This research examines upper-secondary students’ critical thinking regarding hydrocarbons through a three-tier multiple-choice test (TT-MCT) that corresponds with six indicators: interpretation, analysis, evaluation, inference, explanation, and self-regulation. The instrument consisted of 20 five-option items with keyed reasons and a confidence tier. An expert review confirmed content validity (VR = 3.83), and internal consistency during the main administration was high (Cronbach’s α = 0.911). There were 85 Grade XI students from a public school who had finished the necessary prerequisite topics. Descriptive analyses revealed an overall mean of 59.55%, categorized as sufficient. Students did better on explanation (63.84%) and interpretation (63.12%) but worse on inference (53.88%) and analysis (54.35%). These findings indicate that learners more easily process descriptive and explanatory cues than those that require relational reasoning and the formulation of evidence-based conclusions. The three-tier format further revealed mixed answer–reason patterns (e.g., correct answers paired with flawed reasoning), indicating that many students can retrieve declarative knowledge but struggle to justify conclusions, particularly in mechanism-rich topics such as free-radical substitution. The findings endorse pedagogical designs that enhance the visibility and calibration of reasoning, including argumentation/claim– evidence–reasoning tasks focused on core mechanisms, targeted self-explanation prompts in worked examples, explicit coordination of multiple representations, and the formative application of confidence data to mitigate overconfidence and address misconceptions. The TT-MCT was helpful for assessing how well people were doing and for identifying actionable goals to improve analysis and inference in organic chemistry.
Muntholib et al. (Tue,) studied this question.