Graduate Studies

 

First Advisor

Alena Moon

Degree Name

Doctor of Philosophy (Ph.D.)

Committee Members

Catherine Eichhorn, James Checco, Jiantao Guo, Sachin Nedungadi

Department

Chemistry

Date of this Version

7-2025

Document Type

Dissertation

Citation

A dissertation presented to the Graduate College of the University of Nebraska in partial fulfillment of requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy

Major: Chemistry

Under the supervision of Professor Alena Moon

Lincoln, Nebraska, July 2025

Comments

Copyright 2025, John Zhou. Used by permission

Abstract

Undergraduate organic chemistry frequently engages students in key science practices such as analyzing and interpreting spectroscopic data and constructing explanations through reaction mechanisms. However, these activities are often framed as procedural tasks rather than as tools for constructing knowledge. As a result, students may develop incomplete understanding of these practices, making it harder for them to see how scientific knowledge is generated and to use them meaningfully as tools for sensemaking. To better understand how students take up these practices as epistemic tools, three qualitative studies were conducted in this dissertation to investigate how undergraduate organic chemistry students reason with empirical data, evaluate explanations, and navigate uncertainty through peer review.

In the first study, students analyzed percent yield data to evaluate competing mechanistic pathways. The findings revealed four distinct modes of data engagement, shaped by how students coordinated their conceptual knowledge with empirical data. These findings suggest that instruction should more explicitly support students in using data as a tool for evaluating and constructing scientific claims. For the second and third studies, students engaged in a peer review activity in which they evaluated competing explanations for an unexpected chemical phenomenon. The second study focused on how students selected and justified their chosen explanations. Analysis of ~440 student written responses and a subset of follow-up interviews revealed a range of epistemic criteria students used, such as explanatory depth, familiarity, and empirical alignment. This finding illustrated students’ epistemic considerations when evaluating scientific explanations and highlighted the ways they reasoned about what makes an explanation compelling. The third study examined how students engaged with peer review as they encountered conflicting perspectives. The findings demonstrated that peer review prompted students to reflect on their reasoning, revise their arguments, or reaffirm their ideas, depending on how they interpreted and responded to uncertainty.

Together, these studies illustrate how strategically designed activities can surface students’ epistemic thinking and support more authentic engagement with science practices in postsecondary science classrooms.

Advisor: Alena Moon

Download

Share

COinS