Using scaffolded critiquing tasks to analyze how inorganic chemistry students reason with and about chemical bonding models

Chemical bonding is an important topic in undergraduate chemistry curriculum as knowledge of bonding is required to understand a wide range of phenomena in chemistry. It is also recognized as a core idea as it acts as an anchor to a wide range of chemical concepts. Most undergraduate curricula present the ideas of bonding through various theories or models such as valence bond theory, molecular orbital theory, crystal field theory, etc. This poses challenges to students as they not only need to have conceptual understanding of these models but also need to know the correct usage of these models in various contexts. Prior research has largely focused on documenting students’ misconceptions in chemical bonding. In this study, we focused on how inorganic chemistry students use chemical bonding models to predict and explain certain chemical behavior. We used semi-structured interviews with scaffolded critiquing tasks to gain insights into students’ thought processes. In order to elicit a range of ideas, participants were sampled from across the chemistry department: (1) undergraduate students in an inorganic chemistry course; (2) undergraduate and graduate students in an advanced inorganic chemistry course; (3) graduate students from the inorganic chemistry division. We discuss the key findings related to how students reasoned with and about bonding models, focusing on the implications to further research and teaching.