Date Created

8-2026

Embargo Date

8-31-2027

Document Type

Thesis

Degree Name

Master of Science

Department

College of Natural and Health Sciences, Chemistry and Biochemistry, Chemistry and Biochemistry Student Work

First Advisor

Melissa Weinrich

First Committee Member

Bonnie Buss

Second Committee Member

Elise Allen-Kurstak

Abstract

Chemists use multiple visual representations to assist in sensemaking as they reason with different features in representations. Representations can give different information, for example, line structures tell us about atom connectivity whereas electrostatic potential maps (EPMs) tell us more about electron density. These EPMs can promote students’ causal reasoning and conceptual understanding of phenomena but are less widely used than line structures (Farheen, Demirdöğen et al., 2024; Nelsen et al., 2025; Robinson et al., 2025). Students’ understanding of representations in general requires representational competence, which is not always taught (Popova & Jones, 2021). This includes students using, generating, interpreting, translating, understanding that a representation is a depiction of a phenomenon, and identifying advantages and limitations of different representations to make predictions and explain phenomenon (Kozma & Russell, 2005). Due to the importance of translating between representations for students’ representational competence and the impact of EPMs on students’ causal reasoning, the following research question was asked.

Q1       How do students connect line structures and electrostatic potential maps (EPMs) in organic chemistry?

Connecting representations can involve translating, identifying similarities and differences, relating and using them together. Data were collected via interviews with second semester organic chemistry students. Interview questions investigated their experiences with EPMs, what they could understand from EPMs and line structures, how they translate between the two, and what connections they make between them.

The interviews were transcribed and coded using thematic analysis. Deductive coding separated the information into four general sections: interpreting representations, selecting representations, translating representations, and identifying the benefits and limitations. Results showed that students participated in these parts of representational competence to different extents. Students translated between representations and gave specific reasons for selecting representations. If they did not use them completely separately, students translated between the representations to connect different information, or they used one representation to confirm the answer they got from the other representation.  These findings suggest that helping students recognize how different representations communicate complementary information may support their reasoning about organic chemistry concept. Instructors could support representational competence by modeling how to interpret EPMs, providing worked examples, and guiding students through translation activities between EPMs and line structures. These results imply that future research could investigate instructional strategies that explicitly support students in connecting multiple molecular representations. Many students in this study expressed uncertainty about how to use EPMs, indicating a need to examine how scaffolding influences students’ representational competence and mechanistic reasoning. Since many students used line structures due to familiarity, future research could explore how repeated exposure to EPMs impacts students’ confidence and conceptual understanding over time.

Abstract Format

html

Keywords

Electrostatic potential maps (EPMs); representational competence

Subject Categories

Organic Chemistry | Other Chemistry | Science and Mathematics Education

Language

English

Extent

67 pages

Rights Statement

Copyright is held by the author.

Digital Origin

Born digital

Download

Available for download on Tuesday, August 31, 2027

Share

COinS