Analysis of the relationship between students’ argumentation and chemical representational ability: a case study of hybrid learning oriented in the environmental chemistry course

2.1 Argumentation

Toulmin’s argumentation model, sometimes called the Toulmin argument pattern (TAP), recognizes the use of argumentation to construct explanations, models, and theories (Andrews, 2005; Hample, 1977). According to Toulmin’s argumentation model, it is shown in Figure 1.

Figure 1:

Argumentation model Toulmin.

Scientific argumentation is instrumental in chemistry education, enabling students to delve deeper into chemical concepts by presenting claims, supporting them with evidence, and justifying reasoning (Abate et al., 2020). Toulmin’s model offers a systematic approach to dissecting arguments into components such as claims, evidence, and warrants. Recognizing these components allows educators to devise tailored teaching strategies that enhance students’ argumentation skills. Collaborative argumentation has proven crucial, with studies like that of Kulatunga and Lewis (2013) showing that student collaborations can effectively address and rectify incorrect claims. Furthermore, specific projects and activities, such as product life-cycle analyses and green chemistry initiatives, have boosted argumentation abilities. In tertiary education, incorporating argumentation, particularly in organic chemistry, further refines students’ conceptual understanding and critical thinking (Samani et al., 2019).

The value of argumentation extends beyond just understanding; it is a gateway to critical thinking and scientific inquiry. Relevant contexts, like green chemistry activities, enhance subject understanding and cultivate argumentative proficiencies (Karpudewan et al., 2016). In organic chemistry, argumentation has been shown to elevate understanding and analytical abilities, with spatial capabilities playing a pivotal role in higher-level argumentation (Pabuccu & Erduran, 2017). In essence, fostering scientific argumentation equips students with the skills essential for rigorous scientific exploration, emphasizing its necessity in the educational landscape.

2.2 Chemical representation

The dimensions of chemical representation—macroscopic, submicroscopic, and symbolic—are pivotal in aiding students in establishing a comprehensive comprehension of chemistry, providing a conduit between theoretical knowledge and practical applications. However, curricular materials, particularly textbooks, often lack adequate support for students to reason across these levels of representation. For instance, a study of representations in physical chemistry textbooks revealed a notable bias toward the symbolic level, often sidelining an explicit discussion connecting mathematical representations with the macroscopic or submicroscopic level (Becker et al., 2017). Furthermore, a distinctive study exploring structural representation in the context of deep neural networks for X-ray spectroscopy highlighted the significance of choosing apt structural representations to enhance computational models’ accuracy and reliability in chemistry (Madkhali et al., 2020) (Figure 2).

Figure 2:

Triangle and tetrahedral chemistry.

In addition to textbooks and computational models, the potential of technological tools to enhance learning experiences in chemistry education has been explored. A study, albeit not specifically focused on augmented reality, highlighted the utility of social media videos, like those on YouTube, in chemistry education, elucidating both the potential benefits and challenges of embedding technological tools in learning (Smith, 2014). Another study emphasized that even amidst the disruptions due to COVID-19 and the sudden pivot to remote teaching, a course on the Chemistry of Food and Cooking generally met students’ expectations in conveying chemical concepts and positively impacted the enhancement of scientific literacy (Perets et al., 2020).

It is imperative to note that technology’s role in chemistry education, especially non-STEM undergraduate chemistry courses, has demonstrated that technological enhancements and augmented reality can be potent tools for captivating students and enhancing their learning experiences. Therefore, navigating through the intricacies of chemical representation and leveraging technological tools, such as augmented reality and social media, can significantly enhance educational experiences and outcomes in chemistry education, providing a rich, multi-dimensional learning environment that bridges theoretical knowledge with practical, real-world applications.

2.3 The relationship between argumentation and chemical representation

The relationship between argumentation skills and chemical representation is pivotal for enhancing students’ understanding of chemical concepts. Students with good foundational knowledge could present robust arguments, underscoring the significance of argumentation ability in chemistry education. On the other hand, Dori & Sasson (2008) emphasized the combination of visual and textual representations, especially in computerized labs, as key to comprehending chemistry concepts.

Technological advancements offer opportunities for enriched learning experiences. Fatemah et al. (2020) demonstrated that interactive 3D visualization of chemical structures embedded within texts supports students’ spatial learning. Similarly, touch-screen devices, like iPads, are effective tools for honing visuospatial and representational competence skills, as evidenced by McCollum et al. (2014). The role of argumentation in learning (Yamtinah et al., 2019)revealed that integrating argumentation in the educational process bolstered students’ retention of scientific knowledge. Furthermore, Cetin (2018) posits that explicit argumentation instruction is crucial for developing conceptual understanding and argumentation skills. These studies underscore the importance of intertwining argumentation skills with advanced representation tools to optimize students’ grasp of chemical concepts.

3.1 Research context

This study leveraged an online Learning Management System (LMS) to foster active student participation. Optimized for virtual classrooms, this platform promoted student-instructor interactions and facilitated collaborative tasks, discussions, and access to course materials. Students could join these virtual sessions, held weekly for 2 h, from any location and device. The curriculum, synchronized with students’ academic timetables, drew its content from “Environmental Chemistry” by Stanley Manahan. This text was critical to shaping the problems and questions, ensuring alignment with the research focus on student argumentation and representation of chemistry. The combination of an LMS, regular class sessions, and teaching resources is expected to provide a holistic view of students’ argumentative skills and understanding online, thereby explaining the impact of digital platforms on their scientific understanding of Environmental Chemistry.

3.2 Participants

This study encompassed 64 third-year pre-service teacher students specializing in chemistry, all enrolled in an online environmental chemistry course. To gain a holistic understanding of the group, demographic data, including age, gender, and educational background, were amassed. The selection was stringent, with criteria requiring participants to be third-year students knowledgeable in chemistry and enrolled in the designated course. Their willingness to give informed consent was paramount. To ensure the study’s precision, exclusions were made for students from unrelated disciplines, those not part of the course or unfamiliar with online learning, and those unwilling to participate. This meticulous selection aimed to explore arguments and chemical representations online. The 64 participants, chosen from a suitable pool, are expected to provide a comprehensive view of argumentative skills and chemical representations in online learning, upholding the study’s validity.

3.3 Data collection

Data for this research were sourced from online environmental chemistry classes, with the researcher capturing class interactions using audio-video tools. This enabled a thorough analysis of students’ argumentative skills. Emphasis was placed on monitoring verbal exchanges during collaborative sessions. Arguments were diligently recorded, transcribed, and subsequently coded based on Toulmin’s model, highlighting components such as claims, data, and warrants. This systematic approach provided insights into the arguments’ nature, supporting evidence, and logical underpinnings. Further, discourse analysis unveiled patterns in student argumentation. To ensure data accuracy, the researcher engaged in collaborative coding with a team on a section of the transcriptions. Following this, the researcher independently coded the rest. Discussions were held to resolve coding discrepancies, with an 80 % agreement rate achieved between the researcher and the team. Combining recording and meticulous coding, this methodology offered reliable insights into students’ argumentation within online environmental chemistry classes.

3.4 Data analysis

The study leveraged discourse analysis as a pivotal instrument in the intricate realm of online environmental chemistry education. This method was selected precisely to delve into the subtle layers of students’ arguments and elucidate the ties connecting these arguments to their associated chemical representations. Through discourse analysis, we gain a perspective into the academic landscapes navigated by students, providing a thorough understanding of their argumentative strategies, evidence backing, and evolving comprehension in the expansive domain of environmental chemistry. Central to this investigative process is the Toulmin Model of Argumentation. Esteemed for its methodical approach to breaking down arguments, this model offers a robust blueprint for the study. With its distinct elements, including claims, data, and warrants, it aids in the organized detection and classification of arguments, ensuring a uniform lens of examination for each one. As the study unfolded, the significance of transcribing data came to the fore. All dialogues and engagements during online sessions are meticulously recorded and subsequently transcribed. These detailed transcriptions, conversations, inquiries, and student feedback become the foundation for extracting arguments (Figure 3).

Figure 3:

Data analysis and coding.

Upon transcription, a rigorous process of identifying arguments is set into motion. Each argument, woven into the discourse, is identified, with the Toulmin model serving as a guide. For instance, when a student articulates a claim about the detrimental consequences of industrial wastewater on aquatic habitats, the model aids in tracing the claim’s origins, supporting evidence, and possible counterarguments. After the identification phase, the arguments are methodically categorized. They are sorted based on their inherent characteristics and affinity to specific chemical representation facets, macroscopic, submicroscopic, or symbolic facets. Once categorized, the data is subjected to a detailed analysis. This phase delves into the nuances of argument progression, the pivotal role of chemical evidence in bolstering claims, and the influence exerted by the different facets of chemical representation on the arguments. A notable insight might reveal a pronounced inclination towards macroscopic chemical depictions when students expound on the repercussions of pollutants on aquatic environments. A collaborative coding methodology is embraced to vouch for the credibility of this intricate process. The voyage commences with a unified coding endeavor to lay down a standard coding framework. With this collective understanding, every researcher embarks on their coding journey, adhering strictly to the standardized blueprint across the transcripts. This study artfully navigates from unrefined online engagements to well-defined arguments, capturing the nuanced interplay between students’ articulation methods and their affinity to chemical representations in a digital educational setting.

3.5 Ethical research practices

In this research, adherence to ethical considerations was paramount under the auspices of the Ethical Commission of the Chemistry Education Program at Universitas Sebelas Maret (UNS). Ensuring alignment with ethical guidelines, a detailed proposal—outlining objectives, methodologies, and potential risks and benefits—was submitted and rigorously reviewed by the commission to safeguard participant welfare and uphold ethical standards. Before the research commencement, participants were thoroughly briefed about the study’s aim, procedures, and potential implications, ensuring their participation was informed and voluntary. Ensuring adherence to ethical principles, participants’ rights to withdraw, confidentiality, and privacy were emphasized and protected throughout the research. Data security was stringently maintained to prevent unauthorized access, safeguard participant information, and maintain research integrity. Participants were assured of their autonomy, their right to withdraw without penalty, and guaranteed anonymity in any resultant publications or reports. The researchers steadfastly respected participants’ dignity and ensured their perspectives were valued. At the same time, any potential risks were minimized and offset by the research’s contribution to environmental chemistry education insights. Thus, through stringent adherence to ethical guidelines, informed consent processes, and safeguarding participant rights, this study upheld exemplary ethical standards and aimed to proffer significant contributions to chemistry education research, providing a foundation rooted in ethical and insightful exploration.

3.6 Reliability

To analyze transcripts using the Toulmin model, our research team adopted two approaches: collective and individual coding. Initially, partial transcripts were coded collectively, forming a standard coding blueprint. This ensures an integrated understanding of using the Toulmin model to identify and categorize arguments. After this, the researchers individually coded the remaining transcripts, following an established scheme. An important aspect is the assessment of inter-rater reliability, which is the main metric ensuring the validity of our findings. This reliability was pegged at 80 % for our study, highlighting substantial agreement between independent coders. This figure underscores consistency in our coding process and strengthens confidence in our subsequent data analysis. Although there was high agreement, several differences emerged. This is resolved through team discussion consistency in our coding process admission to ensure interpretations are aligned. This consensus-driven approach culminates in creating “argument notes,” which categorize arguments based on Toulmin’s model, laying the foundation for further in-depth analysis. Our rigorous coding methods, punctuated by a strong emphasis on inter-rater reliability and consensus-based decisions, aim to provide a clear and consistent perspective on the dynamics of student argumentation and its relationship to chemical representations in online learning.

4.1 Results

During two meetings on environmental chemistry, several arguments emerged discussing global environmental issues. Our analysis of these arguments is presented in Table 1.

Table 1 comprehensively summarizes argumentation types and their relationship to chemical representations. The numbers reveal different patterns of how students incorporate chemistry understanding into their arguments. To dive deeper, consider the “Claims” category. With 23 significant arguments embedded in the “Macroscopic” representation type, it is evident that many students base their arguments on real, observable phenomena in environmental chemistry. For example, they may argue that the smog seen blanketing urban areas directly results from air pollution. This shows their foundation in the macroscopic dimensions of chemical processes. On the other hand, the six arguments associated with the “Symbolic” type of representation most likely involved students utilizing symbols, equations, or chemical formulas to support their claims. An illustrative example is students using chemical equations to detail the formation and impact of acid rain on the environment.

However, students’ arguments are not limited to direct claims. The “Writ” category features a mix of representation types, from “Symbolic & human elements” to “Symbolic & submicroscopic.” Here, students do not just present facts; they weave them together, interweaving symbolic representations of chemical reactions with human dimensions, such as emphasizing the role of human activity in accelerating greenhouse gas emissions.

As we navigate further into the complex categories of argument, particularly “Refutation” and “Support,” it is clear that students absorb and evaluate information critically. They combine macroscopic, symbolic, and human elements to create powerful arguments, counter opposing viewpoints, and offer evidence to support their stance. Our data also signal positive developments in teaching methodology. Over one year, we observed a marked evolution in most teachers’ applications of argumentation. However, this progress manifested differently among educators, both in the patterns of argumentation and the nature of its evolution. This underscores the importance of individual teaching styles in shaping students’ discourse and the quality of their arguments. This research emphasizes the complex dance between chemical representation and argumentation in environmental chemistry. The various ways students use different representations to make, support, or refute claims provide valuable insight into their conceptual understanding and argumentative skills.

4.2 Relationship between argumentation and chemical representation

The intricate world of online environmental chemistry learning offers a rich tapestry of discussions where participants grapple with multifaceted topics, dynamically intertwining scientific principles with real-world applications (Manahan, 2001; Xiao et al., 2020). This intricate dance of discourse was vividly portrayed during the second meeting centered around the stratosphere. A primary area of contention emerged was the criteria determining when contaminants are categorized as pollutants. This deliberation, however, was not merely a debate over semantics; it delved deep into the realm of scientific representation and reasoning (Opitz et al., 2017; Willis & Schaie, 1986). A crucial aspect that participants navigated was the delicate balance between contaminants’ amount (quantity) and their inherent properties. The discussion around Pb in drinking water was a compelling case in point. Participants highlighted that while there are permissible concentrations of Pb in drinking water, exceeding these thresholds can have profound environmental and health repercussions. However, the discourse did not halt there (Fatoni et al., 2021; Manahan, 2001). The narrative further delved into the nature of substances, emphasizing that beyond quantity, the intrinsic properties of some substances make them inherently harmful. The case of Cr⁶⁺ stood out as a glaring example, elucidating that certain substances pose a threat even in minuscule amounts due to their high toxicity (Arifiyana & Devianti, 2021).

The richness of the dialogue was further amplified when participants explored the multifaceted nature of contaminants. The discussion around phosphates brought to the fore the dual nature of certain chemicals (Saputro & Ovita, 2017). While phosphates are often perceived as environmental adversaries, participants highlighted their potential utility in the fertilizer industry, showcasing how these “contaminants” could be harnessed for beneficial purposes. This discussion thread underscored the importance of understanding chemical concepts from a multi-dimensional perspective, integrating macroscopic and symbolic representations. Symbolic representations, often deemed the quintessential language of chemistry, played a pivotal role throughout the discourse (Hidayati, 2021; Widyasari et al., 2018). When the instructor elucidated the differences between Cr³⁺ and Cr⁶⁺, it illuminated the vast gulf between mere numerical disparities and the profound implications of these chemical species on the environment (SPIRO & Stigliani, 1998). This was an academic exercise and a profound exploration into the heart of chemical representation and its real-world ramifications.

Figure 4, in this context, emerges as more than just a visual aid. It captures the ebb and flow of this intricate discussion, tracing the narrative’s progression. The figure meticulously maps the key arguments that dominated the discourse, the thematic undercurrents that shaped the dialogue, and the pivotal junctures where the instructor’s insights steered the conversation toward clarity. This figure is a visual testament to the intricate interplay between argumentation and chemical representation, capturing the essence of a dialogue that seamlessly melded scientific reasoning with real-world relevance.

Figure 4:

Conversational structure on problems related to contaminant parameters can be categorized into pollutants. The flow of discussion is explained through arrows, and student arguments are explained to show the types of arguments that arise.

4.3 Instructor’s role in argument construction

In the vast digital realm of education, the instructor emerges not merely as a transmitter of knowledge but as a masterful navigator, charting the course of discourse and ensuring its depth and rigor (Lee, 2014). This role becomes even more important in an online setting, where the absence of physical cues demands heightened engagement to foster meaningful interactions and maintain the discourse’s momentum (Putri et al., 2022). In such scenarios, the instructor wears multiple hats – from being a guide and a mentor to being a mediator and participant.

Figure 4 depicts the instructor’s interventions as pivotal, acting as beacons illuminating and clarifying the discourse. These interventions are not merely reactive but are anticipatory, addressing misconceptions before they become entrenched, introducing analogies to simplify complex concepts, and encouraging learners to explore deeper layers of understanding. The instructor’s influence is pervasive, ensuring that the discourse, while dynamic, remains anchored to the core concepts. Figure 5 offers a more granular view of the argumentative landscape. While participants frequently present claims and data, deeper facets of argumentation, like rebuttals and backing,s are often overlooked or underrepresented. Again, the instructor’s role is paramount (Kuhn, 1993; Qin & Karabacak, 2010). They deftly introduce these nuanced elements, prompting participants to explore their arguments’ depth and breadth. The instructor’s interventions serve as catalysts, spurring critical thinking, challenging preconceived notions, and fostering a culture of inquiry. They ensure that every participant’s voice is heard, every perspective is considered, and every argument is evaluated on merits (Alonzo, 2018; Rahwan & Simari, 2009).

Figure 5:

Percentage of complete argumentation.

The instructor’s role transcends the immediate discussion. They constantly learn, assimilate feedback, adapt their approach to the ever-changing dynamics of online discussions, and refine their pedagogical strategies. They recognize the unique challenges that online environments present – from potential misconceptions that might take root to discussions veering off-course – and proactively devise strategies to address them. This research underscores the important and multifaceted role of the instructor in online environmental chemistry discussions (Darmana et al., 2021; Johnstone, 1991, 1993b). It highlights the delicate balance they maintain between guiding and participating, between teaching and learning. As the digital education landscape continues to evolve, this research is a testament to the importance of proactive, engaged, and adaptive instructors. It reaffirms that in real education, the instructor’s role is not just to teach but to inspire, not just to guide but to journey alongside, ensuring that every discussion, every argument, and every interaction is a step towards deeper understanding and enlightenment (Johnstone, 1993a; Sjöström & Talanquer, 2014; Talanquer, 2018).

Number 5 is evidence of a complex dance of argumentation. Graphical representations explain how participants use claims and data to strengthen their arguments. However, the story is not over yet. The image also subtly highlights gaps – often overlooked arguments and support that can add depth and rigor to the discourse. This absence underscores the potential for improvement, signaling a need for participants to dig deeper and for instructors to champion a more comprehensive argumentative approach. In Figure 5, the image appears as a statistical representation and mirror reflecting the argumentative discourse in the digital era. This serves as a reminder of the journey ahead, the progress made, and the potential for deeper, more nuanced discussions in future sessions.

4.4 Discussion teaching implications

In the wide world of online education, subjects like chemistry present a unique set of challenges. Gone are the days when simply replicating traditional classroom methodology to a digital platform was enough. The complex findings from our study offer a fresh perspective, highlighting effective strategies that can enhance the learning experience in online chemistry courses (Hong et al., 2021; Liu et al., 2019). Imagine walking into a virtual chemistry classroom. Instead of one-sided lectures, there was a flurry of activity. Students are not just passive listeners; they are at the heart of the learning process (Chiu et al., 2018). This is the essence of an active learning environment. Here, students take ownership of their learning, exploring chemistry concepts, debating, asking questions, and integrating their understanding. Our research shows that such an environment fosters critical thinking and a richer understanding of the subject matter (Cann, 2016; Ching & Hursh, 2014; Tripathi & Kumar, 2014).

Simple question-and-answer sessions are no more. Instead, students engage in meaningful debate, group discussions, and peer reviews. They do not just state facts; they weave together a variety of chemical representations, from concrete macroscopic visuals to abstract symbolic notation, thereby building a comprehensive argument (Devi et al., 2018; Qin & Karabacak, 2010). These discussions provide an arena for them to defend their points of view, challenge misconceptions, and ultimately achieve a holistic understanding of chemistry. However, how do students know if they are on the right track? This is where feedback comes into play. Rather than waiting for end-of-semester exams, students receive timely feedback on their arguments. The constant iteration of building arguments, receiving feedback, and refining their understanding ensures that misunderstandings are nipped in the bud and learning is always on the right track (Cetin, 2013).

The instructor is not just an observer in this process. They play an important role. Our study underscores the importance of professional development for instructors. With the online education landscape evolving, instructors must be equipped with the latest strategies and tools to facilitate structured argumentation effectively (Clark et al., 2007; Siswanto et al., 2018). They must be adept at utilizing various technological tools, be they discussion forums, interactive quizzes, or simulation tools, to ensure that virtual classrooms are as dynamic and engaging as physical classrooms. The findings from this study are not just academic research. They present a vision – a blueprint for the future of online chemistry education. A future where learning is active, discussions are structured, and every student, regardless of their physical location, has access to rich, engaging, and effective learning experiences (Johnson et al., 2020; Karpudewan et al., 2016). It is not just about chemistry but about reimagining the essence of online education across disciplines. Moreover, as digital learning continues to shape the future, these insights will play a critical role in defining the future.

4.5 Discuss patterns

Exploring the intricacies of observed argumentation patterns provides an enlightening picture of students’ cognitive processes when involved in scientific discourse. Most prominent is the apparent reliance on macroscopic and symbolic representations. This tendency can be attributed to the concrete nature of the representation; they provide a concrete framework that is easy for students to understand, relate to, and articulate (Akkus & Cakiroglu, 2010; Mahaffy, 2004). Macroscopic representations, because they are visually accessible, offer a direct connection to real-world experiences, making them an intuitive choice for students. Likewise, symbolic representations, often found in textbooks and lectures, provide a familiar language for students to communicate chemistry concepts (Widyasari et al., 2018).

However, the findings of this study remind us of this. While the dominance of these representations is understandable, it also reveals potential limitations in students’ argumentative repertoires. The absence or infrequent use of submicroscopic or human-centered representations indicates incomplete or fragmented understanding. Submicroscopic representations, which delve into atoms, molecules, and ions, are critical to a holistic understanding of chemical processes. They bridge the gap between what is observed (macroscopic) and the molecular interactions underlying those observations (Wang et al., 2022). Likewise, human-centered representations, which focus on the implications of chemical concepts for society, ethics, or humans, add depth and relevance to the discourse, thereby grounding it in real-world implications and consequences (Eilks et al., 2018; Kollar et al., 2007).

Observed patterns also provide insight for educators. The tendency towards macroscopic and symbolic constructions suggests this is a “comfort zone” for many students. While this is important, educators must challenge students to go further. Instructors can design learning experiences that encourage students to integrate submicroscopic and human-centered perspectives and view chemistry concepts through different lenses (Nedungadi & Brown, 2020). This can be achieved through case studies, real-world scenarios, simulations, or debates that require a multidimensional argumentative approach (Amelia & Kriswantoro, 2017; Masykuri, 2017). These patterns highlight the importance of creating an environment where students are encouraged to question, critique, and expand their understanding. The observed dominance of a particular representation will not happen immediately but rather as a starting point. Educators can guide students toward more nuanced, comprehensive, and diverse arguments with the right pedagogical strategies. The patterns observed in this study reflect students’ cognitive strategies and their familiarity with chemical representations. While it provides valuable insight, it also underscores the journey ahead. A journey that, with the right guidance, can lead students to richer, more layered, and more insightful scientific arguments (Bricker & Bell, 2008; Johnson et al., 2020; Saselah & Qadar, 2017).

4.6 Instructor’s role

In an era deeply immersed in digital technology, where online learning has transcended from being a mere alternative to often becoming an essential mode of education, the role of the instructor has evolved significantly. The conventional image of an instructor merely disseminating knowledge has been reshaped into a more multifaceted figure: a facilitator, a guide, a co-learner, and a navigator through the rich and complex landscape of scientific argumentation and chemical representation. Given the complex relationship between students’ argumentation skills and their understanding of chemistry concepts, especially in an online context, as explained by this research, the instructor becomes a particularly important entity (Aydeniz & Dogan, 2016; Deng & Wang, 2017).

Imagine an instructor not merely as a conduit of knowledge but as a Facilitator of Understanding. Within the intricate world of chemical representation, where concepts oscillate between the tangible macroscopic reality and abstract symbolic notations, the instructor dissects complex chemical concepts into digestible portions, enabling students to scaffold their understanding incrementally (Aydeniz & Dogan, 2016; Moon et al., 2017). Picture them as a Discourse Navigator, especially crucial in online forums’ sometimes-turbulent seas of scientific argumentation. The instructor stands as a steadfast compass, ensuring that discussions maintain their scientific accuracy and successfully navigate through the multifaceted complexities of chemical representation as arguments are constructed and deconstructed (Pabuccu & Erduran, 2017). Visualize the instructor as a Learning Scaffold, astutely recognizing the students’ natural inclination towards the familiar terrains of macroscopic and symbolic representations. They strategically pose questions and challenges, nudging students towards a deeper exploration of chemical concepts and subtly introducing them to the often less-traversed terrains of submicroscopic and representational dimensions (Moon et al., 2016). See them as a Bridge Builder, creating connections where gaps in argumentation appear, especially in areas needing bolstering with rebuttals and support. Armed with insights from the study, instructors employ varied strategies, perhaps through organized debate sessions or workshops, to enhance student’s ability to construct well-rounded, multifaceted arguments (Irsalina & Dwiningsih, 2018; Kulatunga et al., 2013; Kulatunga & Lewis, 2013). Imagine them as an Adaptive Strategist, where the instructor, recognizing the unique challenges posed by online environments, from technological hurdles to potential miscommunications, nimbly modifies their teaching strategies to maintain the integrity of the learning experience (Castellanos et al., 2021; Graulich & Caspari, 2021; Mulyanti et al., 2023). Lastly, envision them as Co-learners and Feedback Providers. The instructor, while guiding, is also part of the learning journey, engaging with and learning from students’ perspectives and arguments, providing valuable feedback, and contributing to a dynamic, reciprocal learning environment (Broman & Johnels, 2019).

The instructor emerges as a transmitter of knowledge and a vital cog in understanding chemical representations and constructing scientific arguments. They don multiple hats – guide, mentor, strategist, and co-learner – ensuring that online learning, even without the physicality of a traditional classroom, remains an enriching, engaging, and enlightening experience for students. This multifaceted role of the instructor that, especially in the context of online chemistry education, becomes a lighthouse, guiding students toward a deeper understanding and mastery of the art and science of chemical representation and argumentation.