Randomized trial explores OChem-MI Framework's impact on chemistry skills in preuniversity students, suggesting improved outcomes.
Organic chemistry at the preuniversity level is often taught in ways that emphasize outlining mechanisms rather than explaining them, which can encourage rote memorization and limit students’ mechanistic reasoning, metacognitive regulation, and sense of chemistry’s real-world relevance. To address this, the Organic Chemistry Metacognitive Instruction (OChem-MI) Framework was developed and implemented with 62 Malaysian preuniversity students across 16 lessons over 8 weeks. The framework began with a metacognition class and then paired eight think-aloud (TA) lessons with eight science-writing heuristic lessons in a green and sustainable chemistry context (SWH-GSC) to make electron-flow reasoning explicit and connect organic reactions to hazards, greener alternatives, and authentic societal relevance. The framework was evaluated through a preliminary teacher expert review, focus group interviews with nine students, and a longitudinal analysis of the same students’ weekly SWH-GSC written artifacts. Teacher feedback supported the framework’s feasibility and pedagogical acceptability, while focus group interviews suggested that students perceived stronger confidence in mechanistic explanation, strategic monitoring, adaptability, and problem-solving. Analysis of SWH-GSC artifacts showed progression from general hazard awareness toward more differentiated green and sustainable chemistry reasoning, especially in hazard identification and the proposal of greener alternatives. These exploratory findings suggest that the OChem-MI Framework may offer a feasible and pedagogically meaningful approach for supporting perceived chemistry self-efficacy, mechanistic engagement, and emerging green and sustainable chemistry thinking in preuniversity organic chemistry.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Kadum et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: