New study on “building block of discipline” could improve chemistry education and understanding

Educators must change the way they teach a foundational concept in chemistry to improve outcomes for students, increase understanding and support innovation, according to an international team of scientists.

Their 2024 research revealed that the inductive effect, a core principle of structural organic chemistry, had been incorrectly described in textbooks for almost 100 years.

Since then, two A-level exam boards have announced reviews of their teaching of this effect, directly citing the research as a motivating factor.

Now, their new paper, published in the Journal of Chemical Education, is shedding further light on this fundamental building block of the discipline.

The authors, led by Cardiff University and the University of Newcastle in Australia, propose a simpler, more consistent way of explaining the inductive effect, which they say could improve chemistry teaching and provide scientists with a clearer foundation for understanding molecular behaviour.

“The inductive effect is a foundational concept in chemical bonding, because it is used to explain how electrons are distributed between atoms in molecules,” explains Dr Mark Elliott, lead author of the study from Cardiff University’s School of Chemistry.

“Everyone who studies chemistry beyond GCSE, or equivalent, learns about it.”

The work affects organic chemistry more than other sub-disciplines, according to the team because it routinely deals with chains of atoms which underpin medicines, advanced materials, agrochemicals, polymers and many technologies people rely on every day.

A conventional model, present in all organic chemistry textbooks, suggests that the effect of certain atoms is transmitted through three to four bonds in a molecule, with the size of the effect diminishing with each successive bond.

“In our latest paper, we find that the inductive effect does not behave in this way,” Dr Elliott says.

“While some data supporting our conclusions is already available within the research literature, it is not widely known. What we have done is pull all the existing data together, supported by our own coherent data set, to show the generality and teaching implications of this approach.

“It is important to teach the basics correctly. So, if we get rid of this incorrect stuff, we can start using the correct explanation for all aspects.”

Dr Elliott initiated a collaboration with researchers in Australia, Dr Edwin Johnson from the University of Newcastle and Dr Kasimir Gregory from the University of New England, after seeing their work on the effects of electronegative elements on acidity, which was also not in line with textbook representations.

“We didn’t initially feel comfortable challenging the established wisdom. Some of the names associated with the inductive effect are ‘legends’ of our discipline. We certainly aren’t smarter than those pioneers, of course. But we have better tools nowadays and so have been able to look at things in a different way – examining molecular structures directly whereas they had to draw indirect conclusions from limited experimental data.”

By re-defining how the inductive effect behaves, the team hopes their work can put other effects into context.

“If a foundational concept is taught inaccurately, misunderstandings can carry into more advanced science and research,” adds Dr Edwin Johnson, Lecturer at the University of Newcastle, Australia, who co-authored the paper.

“By revisiting a long-standing textbook explanation with modern tools, our work aims to improve chemistry education and strengthen the conceptual foundations that support chemical innovation.”

The paper, ‘Rethinking the Nature and Extent of Inductive Effects in Organic Compounds’, is published in the Journal of Chemical Education.