students’ Framings and Their
Participation in Scientific Argumentation. In Perspectives on Scientific
Argumentation: Theory, Practice and Research; Khine, M. S., Ed.;
Springer Netherlands: Dordrecht, 2012; pp 73−93, DOI: 10.1007/
978-94-007-2470-9_5.
(55) Berland, L. K.; Hammer, D. Framing for Scientific
Argumentation. J. Res. Sci. Teach. 2012, 49 (1), 68−94.
(56) Cavagnetto, A. R. Argument to Foster Scientific Literacy: A
Review of Argument Interventions in K−12 Science Contexts. Rev.
Educ. Res. 2010, 80 (3), 336−371.
(57) Cooper, M. M.; Stowe, R. L. Chemistry Education Research
From Personal Empiricism to Evidence, Theory, and Informed
Practice. Chem. Rev. 2018, 118 (12), 6053−6087.
(58) diSessa, A. Alternative Conceptions and P-Prims. In Encyclopedia
of Science Education; Gunstone, R., Ed.; Springer: Netherlands, 2015; pp
34−37, DOI: 10.1007/978-94-007-2150-0_87.
(59) diSessa, A. A. A History of Conceptual Change Research:
Threads and Fault Lines. In The Cambridge Handbook of the Learning
Sciences; Cambridge University Press: New York, NY, 2014; pp 88−
108.

N DOI: 10.1021/acs.jchemed.9b00550
J. Chem. Educ. XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX