ISSN: 2222-6990
Open access
Organic reaction mechanism (ORM) is the step-by-step sequence of reactions which describes the occurrence of chemical changes among organic compounds. The concept has been perceived by many students as being difficult. Mere memorisation of this concept has led to a partial recall of facts and misconceptions that make the concepts more difficult. Identifying the needs for developing organic reaction mechanisms teaching model is an important part of chemistry instruction. This study focuses on the review of studies, especially in the context of students’ difficulties and common errors to justify the need for developing alternative model for teaching organic reaction. The study applies the scoping review procedure including identification of research questions, selecting relevant studies, the setting of inclusion and exclusion criteria, and finally charting and data reporting. The scoping review of 15 articles published between 2014 and 2019 indicates indicated that students faced difficulties in learning ORM. Additionally, the studies have identified the common errors of students when learning ORM such as hypervalency, wrong use of arrows, and failure to conserve charges. Finally, the implications for teaching and learning ORM and the need to develop an alternative teaching model was justified.
Al-Balushi, S. M., & Al-Hajri, S. H. (2014). Associating animations with concrete models to enhance students’ comprehension of different visual representations in organic chemistry. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 15(1), 47–58.
Anzovino, M. E., & Lowery Bretz, S. (2015). Organic chemistry students’ ideas about nucleophiles and electrophiles: The role of charges and mechanisms. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 16(4), 797–810.
Arksey, H., & O’Malley, L. (2005). Scoping studies: Towards a methodological framework. International Journal of Social Research Methodology: Theory and Practice, 8(1), 19– 32.
Ben-Zvi, R., Eylon, B.-S., & Silberstein, J. (1987). Students’ visualization of some chemical reactions. Education in Chemistry, 24, 117–120.
Bhattacharyya, G. (2013). From source to sink: Mechanistic reasoning using the electron- pushing formalism. Journal of Chemical Education, 90(10), 1282–1289.
Bhattacharyya, G. (2019). Construction by De-construction. Journal of Chemical Education. 96, 1294?1297
Bodé, N. E., & Flynn, A. B. (2016). Strategies of Successful Synthesis Solutions: Mapping, Mechanisms, and More. Journal of Chemical Education, 93(4), 593–604.
Bodé, N. E., Deng, J. M., & Flynn, A. B. (2019). Getting Past the Rules and to the WHY: Causal Mechanistic Arguments When Judging the Plausibility of Organic Reaction Mechanisms. Journal of Chemical Education. 96, 1068?1082
Bodner, G. M. (1992). Refocusing the general chemistry curriculum. Journal of Chemical Education, 69, 186–190
Bongers, A., Northoff, G., & Flynn, A. B. (2019). Working with mental models to learn and visualize a new reaction mechanism. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 20(3), 554–569.
Caspari, I., Kranz, D., & Graulich, N. (2018). Resolving the complexity of organic chemistry students’ reasoning through the lens of a mechanistic framework. Chemistry Education Research and Practice. 19, 1117-1141
Chittleborough, G., & Treagust, D. F. (2007). The modeling ability of non-major chemistry students and their understanding of the sub-microscopic level. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 8(3), 274–292.
Coppola, B. P., & Pontrello, J. K. (2014). Using errors to teach through a two-staged, structured review: Peer-reviewed quizzes and “what’s wrong with me?” Journal of Chemical Education, 91(12), 2148–2154.
Cruz-Ramírez De Arellano, D., & Towns, M. H. (2014). Students’ understanding of alkyl halide reactions in undergraduate organic chemistry. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 15(4), 501–515.
Darwish, S., Abdo, H., & AlShuwaiee, W. M. (2018). Opportunities, challenges and risks of transition into renewable energy: the case of the Arab Gulf Cooperation Council. International Energy Journal, 18(4).
Duis, J. M. (2011). Organic chemistry educators’ perspectives on fundamental concepts and misconceptions: An exploratory study. Journal of Chemical Education, 88(3), 346– 350.
Ferguson, R., & Bodner, G. M. (2008). Making sense of the arrow-pushing formalism among chemistry majors enrolled in organic chemistry. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 9(2), 102–113.
Flynn, A. B., & Featherstone, R. B. (2017). Language of mechanisms: exam analysis reveals students’ strengths, strategies, and errors when using the electron-pushing formalism (curved arrows) in new reactions. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 18(1), 64–77.
Flynn, A. B., & Ogilvie, W. W. (2015). Mechanisms before reactions: A mechanistic approach to the organic chemistry curriculum based on patterns of electron flow. Journal of Chemical Education, 92(5), 803–810.
Galloway, K. R., Leung, M. W., & Flynn, A. B. (2018). A Comparison of How Undergraduates, Graduate Students, and Professors Organize Organic Chemistry Reactions. Journal of Chemical Education. 95(3), 355-365
Galloway, K. R., Leung, M. W., & Flynn, A. B. (2019). Patterns of reactions: A card sort task to investigate students’ organization of organic chemistry reactions. Chemistry Education Research and Practice. 20(1), 30-52
García-Moya, I., Bunn, F., Jiménez-Iglesias, A., Paniagua, C., & Brooks, F. M. (2019). The conceptualisation of school and teacher connectedness in adolescent research: a scoping review of the literature. Educational Review. 71(4), 423-444.
Grossman, R. B. (2003). The Art of Writing Reasonable Organic Reaction Mechanisms. Springer: New York.
Hanson, R., & Acquah, S. (2014). Enhancing concept understanding through the use of microchemistry equipment and collaborative activities. Journal of Education and Practice, 5(12), 120–130
Johnstone, A. H. (1993). The development of chemistry teaching: A changing response to changing demand. Journal of Chemical Education, 70(9), 701–705
Kryeziu, L. (2015). Learning from Errors. ILIRIA International Review, 5(1), 391-408.
Levy, D. E. (2008). Arrow-pushing in Organic Chemistry: An Easy Approach to Understanding Reaction Mechanisms. John Wiley & Sons: New Jersey.
Mayo, D. G. (1996). Error and the Growth of Experimental Knowledge. University of Chicago Press: Chicago
Metcalfe, J. (2017). Learning from errors. Annual Review of Psychology, 68, 465-489.
Meyer, J. H. F., & Land, R. (2005). Threshold concepts and troublesome knowledge (2): Epistemological considerations and a conceptual framework for teaching and learning. Higher Education, 49(3), 373–388.
Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., & Altman, D. G. (2009). PRISMA Group: Methods of systematic reviews and meta-analysis: preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 62, 1006–1012.
O’Dwyer, A., & Childs, P. (2011). Second level Irish pupils’ and teachers’ view of difficulties in organic chemistry. In IOSTE Mini-Symposium.
O’Dwyer, A., & Childs, P. (2015). Organic Chemistry in Action! What Is the Reaction? Journal of Chemical Education, 92(7), 1159-1170.
Othman Talib, Azraai Othman, & Tengku Putri Norishah. (2014). OCRA - Authentic mobile application for enhancing the value of mobile learning in organic chemistry. European Conference on E-Learning. Academic Conferences Limited, 527–535.
Pawlak, M. (2013). Error Correction in the Foreign Language Classroom: Reconsidering the Issues. Springer Science & Business Media.
Popova, M., & Bretz, S. L. (2018). “It’s Only the Major Product That We Care About in Organic Chemistry”: An Analysis of Students’ Annotations of Reaction Coordinate Diagrams. Journal of Chemical Education, 95(7), 1086-1093.
Rasheed, S. P., Younas, A., & Sundus, A. (2019). Self-awareness in nursing: A scoping review. Journal of Clinical Nursing, 28(5–6), 762–774.
Schleppenbach, M., Flevares, L. M., Sims, L. M., & Perry, M. (2007). Teachers’ responses to student mistakes in Chinese and US mathematics classrooms. The Elementary School Journal, 108(2), 131–147.
Sevian, H., & Talanquer, V. (2014). Rethinking chemistry: A learning progression on chemical thinking. Chemistry Education Research and Practice. 15(1), 10-23.
Talanquer, V. (2011). Macro, sub micro, and symbolic: The many faces of the chemistry “triplet.” International Journal of Science Education, 33(2), 179–195.
Tode, T. (2003). From unanalyzed chunks to rules: The learning of the English copula be by beginning Japanese learners of English. IRAL, 41(1), 23-54
Treagust, D., Chittleborough, G., & Mamiala, T. (2003). The role of sub microscopic and symbolic representations in chemical explanations. International Journal of Science Education, 25(11), 1353–1368.
Tsaparlis, G. (2009). Learning at the macro level: The role of practical work. In Multiple Representations in Chemical Education Book Series Volume 4, 109-136. Dordrecht: Springer.
Webber, D. M., & Flynn, A. B. (2018). How are students solving familiar and unfamiliar organic chemistry mechanism questions in a new curriculum? Journal of Chemical Education, 95(9), 1451–1467.
Weinrich, M. L., & Sevian, H. (2017). Capturing students’ abstraction while solving organic reaction mechanism problems across a semester. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 18(1), 169–190.
Zarubica, A., Kostic, D., Rancic, S., Popovic, Z., Vasic, M., & Radulovic, N. (2012). An improvement of the eighth-grade pupils’ organic chemistry knowledge with the use of a combination of educational tools: An evaluation study - expectations and effects. New Educational Review. 30(4), 93-102
In-Text Citation: (Sabitu et al., 2020)
To Cite this Article: Sabitu, A., Talib, O., Rahman, N. A., Kamaruddin, N., & Norishah, T. P. (2020). Identifying Needs For Development of Organic Reaction Teaching Model (ORTM). International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences, 10(12), 192–209.
Copyright: © 2020 The Author(s)
Published by Human Resource Management Academic Research Society (www.hrmars.com)
This article is published under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY 4.0) license. Anyone may reproduce, distribute, translate and create derivative works of this article (for both commercial and non-commercial purposes), subject to full attribution to the original publication and authors. The full terms of this license may be seen at: http://creativecommons.org/licences/by/4.0/legalcode