Reasoning in chemistry teacher education

Abstract

Research on preservice science teacher’s reasoning is comparatively new in a larger field of research on reasoning. This study examines model-based reasoning among preservice science teachers to make recommendations on how reasoning can be fostered within chemistry teacher education. It coalesces over 20 years of a program of research in this area. Firstly, several empirical studies on undergraduate students and their reasoning are examined. Future chemistry teachers are drawn from this pool of undergraduate students. Secondly, empirical studies in preservice teacher education are examined to highlight reasoning among preservice chemistry teachers. Thirdly, recommendations are put forward for future research on the development of scientific reasoning among chemistry teachers as an important facet of chemistry teacher education.

Full text

Special Issue Paper
Samia Khan*
Reasoning in chemistry teacher education
https://doi.org/10.1515/cti-2024-0099
Received October 1, 2024; accepted November 26, 2024; published online December 18, 2024
Abstract: Research on preservice science teacher’s reasoning is comparatively new in a larger field of research
on reasoning. This study examines model-based reasoning among preservice science teachers to make recom-
mendations on how reasoning can be fostered within chemistry teacher education. It coalesces over 20 years of a
program of research in this area. Firstly, several empirical studies on undergraduate students and their reasoning
are examined. Future chemistry teachers are drawn from this pool of undergraduate students. Secondly,
empirical studies in preservice teacher education are examined to highlight reasoning among preservice
chemistry teachers. Thirdly, recommendations are put forward for future research on the development of
scientific reasoning among chemistry teachers as an important facet of chemistry teacher education.
Keywords: model-based reasoning; science preservice teacher education; chemistry teachers; chemistry teacher
education
1 Introduction
Reasoning in science is characterized by cognitive processes that can contribute to, or allow for, the formulation
and testing of hypotheses, two important aspects of scientific endeavours (Giere et al., 2006). These cognitive
processes, among others, involve formal logic, including probabilistic logic, and non-formal processes, including
model-based reasoning (Khan, 2007) and analogical reasoning (Bruce et al., 2022). Several of the more non-formal
cognitive processes have been associated with scientific activity at the revolutionary end of the continuum on
advancement in science (Kuhn, 2012; Simon, 1996).
While science involves both formal and non-formal reasoning and problem-solving, the terms have been
used interchangeably. While solving a problem, a problem-solver might engage in both forms of reasoning. As
Zimmerman (2000) points out, one of the main generalizations about problem-solving is the use of heuristic
searches. A problem solver constructs or develops a representation of the problem situation (i.e., the problem
space) in order to generate a solution within some set of constraints. A problem space includes the initial state, a
set of operators that allow movement from one state to another and a goal state or solution. It is proposed that
goal-oriented behavior in general involves a search through problem spaces. In the sciences, these spaces have
been thought to include a hypothesis space, experiment space, and model spaces, among other types of problem
spaces (Schunn & Klahr, 2019). Reasoning, on the other hand, appears to distinguish itself from problem-solving
and its use of heuristic searches in problem spaces in that direct retrieval of a solution from memory is not
possible for reasoning (Zimmerman, 2000).
Magnani (2009) contends that much of scientific inquiry involves reasoning where models are generated and
used in experimental and theoretical work, rather than problem-solving using heuristics. Even contrary to a more
standard view of scientific reasoning as hypothetico-deductive or logic-based, abductive or model-based
reasoning is arguably more descriptive of research in the sciences (Nersessian, 2008) and in chemistry (Wackerly,
2021). Modeling as an epistemic practice can yield explanatory mechanisms and manifest predictions beyond the
scope of the original target domain or phenomenon (Rost & Knuuttila, 2022). Thus, models are useful for solving
*Corresponding author: Samia Khan, Faculty of Education, The University of British Columbia, 2125 Main Mall, Neville Scarfe Building, V6T
1Z4, Vancouver, Canada, E-mail: samia.khan@ubc.ca
Chemistry Teacher International 2024; aop
Open Access. © 2024 the author(s), published by De Gruyter. This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-
NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

problems which cannot be solved by heuristics alone. Lehrer & Schauble (2005) further contend that other
practices associated with science (such as argumentation) develop more as a contest about the adequacy of one
model over another. This article describes several studies on model-based reasoning to generate hypotheses
about teacher education and respond to the overarching research question, how can preservice chemistry
teachers reason with models in teacher education?
The purpose of investigating science teacher reasoning is because teachers support students who actively
reason about the world. Furthermore, advancing the UN sustainable development goals (SDGs) can occur through
science teacher education. SDG 4c states that by 2030, the goal of the UN is to substantially increase the supply of
qualified teachers. This goal is supported by educational research that suggests that teacher education is one of
the strongest correlates of student achievement in math and science (Darling-Hammond, 2000; Monk & King,
1994). Reasoning is one of the areas that is important to investigate in teacher education as teachers may influence
their own students’reasoning competencies in classrooms. Promoting reasoning in chemistry classrooms is ever
more necessary to foster greater understanding of systems in flux that models of chemistry influence, such as
climate systems. Studies on reasoning continue are prevalent in science education research (DeBoer, 2019).
Pertinent to science teacher education; however, the research ranges from teacher general pedagogical reasoning
(Loughran et al., 2016) among others, to teacher research on reasoning competencies (Göhner & Krell, 2022; Krell
et al., 2020). This article aims to contribute to the latter arena.
2 Review of literature
2.1 Reasoning in undergraduate science and chemistry education: questions and
challenges from several empirical studies
Reasoning involving undergraduate education reveals specific insights about the experience of students at this
level, and also of future chemistry teachers who emerge from this pool of undergraduate science students. For
example, Ding (2018) investigated the level of scientific reasoning of university students in China across different
years, at different types of universities, and in different fields, using the Lawson Test. It was found that regardless
of which field or university, undergraduate students’scientific reasoning showed little variation across their
entire four years of undergraduate education.
Undergraduate students’reduced breadth of studies may have slowed down their progress in scientific
reasoning, according to Ding (2018). An alternative explanation, the author speculates, is that the narrowed focus
of their studies may not have a significant impact but rather the kind of instruction they receive in higher
education contributes little to the development of their scientific reasoning. As revealed from their results, while
university students are required to continue learning advanced content knowledge in their specialized fields,
their scientific reasoning skills exhibit little improvement. This perhaps has caused student reasoning to fall out of
phase with their progression in content learning.
Data from the Ding study (2018) raises questions about scientific reasoning at the university level, lending
credence to an earlier 21st century call for research on scientific reasoning and assessing it (Osborne, 2013).
Indeed, science education research on analogical reasoning (Trey & Khan, 2008), causal reasoning (Deng & Flynn,
2021), relational reasoning (Dumas et al., 2013), spatial reasoning (Stieffet al., 2012), mechanistic reasoning
(Talanquer, 2018) has burgeoned. Reasoning remains an important area of study not just for science education but
chemistry education.
Reasoning in chemistry labs is used to invent reactions that have not yet been conducted during the synthesis
of new compounds (Segler & Waller, 2017). To further illustrate reasoning by chemists, in a 2023 study by Button
and colleagues, chemists were asked to imagine a compound that is made up of boron, oxygen, and fluorine. This
compound only had three atoms, with a single atom from each element. One chemist suggested there were
multiple answers, others invoked rules for their imagined structures such as, “[W]e lose entropy when we cyclize”
and still others generated an analogy to glucose (Button et al., 2023). In other words, chemists reason about their
2S. Khan: Reasoning in chemistry teacher education

invented structures, not just by drawing on heuristics, but they make inferences from data, or apply a near
analogy to tackle problems not ascertainable through direct experience. In the context of chemists using
analogical and other types of reasoning to advance their understanding of chemistry, the students of chemistry do
not appear to be advancing their reasoning skills (Ding, 2018).
2.2 Turning the lens to science and chemistry teacher education
Valuable research on scientific reasoning in laboratory and educational contexts has occurred (Hogan, 1999;
Lawson, 1978; Schauble, 1996), yet fewer studies have been done on the state and advancement of scientific
reasoning among university students who choose science or chemistry teaching as a career (Lawson et al., 2000).
Kind and Osborne suggest that scientific reasoning is highly dependent on content and procedural and epistemic
knowledge (Kind & Osborne, 2017). It is also arguably dependent on the context, such as undergraduate contexts.
Much of the research on reasoning in undergraduate contexts has students working on artificial problems
(Fischer & Bidell, 1998); however, classroom contexts with authentic teachers and students can yield special
insights (Krell et al., 2020). Ding’s (2018) suggestion is that the kind of instruction in undergraduate education
might result in limited advancement in scientific reasoning. Less is known about what happens to reasoning in
chemistry teacher education contexts.
In terms of reasoning and chemistry teachers’backgrounds, in 2023, my colleagues and I (Krell et al., 2023)
examined the contribution of three factors to the development of preservice science teachers’scientific reasoning
competencies: the amount of science education classes, the amount of science classes and the preservice science
teachers’ages as they began their teacher education programs and progressed through completion of this
university program. This investigation of teachers’backgrounds involved six universities in Germany, Chile and
Canada. Preservice science teachers anonymously responded to an established multiple-choice instrument and
statistical method (Krell et al., 2021) that assessed scientific reasoning over the course of their teacher education
programs, taking into account the number of credit hours of science courses and science education courses of
various programs in these universities and countries.
Multiple linear regression showed in this study that amount of science education classes, the amount of
science classes, and age explained about 9 % of preservice science teachers’scientific reasoning. These preservice
science teachers consisted of chemistry, biology, and physics teachers. Notably, the factor: amount of science
classes, was the only significant predictor of scientific reasoning among preservice science teachers. This
empirical finding on content knowledge is aligned with previous research that shows a positive relationship
between the two (Fischer et al., 2014), but it contrasts with other studies that point to a positive correlation
between the amount of science education classes and SRCs too (Bruckermann et al., 2018). It appears that science
content knowledge may be requisite for developing preservice science teachers’scientific reasoning.
The Ding (2018) study, on the other hand, is different from the research we did in two ways: first, a different
test of reasoning was employed and second, the Ding study was only deployed within a single country. The
aforementioned 2023 study; however, went beyond a single country. Furthermore, and in addition to reasoning
involving scientific investigations, in the 2023 study, model-based reasoning was also examined. Model-based
reasoning entailed judging the purpose of models, testing models, and changing models. Analysis of the 2023
questionnaire results revealed substantial differences among the three countries, as reported in Table 1 and
published in Krell et al. (2023).
Table :Sample models utilized by preservice teachers from their science curricula.
Grade 10 11 12
Curricular topics Chemical reactions, life sciences Atomic theory Nature of acids and bases, dynamic
equilibrium, electrochemical cells
Models Ice Atomic (Bohr) model Arrhenius and Bronsted–Lowry
Chemical respiration Chemical equilibrium
Lead-acid battery
S. Khan: Reasoning in chemistry teacher education 3

These findings showed that Canadian preservice science teachers possess greater competencies related to
model-based reasoning compared to either their German or Chilean preservice teacher counterparts. Regarding
the Canadian sample, possible explanations for the significantly higher results could be that, (1) Canadian
preservice teachers had more of a science background by about 1–2 years of study and that (2) teacher education
or the kind of instruction had an impact on fostering model-based reasoning above and beyond their greater
science backgrounds.
Model-based reasoning is a scientific practice that has been described as relational (Alexander, 2019; Sevian &
Talanquer, 2014), mechanistic (Moreira et al., 2019), and analogic (Lehrer & Schauble, 2015). It has been proposed
that model-based reasoning requires mental models, or internal representations of the way the world works
(Pietarinen & Bellucci, 2014; Williams, 2018). These mental models are invoked when solving problems or
reasoning about phenomena. One can have a mental model of climate change, Pandemics, rumours, ownership,
locks and keys, atoms, or the planets, to name only a few.
Mental models can be expressed externally and socially negotiated (Campbell et al., 2015; Halloun, 2007;
Khan, 2007; Khan & Chan, 2011). In teaching contexts, dialogic processes have been shown to be powerful for
students engaged in model-based reasoning, especially when students themselves can point to initial activities
involving modeling and author the stages (Windschitl et al., 2018). Reasoning with a model can also surface its
limitations and new criteria for evaluating models (Lehrer & Schauble, 2005; Pluta et al., 2011). Epistemic mes-
sages, such as those on the purposes of adjudicating models, support greater understanding of the nature of
models (Ke & Schwarz, 2021). Reasoning with models is not only done among scientists but also among teachers
and students (Nersessian, 2008).
In a 2007 study on model-based reasoning in chemistry teaching contexts, Khan compared undergraduate
first year chemistry classrooms for their pedagogical approaches. The approach that characterized the vast
majority of chemistry teaching involved beginning the undergraduate class with defining concepts or terms in
chemistry, the instructor showing how to solve a problem, and time for students to receive and practice similar
problems. This approach could be termed a traditional approach to teaching chemistry in the undergraduate
department, as represented by Figure 1 (Khan, 2001).
One course; however, outperformed others on a general scientific reasoning test given to multiple in-
stitutions science classes (Khan, 2001). The approach to teaching by this chemistry instructor could be charac-
terized as model-based or the generate-evaluate-modify (GEM) approach, a first case of model-based instruction
inside a classroom (Khan, 2007).
1
Figure 2 depicts the GEM approach to instruction. This approach to instruction
involved the teacher promoting the generation of relationships internal to a model, evaluation of those re-
lationships (often in light of new information), and modification of their models. Evaluation and modification
occurred repeatedly, until a more accurate consensus model was co-constructed with teacher guidance in the
chemistry undergraduate class.
The GEM approach that was observed in this chemistry undergraduate class involved asking students
to reason about unobservable phenomena in science. In the first phase, students generate a relationship
between two or more variables in a dialogic environment using information or data sets. In one example in the
undergraduate chemistry classroom of an investigation of molecular models, the undergraduate teacher
• Provide DefiniƟons
• Demonstrate problem-solving
•PracƟce problem-solving sets
Figure 1: Traditional approach to teaching chemistry (Khan, 2001).
1Other research on modeling, in contrast at the time, focused on curriculum (Raghavan & Glaser, 1995), experts doing clinical
interviews (Clement, 1989) or groups of students being independently tutored (Núnez-Oveido et al., 2008; Rea-Ramirez et al., 2009).
4S. Khan: Reasoning in chemistry teacher education

encouraged chemistry students to explore the relationship between vapor pressure and boiling points.
Students also generated relationships between molecular weight and the mass of a compound in this phase
of instruction. In the next phases of instruction observed, chemistry students continued to reason about
their models of molecular compounds. In this phase, they grappled with information that led them to re-
evaluate their originally formed relationships between molecular weight and boiling point. This information
came from a simulation. The chemistry students noted that the higher the molecular weight, the higher the
boiling point.
The chemistry students saw; however, that methanol and methyl amine fell out of the expected trend
using a simulation. This was the beginning of a discussion on what kind of bond could exist between two
hydroxyl groups as exclaimed by a student question, “What kind of bond would there between two hydroxyls?”
While the idea of a bond is not correct, the undergraduate students went on later to invent a hidden causal
factor of what would later be termed by the teacher as an intermolecular force. Their newly revised models of a
chemical compound better aligned with the anomalous data points as it later took into account intermolecular
forces (Khan, 2007). The GEM pedagogical approach was elucidated through several years of classroom analysis,
and 34 guidance strategies to scaffold model-based reasoning were identified from observations of this
approach (Khan, 2011). This approach to teaching chemistry did not require reading in advance, and the
undergraduate chemistry teacher did not correct students right away. Instead, reasoning was fostered and
sustained during GEM discussion. Recent research in science education settings further reports on the benefits
of model-based instruction on student reasoning in undergraduate chemistry settings (Cooper et al., 2017), and
even students elementary settings are using chemical models (Baumfalk et al., 2019) with similar instructional
techniques.
Given that future teachers often come from this pool of undergraduate science, it is fruitful to explore
whether teacher education itself could have an impact preservice teachers’scientific reasoning competencies. In
TEACHER STRATEGIES
STUDENT
Teacher provides background content
information.
Teacher asks
students to
compile
information.
Teacher asks students
to generate a
relationship between
variables.
Teacher asks students to evaluate relationship
in light of new information (discrepant extreme
case, confirmatory).
Teacher asks students to modify initial
relationship based on the evaluation.
Students generate
Students evaluate
Students modify
1
2
PROCESSES
relationship.
relationship.
relationship.
Figure 2: GEM instructional cycle
(Khan, 2007).
S. Khan: Reasoning in chemistry teacher education 5

a third study, Khan and Krell (2019) used the same instrument as the international comparison (a validated pre-
and post-questionnaire) to investigate a single teacher education class more closely. That is, the single teacher
methods course was assessed for whether preservice science teachers’scientific reasoning was the same before a
science teacher methods as afterwards. The teacher education course contained common science methods topics,
such as unit and lesson planning and assessment techniques in science.
The preservice science teachers were asked to reason about two types of problems in a validated pre- and
post-questionnaire (Krell et al., 2020): investigatory-process problems and modeling problems. Statistical analyses
of the data revealed that teacher education significantly contributed to the development of preservice science
teachers’competencies for those who had two previous degrees compared with those with one. Furthermore,
when grouped together, a greater proportion of preservice teachers were better at planning investigations and
analyzing data-moreso than any dimension associated with model-based reasoning in the questionnaire, and
formulating questions and generating hypotheses. In a related study which included teacher specializations and
the same questionnaire (Khan & Krell, 2021), chemistry preservice teachers had the lowest probability of
answering items on the scientific reasoning questionnaire correctly compared to preservice biology teachers.
Preservice chemistry teachers were found to be significantly worse at planning investigations, analyzing data,
drawing conclusions, testing models, and changing their models than their biology counterparts. The question-
naire items were more procedural and epistemic rather than content-based, leading us to renew calls to examine
chemistry preservice teachers.
The former findings (Krell et al., 2020) reify the notion that content knowledge may be a potential mediator
of science teachers’reasoning. The former findings are also aligned with the aforementioned cross-country
comparison in 2023 of preservice teacher education (Krell et al., 2023), that affirmed that the amount of sci-
ence classes is a significant predictor of SRCs in comparison to age and amount of teacher education courses. The
latter findings (Khan & Krell, 2021) illuminate that chemistry preservice teachers fare significantly worse than
biology teachers at scientific reasoning-including model-based- reasoning, even though both have a degree in
science. Questions remain as to how teacher education might amplify the model-based reasoning of chemistry
teachers.
3 Case study of a science teacher education course
While there is established quantitative and case evidence that science content courses are associated with gains in
model-based reasoning skills (Khan, 2007; Krell et al., 2023), there is less evidence of similar gains in our research
from participation in science teacher education courses (Khan & Krell, 2019). Investigating how teacher education
programs can be designed to better promote the development of model-based reasoning skills among preservice
chemistry teachers would be valuable. A current program of research is exploring this very question (Faikhamta
et al., 2024; Khan, 2018; Khuyen et al., 2024). From Khan and Krell (2019)’s study in the same context as the present
study, it had already been found that a science teacher education methods course had the potential to foster
scientific reasoning competencies of some preservice teachers. In this study, preservice teacher competency in
SRC significantly improved (for those that had 2°in science) after a teacher education course where no changes
had been made to the course syllabus. This finding stands in contrast to our larger study where the amount of
teacher education did not make a significant difference to SRC (Krell et al., 2023), leaving to question how
intentionally designed teacher education activities might impact preservice teacher SRCs. Also, it was considered
that there might be other ways to detect teacher competency at scientific and model-based reasoning, including
through an analysis of preservice science teachers own actions to design and promote scientific reasoning to their
students. It is thus theorized that opportunities to engage in teacher education activities to discuss model-based
reasoning and foster them through the design and teaching of lesson plans will support preservice teacher’s own
competency development (Khan & Krell, 2019). In this way, the kind of instruction in teacher education is
hypothesized to impact model-based reasoning above and beyond preservice chemistry teacher’s previous un-
dergraduate degree in science.
6S. Khan: Reasoning in chemistry teacher education

The following case is an example of a wider program of research in science teacher education to investigate
high impact activities for preservice chemistry teachers. Below are excerpts of this study of a science teacher
education methods course that was entirely reformed to support model-based reasoning. The revisions to the
course included: (1) an expanded focus on how science proceeds using readings, depictions of science, and black
box activities, (2) additional opportunities to teach and reflect upon the reasoning skills associated with modeling,
including the use of a teacher design guide and class debriefs, and (3) opportunities to test teaching to promote
model-based reasoning across three teaching contexts. Teacher education activities were operationalized as
being successful if preservice teacher’s could plan for and facilitate their students’model-based reasoning across
multiple teaching contexts.
The design of this case study of teacher education activities followed a longitudinal pre-post design.
Preservice teachers’model-based reasoning was observed across three contexts: the science methods course
itself, the practica experience, and a required assignment where preservice teachers taught in after-school
organizations. Data sources included: a new pre- and post-questionnaire on the nature of modeling and model-
based reasoning (different from the aforementioned SRC questionnaires), 2 sets of preservice teacher lesson plan
assignments at earlier and later times in the refreshed course, and highschool classroom observations and
debriefs, coded in a rubric. Data was collected during micro-teaching, on practicum, and in out-of-school settings,
such as homework clubs. To illustrate preservice teacher reasoning with their students, only several excerpts
from the data are presented.
The chemistry preservice teachers were advised to focus on a model from their chemistry curriculum to
design and enact lessons. The models were from the secondary chemistry curriculum (constituting grades 8–12).
The models reflect conceptual/symbolic (Coll & Lajium, 2011) or concrete process models, containing some
abstract and concrete elements, according to the typology offered by Harrison and Treagust (2000). For example,
models of electrochemical cells contained conventional elements of chemical batteries technology and wires with
electron flow to and from the battery. Given that the models were evident within the secondary curriculum, they
could also be referred to as “expressed consensus teaching”or “curricular models”(Chamizo, 2013) in chemistry
education.
4 Results
To generate hypotheses about how science teacher education activities can be designed to better promote the
development of model-based reasoning, analyses of three excerpts from the data on preservice teachers
reasoning with models in their teaching is reported. The specific models selected by the preservice teachers were
represented in Table 2.
Study questionnaire results pinpointed activities that preservice teachers reported that may have had an
impact on their reasoning. Initial hypotheses were generated on the types of activities that could promote the
development of model-based reasoning among preservice chemistry teachers.
For the first excerpt, a preservice science teacher designed a lesson plan in the teacher education course,
engaging two students to reason about a model of an electrochemical cell. In this instance of microteaching, other
preservice teachers served in the role of ‘students’. To begin, the preservice teacher in this excerpt asked her
Table :Scientific reasoning competencies on using models across three countries.
Country Type of preservice teacher education program SRC modeling score (%)
Germany Concurrent (bachelor of science/arts with a subsequent master of education program) 
Chile Concurrent (bachelor of education program) 
Canada Consecutive (post-graduate bachelor of education program) a
Note: aRepresents a SD.
S. Khan: Reasoning in chemistry teacher education 7

‘students’to share their ideas about a battery. After encountering data using a battery simulation, ‘the students’
identified themselves that their expressed model of a battery works is wrong. The preservice teacher prompted
‘students’to revise their models and arrive at a consensus. The teacher reframed the discussion around modeling
as the “act of building on our knowledge”.
She then was observed posing a question after asking the students to hook up the battery in a simulated
circuit:
And if I can get you to label the positive and negative terminals, and then what you think the electron distribution will look like
inside of this battery. I see both of you the electron flow from the positive terminal to the negative terminal….If we are saying the
bulk of the electrons are being stored at the negative terminal, does that make sense? …Why would it, wouldn’t it be easier for the
electrons just to flow through the battery back to the positive terminal instead of going through a circuit? Do you still think that the
electrons in the new circuit will follow that pattern?
The preservice teacher, pointing to the battery, prompted her students to reason about the battery and why it
would not have electrons circulate in a different pattern. This episode was coded as an example of teacher
reasoning with students, because she asked students to consider a pattern (underlined) and an anomaly in the
pattern (does that make sense). The student said their original models of a battery and circuit “made no sense”,
and the preservice teacher responded let’s discuss why we think that.
An analogy was later brought up by the preservice teacher to help her students grapple with apparent
anomaly in their electron flow models in this microteaching episode. This spontaneous teacher analogy was to
water in a pipe system, and it was coded as an example of analogical reasoning using a model. The preservice
chemistry teacher reasoned with her students at the start of the dialogue, “[I]f you have a lot of water at the top, in
a basin at the top, and a pipe connecting the basin at the top, and then one that’s empty, just slightly lower down,
where is the water going to flow as the pressure builds up? Is it going to flow from where there’s lots of water to
more, or more water?”As an illustrative excerpt, the preservice chemistry teacher could be said to be engaging in
reasoning with her students and their models.
In similar ways, reasoning was apparent in high school teaching contexts too. For a second illustrative
example of preservice teacher reasoning about models in a high school context, two preservice teachers work-
ing in an after school club experimented with melting ice with their students, as they wrote for their debriefs:
…performed a science experiment which dealt with melting points. We encouraged the [high school] students to hypothesize
which type of household seasoning (sugar, salt, cinnamon, pepper) could be used to lift an ice cube out of a container of water
using only a thread …We began by asking if any of the students had an idea as to how we could accomplish the task of lifting the
ice cube out of the water without touching it. The students then generated an idea about how the string could be used to pull the ice
cube up. We then informed them that they would be able to also utilize one (or more) of the household seasonings to accomplish
this task. The students proceeded to come up with different scenarios using the different seasonings until the desired outcome was
achieved. After they had selected the correct seasoning (salt) we discussed what they though was happening, and why salt was the
only seasoning to be successful.
The preservice teachers appear to be working with their high school students to develop an explanatory model of
water. In a third excerpt, the preservice chemistry teachers debriefed what had happend and their reasoning
processes as they asked key questions of the high school students about their models of water.
Interestingly one of the students thought that sugar would be the successful lifting agent, as he hypothesized that sugar is ‘sticky’
and should therefore result in the thread adhering to the ice cube surface. The sugar actually did result in a bit of stickiness
however it was not sufficient to support the weight of the ice cube. He then decided to try a combination of salt and sugar together,
however this did not work either, likely due to the ratio which was predominately sugar. The student appeared to be very
frustrated when the sugar was not successful, and became visibly upset by this. Clearly this idea that sugar is sticky, and should
therefore cause the thread to attach to the ice cube, was quite engrained in his mind, and as a result it was difficult [for him] to
explain why salt was actually the correct ingredient. We also asked them to explain their answers as to why something did not
work or did work. The students needed to understand that salt can melt ice, and the ice would refreeze the water over the thread,
keeping it firm in place as you raised the ice.
8S. Khan: Reasoning in chemistry teacher education

The preservice teachers promoted reasoning by helping the student eliminate possibilities as underlined (e.g., salt
and sugar), postulate hidden causal factors (stickiness), and better attempt to coordinate their models of water
with the evidence from the melting experiment (teacher asks why something [sugar] does it not work). In terms of
success, all of the preservice teachers were able to facilitate model-based reasoning in these ways over multiple
teaching contexts. Compared to the pre-questionnaire which asked preservice teachers to reason with a model
about chemical equilibrium, their post-questionnaire showed evidence of improvement in teacher reasoning
with models, leading one to believe that activities in the course may have contributed in some way to their own
competencies at model-based reasoning.
Regarding the kind of instruction in teacher education that may have contributed to an impact on the
preservice chemistry teachers, they reported in the questionnaire that learning that their students’might have
alternative conceptions had the highest impact course activity. One can hypothesize that preservice science
teachers learning that chemistry students have alternative conceptual models would support the idea that
reasoning involves changing one’s mental models of the way the world works. Ranking close to the top were
designing GEM lessons. The preservice teachers were provided a design guide to support their efforts at creating
GEM lessons using this approach to foster model-based reasoning. Finally, reflection on teaching was ranked
lowest by the preservice teachers, perhaps because it was a program-wide activity. The teacher education
course and the community site were reported by the preservice teachers as the contexts with which preservice
teachers were most able to try methods to promote model-based reasoning, according to the questionnaire. The
excerpts provide a window into activities with students that might enhance their own scientific reasoning
competencies.
5 Discussion
It is hypothesized that teacher education course activities may foster chemistry teachers own scientific reasoning
competencies. A preservice teacher education course was intentionally designed to support preservice teacher’s
model-based reasoning. Preservice teachers acknowledged that the highest impact activities in the course that
supported their own understanding of model-based reasoning included learning about students’alternative
conceptions, GEM lesson planning, and enactments in the teacher education course and in community sites. The
first two activities were supported by readings and a design guide, and the latter, teacher enactments, were
supported by reflection activities including debriefs. Lesson observations and a post-questionnaire revealed that
not just their pedagogy to facilitate high school students’model-based reasoning improved, but there was
evidence from the post-questionnaire that so did their personal reasoning competencies. A hypothesized
mechanism for doing so might be that the above course activities required preservice teachers to plan for and
engage in prolonged facilitation of reasoning with models. They could not anticipate fully what their students
might say in the different, requiring the preservice teachers to actively reason with their students about their
models. The illustrative excerpts from the data suggest preservice teachers’reasoning with a [student] model
happened when they helped high school students compare evidence with their personal models, develop ex-
planations, eliminate less probable explanations for experimental findings, resolve anomalies, and postulate
hidden causal factors. Preservice chemistry teachers were also observed spontaneously engaging in analogical
reasoning to support students’understandings of models.
Taken together, it is plausible that teacher education courses, intentionally designed, can create opportunites
that foster teacher reasoning and elevate their own competencies at reasoning, as suggested by Khan and Krell
(2019) in their case study of a different methods course. As Ding (2018)’s study alludes; however, SRCs may not be
developed in undergraduate settings, the first degree for teachers in a consecutive program. Thus, explicit
teaching of SRCs may be necessary in post-secondary education first degrees where the pool of future teachers
often comes from. Despite science content courses being a significant predictor of SRCs (Krell et al., 2023), this case
study suggests, in a preliminary way, that chemistry preservice teachers have the potentail to advance their SRCs
from intentionally designed teacher education activities.
S. Khan: Reasoning in chemistry teacher education 9

6 Recommendations
The research program investigating reasoning in science teacher education is especially important for chemistry
education. Research on prior degrees (Krell et al., 2023) suggests further that content knowledge is a potential
mediator of chemistry teachers’capacities to reason. Therefore, the first recommendation for chemistry teacher
education is that science content knowledge is considered when developing chemistry teacher education methods
courses. Additionally, preservice science teachers who may teach chemistry in the future but do not have a
chemistry major could be supported in teacher education with courses for non-chemistry majors. Consecutive
teacher education programs appear to be the beter way to design a program that fosters teachers SRCs compared
to concurrent programs (Krell et al., 2023), as content courses in an undergraduate degree are significant
predictors of future SRCs.
Secondly, preservice chemistry teachers significantly underperform on questions involving scientific
reasoning compared to biology preservice teachers (Khan & Krell, 2021). Based on the aforementioned research,
explicit instruction of scientific reasoning would be especially important within the first chemistry degree.
Teacher education interventions are also recommended. In Engelmann et al.’s (2016) meta-analysis of 15 studies to
promote scientific reasoning, it was found that the interventions had a significant positive effect on scientific
reasoning. Concerning interventions, this present research program in teacher education has developed targeted,
high impact activities to promote model-based reasoning.
These teacher education activities include approximating practice across contexts and engaging in GEM
activites that promote model-based reasoning. Science preservice teachers, despite working with a plethora of
models in their first degrees, fare worse with regards to model-based reasoning than other questionnaire items
(Krell et al., 2020). Course-based activities, such as those that promote model-based reasoning in various contexts,
may also help preservice teachers activate more spontaneous forms of reasoning with students. It is recom-
mended that similar high impact activities such as GEM (Khan, 2007) be integrated in teacher education and that
multiple opportunities to teach in various contexts be sought.
In addition to the design of consecutive teacher education programs and intentional and explicit activities
to promote reasoning in chemistry and chemistry education, additional research is necessary. First, evidence
for an undergraduate class producing higher achievement than other chemistry classes was provided (Khan,
2007), and in another study, evidence for being able to teach using model-based reasoning successfully in
teacher was provided (Khan & Krell, 2019). Based on the present study in teacher education that also incor-
porated a model-based reasoning approach, GEM, the use of this instructional approach may serve as one
avenue to sustain and amplify teacher reasoning. More research; however, is needed that shows the rela-
tionship between course activities and preservice chemistry teachers outcomes in terms of their own SRC to
begin to make clear claims about the impact of teacher education. It is plausible that the act of teaching itself
promotes reasoning and over time and across contexts, fosters reasoning competencies as a result. The nature
of the relationship is not yet fully understood or documented. Thus future research could examine this
relationship in teacher education. Also, research on how to best support reasoning competencies in under-
graduate education would complement ongoing projects in teacher education. Finally, greater specificity on the
classroom activities that have the best possible impacts on future chemistry teachers is needed. Bolstering the
reasoning competencies of teachers is one proposed way to students capacities to reason, a fruitful avenue to
explore in chemistry education research.
Acknowledgments: I would like to acknowledge the mii-STEM project for their research.
Research ethics: The local Institutional Review Board deemed the study exempt from review.
Informed consent: Not applicable.
Author contributions: The author has accepted responsibility for the entire content of this manuscript and
approved its submission.
Use of Large Language Models, AI and Machine Learning Tools: None declared.
Conflict of interest: The author states no conflict of interest.
10 S. Khan: Reasoning in chemistry teacher education

Research funding: None declared.
Data availability: Not applicable.
References
Alexander, P. A. (2019). Individual differences in college‐age learners: The importance of relational reasoning for learning and assessment in
higher education. British Journal of Educational Psychology,89(3), 416–428.
Baumfalk, B., Bhattacharya, D., Vo, T., Forbes, C. T., Zangori, L., & Schwarz, C. (2019). Impact of model-based curriculum and instruction on 3rd-
grade students’scientific explanations for the hydrosphere. Journal of Research in Science Teaching,56(5), 570–597.
Bruce, M. R., Bruce, A. E., & Walter, J. (2022). Creating representation in support of chemical reasoning to connect macroscopic and
submicroscopic domains of knowledge. Journal of Chemical Education,99(4), 1734–1746.
Bruckermann, T., Ochsen, F., & Mahler, D. (2018). Learning opportunities in biology teacher education contribute to understanding of nature
of science. Education Sciences,8(103), 1–18.
Button, J., Turner, D. P., & Hammer, D. (2023). How chemists handle not-knowing in reasoning about a novel problem. Chemistry Education:
Research and Practice,24(3), 956–970.
Campbell, T., Oh, P. S., Maughn, M., Kiriazis, N., & Zuwallack, R. (2015). A review of modeling pedagogies: Pedagogical functions, discursive
acts, and technology in modeling instruction. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education,11(1), 159–176.
Chamizo, J. A. (2013). A new definition of models and modeling in chemistry’s teaching. Science & Education,22, 1613–1632.
Clement, J. (1989). Learning via model construction and criticism: Protocol evidence on sources of creativity in science. In Handbook of creativity
(pp. 341–381). Springer.
Coll, R. K., & Lajium, D. (2011). Modeling and the future of science learning. In Models and modeling: Cognitive tools for scientific enquiry
(pp. 3–21). Springer.
Cooper, M. M., Stieff, M., & DeSutter, D. (2017). Sketching the invisible to predict the visible: From drawing to modeling in chemistry. Topics in
Cognitive Science,9(4), 902–920.
Darling-Hammond, L. (2000). Teacher quality and student achievement. Education Policy Analysis Archives,8(1), 1–44.
DeBoer, G. (2019). A history of ideas in science education. Teachers College Press.
Deng, J. M., & Flynn, A. B. (2021). Reasoning, granularity, and comparisons in students’arguments on two organic chemistry items. Chemistry
Education: Research and Practice,22(3), 749–771.
Ding, L. (2018). Progression trend of scientific reasoning from elementary school to university: A large-scale cross-grade survey among
Chinese students. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education,16(8), 1479–1498.
Dumas, D., Alexander, P. A., & Grossnickle, E. M. (2013). Relational reasoning and its manifestations in the educational context: A systematic
review of the literature. Educational Psychology Review,25, 391–427.
Engelmann, K., Neuhaus, B., & Fischer, F. (2016). Fostering scientific reasoning in education –meta-analytic evidence from intervention
studies. Educational Research and Evaluation,22(5–6), 333–349.
Faikhamta, C., Khan, S., Prasoplarb, T., Praisri, A., & Suknarusaithagul, N. (2024). Pre-service teachers’conceptual understandings of models
and modelling in a STEM methods course. Research in Science Education,1–17. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-024-10184-3.
Fischer, K. W., & Bidell, T. (1998). Dynamic development of psychological structures in action. In W. Damon & R. M. Lerner (Eds.), Handbook of
child psychology: Vol. 1. theoretical models of human development (5th ed., pp. 313–399). Wiley.
Fischer, F., Kollar, I., Ufer, S., Sodian, B., Hussmann, H., Pekrun, R., Neuhaus, B., Dorner, B., Pankofer, S., Fischer, M., Strijbos, J.-W., Heene, M., &
Eberle, J. (2014). Scientific reasoning and argumentation. Frontline Learning Research,5,28–45.
Giere, N. R., Bickle, J., & Mauldin, R. F. (2006). Understanding scientific reasoning (5th ed.). Thomson/Wadsworth.
Göhner, M., & Krell, M. (2022). Preservice science teachers’strategies in scientific reasoning: The case of modeling. Research in Science
Education,52(2), 395–414.
Halloun, I. A. (2007). Mediated modeling in science education. Science & Education,16, 653–697.
Harrison, A. G., & Treagust, D. F. (2000). A typology of school science models. International Journal of Science Education,22(9), 1011–1026.
Hogan, K. (1999). Thinking aloud together: A test of an intervention to foster students’collaborative scientific reasoning. Journal of Research in
Science Teaching,36(10), 1085–1109.
Ke, L., & Schwarz, C. V. (2021). Supporting students’meaningful engagement in scientific modeling through epistemological messages: A case
study of contrasting teaching approaches. Journal of Research in Science Teaching,58(3), 335–365.
Khan, S. (2001). Developing inquiry skills while learning about unobservable processes in chemistry. Annual Meeting of the American Educational
Research Association.
Khan, S. (2007). Model‐based inquiries in chemistry. Science Education,91(6), 877–905.
Khan, S. (2011). What’s missing in model-based teaching. Journal of Science Teacher Education,22, 535–560.
Khan, S. (2018). Preservice science teacher’s adaptation of modeling strategies in the field. Teacher Education Policy in Europe (TEPE).
Khan, S., & Chan, V. (2011). An exploration of digital representations in chemistry education. Journal of the Research Center for Educational
Technology,7(2), 2–37.
S. Khan: Reasoning in chemistry teacher education 11

Khan, S., & Krell, M. (2019). Scientific reasoning competencies: A case of preservice teacher education. Canadian Journal of Science,
Mathematics, and Technology Education,19(4), 446–464.
Khan, S., & Krell, M. (2021). Patterns of scientific reasoning skills among pre-service science teachers: A latent class analysis. Education Sciences,
11(10), 647.
Khuyen, N. T. T., Van Bien, N., Khan, S., Faikhamta, C., & El Islami, R. A. Z. (2024). Impacts of method courses on Vietnamese pre-service
teachers’perceptions and practices: From the perspectives of model and modeling in STEM education. Journal of Physics: Conference
Series,2727(1), 012001.
Kind, P. E. R., & Osborne, J. (2017). Styles of scientific reasoning: A cultural rationale for science education? Science Education,101(1), 8–31.
Krell, M., Dawborn-Gundlach, M., & van Driel, J. (2020). Scientific reasoning competencies in science teaching. Teaching Science,66(2), 32–42.
Krell, M., Khan, S., & van Driel, J. (2021). Analyzing cognitive demands of a scientific reasoning test using the linear logistic test model (LLTM).
Education Sciences,11(9), 1–16.
Krell, M., Khan, S., Vergara, C., Cofré, H., Mathesius, S., & Krüger, D. (2023). Pre-service science teachers’scientific reasoning competencies:
Analysing the impact of contributing factors. Research in Science Education,53(1), 59–79.
Kuhn, T. S. (2012). The structure of scientific revolutions: 50th anniversary edition. University of Chicago Press.
Lawson, A. E. (1978). The development and validation of a classroom test of formal reasoning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching,15(1),
11–24.
Lawson, A., Clark, B., Cramer-Meldrum, E., Falconer, K. A., Sequist, J. M., & Kwon, Y. (2000). Development of scientific reasoning in college
biology: Do two levels of general hypothesis-testing skills exist? Journal of Research in Science Teaching,37(1), 64–81.
Lehrer, R., & Schauble, L. (2005). Cultivating model-based reasoning in science education. In The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences
(pp. 371–387). Cambridge University Press.
Lehrer, R., & Schauble, L. (2015). The development of scientific thinking. In Handbook of child psychology and developmental science (Vol. 2,
pp. 671–714). Wiley.
Loughran, J., Keast, S., & Cooper, R. (2016). Pedagogical reasoning in teacher education. International handbook of teacher education (Vol. 1,
pp. 387–421).
Magnani, L. (2009). Model-based reasoning in science and technology: Abduction, visualization, and inference. Springer.
Monk, D. H., & King, J. A. (1994). Multilevel teacher resource effects in pupil performance in secondary mathematics and science: The
case of teacher subject matter preparation. In R. G. Ehrenberg (Ed.), Choices and consequences: Contemporary policy issues in education
(pp. 29–58). ILR Press.
Moreira, P., Marzabal, A., & Talanquer, V. (2019). Investigating the effect of teacher mediation on student expressed reasoning. Chemistry
Education: Research and Practice,20(3), 606–617.
Nersessian, N. J. (2008). Creating Scientific Concepts. MIT Press.
Núnez-Oveido, M. C., Clement, J., & Rea-Ramirez, M. A. (2008). Developing complex mental models in biology through model evolution. Model
based learning and instruction in science (pp. 173–193). Springer.
Osborne, J. (2013). The 21st century challenge for science education: Assessing scientific reasoning. Thinking Skills and Creativity,10, 265–279.
Pietarinen, A. V., & Bellucci, F. (2014). New light on Peirce’s conceptions of retroduction, deduction, and scientific reasoning. International
Studies in the Philosophy of Science,28(4), 353–373.
Pluta, W. J., Chinn, C. A., & Duncan, R. G. (2011). Learners’epistemic criteria for good scientific models. Journal of Research in Science Teaching,
48(5), 486–511.
Raghavan, K., & Glaser, R. (1995). Model–based analysis and reasoning in science: The MARS curriculum. Science Education,79(1), 37–61.
Rea-Ramirez, M. A., Nunez-Oviedo, M. C., & Clement, J. (2009). Role of discrepant questioning leading to model element modification. Journal
of Science Teacher Education,20,95–111.
Rost, M., & Knuuttila, T. (2022). Models as epistemic artifacts for scientific reasoning in science education research. Education Sciences,12(4),
276.
Schauble, L. (1996). The development of scientific reasoning in knowledge-rich contexts. Developmental Psychology,32(1), 102–119.
Schunn, C. D., & Klahr, D. (2019). The problem of problem spaces: When and how to go beyond a 2-space model of scientific discovery.
In Proceedings of the eighteenth annual conference of the cognitive science society (pp. 25–26). Routledge.
Segler, M. H., & Waller, M. P. (2017). Modelling chemical reasoning to predict and invent reactions. Chemistry–A European Journal,23(25),
6118–6128.
Sevian, H., & Talanquer, V. (2014). Rethinking chemistry: A learning progression on chemical thinking. Chemistry Education: Research and
Practice,15(1), 10–23.
Simon, H. A. (1996). The Sciences of the Artificial (3rd ed.). MIT Press.
Stieff, M., Ryu, M., Dixon, B., & Hegarty, M. (2012). The role of spatial ability and strategy preference for spatial problem solving in organic
chemistry. Journal of Chemical Education,89(7), 854–859.
Talanquer, V. (2018). Exploring mechanistic reasoning in chemistry. In Science education research and practice in Asia-Pacific and beyond
(pp. 39–52). Springer.
Trey, L., & Khan, S. (2008). How science students can learn about unobservable phenomena using computer-based analogies. Computers &
Education,51(2), 519–529.
Wackerly, J. W. (2021). Abductive reasoning in organic chemistry. Journal of Chemical Education,98(9), 2746–2750.
12 S. Khan: Reasoning in chemistry teacher education

Williams, D. (2018). Predictive minds and small-scale models: Kenneth Craik’s contribution to cognitive science. Philosophical Explorations,
21(2), 245–263.
Windschitl, M., Thompson, J., & Braaten, M. (2018). Teaching and learning in a complex world: A framework for understanding the interplay
between knowledge and experience. In K. R. Harris, S. Graham & T. Urdan (Eds.), Handbook of research on learning and instruction
(pp. 241–274).
Zimmerman, C. (2000). The development of scientific reasoning skills. Developmental Review,20(1), 99–149.
S. Khan: Reasoning in chemistry teacher education 13