How do the skeletal formula and working memory relief through note-taking affect task completion and cognitive load in organic chemistry at university level?

The successful digitization of characteristic, previously paper-based tasks in sub-disciplines such as organic chemistry requires basic knowledge of subject-specific format differences between paper format and digital format. For typical tasks in organic chemistry, such as molecular drawing tasks and tasks to investigate the chirality of molecules, which require drawings of the molecules, molecule editors are required in digital format, which can be used to draw molecules digitally. Unlike the paper format, these molecule editors do not allow freehand drawings, but are subject to certain restrictions: Firstly, they use skeletal formula to represent the molecules, and secondly, they do not allow markings and notes to be made in the molecule. The necessity to use the skeletal formula in the digital format and the lack of the possibility to add markings and notes to molecules and thus relieve the working memory are therefore subject-specific format differences, the significance of which will be examined in more detail in this inquiry. The significance of both subject-specific format differences (form of representation: skeletal formula, working memory
relief through markings and notes) for learning and performance situations in organic chemistry have not yet been investigated, even in paper format. Accordingly, there is also a lack of knowledge about the working memory load of students due to the insufficient automation of
necessary solution steps during task processing. This inquiry examines the following research questions (RQ) in three studies:

RQ1: To what extent do students who receive skeletal formula handling training solve (digital) molecular drawing tasks better and report lower cognitive load than students who do not receive such training?

RQ2: What is the cognitive load on students' working memory when working on molecular drawing tasks and chirality tasks?

RQ3: How does an increasing cognitive load - without the possibility to take notes - affect reported cognitive load, solution probability and willingness to work on tasks?

RQ4: To what extent do students who take notes solve molecular drawing tasks and chirality tasks better (lower task difficulty and cognitive load) than students who do not take notes?

Two intervention studies (RQ1 and RQ4) are planned, as well as a laboratory study with think aloud (RQ2 and RQ3) with students from introductory courses in organic chemistry. The results of the studies will help to assess the significance of subject-specific format differences for the learning process and the digitization of tasks and, on this basis, to derive implications for the digitization of tasks and the teaching of organic chemistry at university.​

​