Ten Essential Delocalization Learning Outcomes: How Well Are They Achieved?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Delocalization (resonance) is a concept in organic chemistry that influences the chemical reactivity, activity, structure, and physical properties of molecules. However, the concept has proven challenging for students. The goal of the present study was to investigate to what extent ten essential delocalization learning outcomes (LOs) were achieved by students, how students use and reason about delocalization as well as the connections between the LOs. The goal is to discover where and how students may be struggling when answering delocalization-related exam questions and uncover potential barriers to learning delocalization. METHODS: We analyzed students’ responses (N = 3787) on twelve exam questions related to seven of the ten LOs for the degree of achievement, common errors, and scientific reasoning. RESULTS: The achievement on the LOs was variable. We report types of errors and strategies used, the errors are primarily related to drawing resonance structures or the resonance. Six key findings emerged from the analysis: (1) the majority of answers had few (<10%) representational errors (2) in an implicit question where delocalization or inductive effect concepts could be used to justify a response, half the students used delocalization concepts, (3) delocalization was used in 10–20% of answers when relevant but not prompted or required, (4) strategies that helped students reason with the representations (i.e., drawing out electrons or expanding a structure) were correlated with higher achievement of the LOs, (5) students’ reasoning aligned with course expectations, and (6) students who achieved later LOs typically (60–95%) also achieved LO1 and LO2 (Identify that electron delocalization is relevant, Draw resonance structures). CONCLUSIONS: The findings have implications on how students achieve the LOs and suggest ways educators can better support learners with the tools to achieve the LOs. IMPLICATIONS: The findings from this work could be used to design and evaluate new teaching techniques or materials, including scaffolding concepts. Further investigations could lead to a deeper understanding of students’ mental models and thought processes related to delocalization concepts.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.015 | 0.065 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".