Journal Menu
Submit Manuscript via ScholarOne

Eurasian Journal of Physics and Chemistry Education
Volume 1, Issue 1 (April 2009), pp. 8-20

DOI: 10.12973/ejpce.2009.00002a

Downloaded 1415 times.

Research Article

Published online on Jun 28, 2016

How to reference this article?

 

Relationship between Students’ Knowledge Structure and Problem-Solving Strategy in Stoichiometric Problems based on the Chemical Equation

Zoltán TÓTH, Annamária SEBESTYÉN

Abstract

Relationship between students’ knowledge structure and problem-solving strategy was studied using a written test containing one complex stoichiometric problem based on the chemical equation and four simple problems similar to the steps of two known strategies (mole method and proportionality method) for solving the complex problem. Based on the strategy used in solving the complex problem students (N = 1072, grades 7-10) were divided into three groups: (1) mole method group; (2) proportionality method group; and (3) others (unidentified strategy or no strategy). The knowledge structure characteristic of each group was determined by using knowledge space theory. There was no significant difference between the success (ca. 70%) of the student groups applying any strategy (groups 1 and 2), but the achievement of the students not using any strategy (group 3) was significantly lower (ca. 20%). We found significant difference between the characteristic knowledge structure of the three groups. The knowledge structure of the group 3 is very similar to the experts’ knowledge structure. However, the knowledge structure of the student groups using any strategy shows that students typically used these problem-solving strategies as algorithms instead of the conceptual understanding. For example in the characteristic knowledge structure of group 1 the knowledge necessary to solve the complex problem is built on both the proportionality and the molar mass, while in case of the student group 2 it is built on only one simple knowledge, the proportionality.

Key Words: Chemistry, Knowledge Structure, Problem Solving, Stoichiometry 


References
  1. Albert, D. & Held, T. (1994). Establishing knowledge spaces by systematic problem construction. In: Knowledge Structures (E.: Albert, D.) p. 79. http://www.unigraz.at/publicdocs/publications/albert1994.pdf (Accessed Feb 2009).
  2. Arasasingham, R., Taagepera, M., Potter, F. & Lonjers, S. (2004). Using knowledge space theory to assess student understanding of stoichiometry. Journal of Chemical Education, 81, 1517-1523.
  3. Arasasingham, R., Taagepera, M., Potter, F., Martorell, I. & Lonjers, S. (2005). Assessing the effect of web-based learning tools on student understanding of stoichiometry using knowledge space theory. Journal of Chemical Education, 82, 1251-1262.
  4. Bennett, S.W. (2008). Problem solving: can anybody do it? Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 9, 60-64.
  5. Bodner, G.M. & Domin, D.S. (2000). Mental models: The role of representations in problem solving in chemistry. University Chemistry Education, 4, 24-30.
  6. Bodner, G.M. (2003). Problem solving: the difference between what we do and what we tell students to do. University Chemistry Education, 7, 37-45.
  7. Cardellini, L. (2006). Fostering creative problem solving in chemistry through group work. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 7, 131-140. 
  8. Cooper, M.M., Cox, C.T. Jr., Nammouz, M. & Case, E. (2008). An assessment of the effect of collaborative groups on students’ problem-solving strategies and abilities. Journal of Chemical Education, 85, 866-872. 
  9. Cracolice, M.S., Deming, J.C. & Ehlert, B. (2008). Concept learning versus problem solving: A cognitive difference. Journal of Chemical Education, 85, 873-878. 
  10. Doignon, J.-P. & Falmagne, J.-C. (1999). Knowledge Spaces. Springer-Verlag: London.
  11. Johnstone, A.H. & Otis, K.H. (2006). Concept mapping in problem based learning: a cautionary tale. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 7, 84-95. 
  12. Johnstone, A.H. (2001). Can problem solving be taught? University Chemistry Education, 5, 69-73.
  13. Lee, K.W. (1985). Cognitive variables in problem solving in chemistry. Research in Science Education, 15, 43-50.
  14. Lee, K.W.L., & Fensham, P.J. (1996). A general strategy for solving high school electrochemistry problems. International Journal of Science Education, 18, 543-555.
  15. Lee, K.W.L., Goh, N.K., Chia, L.S. & Chin, C. (1996). Cognitive variables in problem solving in chemistry: A revisited study. Science Education, 80, 691-710.
  16. Lee, K-W.L., Tang, W-U., Goh, N-K. & Chia, L-S. (2001). The predicting role of cognitive variables in problem solving in mole concept. Chemistry Education: Research and Practice in Europe, 2, 285-301. 
  17. Nakhleh, M.B. & Mitchell, R.C. (1993). Concept learning versus problem solving: There is a difference. Journal of Chemical Education, 70, 190-192. 
  18. Nakhleh, M.B. (1993). Are our students conceptual thinkers or algorithmic problem solvers? Journal of Chemical Education, 70, 52-55.
  19. Nurrenbern, S.C. & Pickering, M. (1987). Concept learning versus problem solving: is there a difference? Journal of Chemical Education, 64, 508-510.
  20. Potter, F (no date). Simplified version of KST Analysis. http://chem.ps.uci.edu/~mtaagepe/KSTBasic.html (accessed Feb 2009).
  21. Schmidt, H-J. & Jignéus, C. (2003). Students’ strategies in solving algorithmic stoichiometry problems. Chemistry Education: Research and Practice, 4, 305-317.
  22. Schmidt, H-J. (1990). Secondary school students’ strategies in stoichiometry. International Journal of Science Education, 12, 457-471.
  23. Schmidt, H-J. (1994). Stoichiometric problem solving in high school chemistry. International Journal of Science Education, 16, 191-200.
  24. Schmidt, H-J. (1997). An alternate path to stoichiometric problem solving. Research in Science Education, 27, 237-249.
  25. Taagepera, M. & Noori, S. (2000). Mapping students’ thinking patterns in learning organic chemistry by the use of knowledge space theory. Journal of Chemical Education, 77, 1224-1229.
  26. Taagepera, M., Arasasingham, R., Potter, F., Soroudi, A. & Lam, G. (2002). Following the development of the bonding concept using knowledge space theory. Journal of Chemical Education, 79, 756-762. 
  27. Taagepera, M., Potter, F., Miller, G.E. & Lakshminarayan, K. (1997). Mapping students’ thinking patterns by the use of Knowledge Space Theory. International Journal of Science Education, 19, 283-302.
  28. Tóth, Z. & Kiss, E. (2005). Hungarian secondary school students’ strategies in solving stoichiometric problems. Journal of Science Education, 6, 47-49.
  29. Tóth, Z. & Kiss, E. (2006). Using particulate drawings to study 13-17 year olds’ understanding of physical and chemical composition of matter as well as the state of matter. Practice and Theory in Systems of Education, 1, 109-125.
  30. Tóth, Z. & Kiss, E. (2009). Modelling students’ thinking patterns in describing chemical change at macroscopic and sub-microscopic levels. Journal of Science Education, 10, 24-26.
  31. Tóth, Z. & Ludányi, L. (2007a). Combination of phenomenography with knowledge space theory to study students’ thinking patterns in describing an atom. Chemistry Education: Research and Practice, 8, 327-336.
  32. Tóth, Z. & Ludányi, L. (2007b). Using phenomenography combined with knowledge space theory to study students’ thinking patterns in describing an ion. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 6, 27-33.
  33. Tóth, Z. (1999). Chemical calculations – the industrialists’ way. Education in Chemistry, 36, 38.
  34. Tóth, Z. (2004). Students’ strategies and errors in balancing chemical equations. Journal of Science Education, 5, 33-37.
  35. Tóth, Z. (2007). Mapping students’ knowledge structure in understanding density, mass percent, molar mass, molar volume and their application in calculations by the use of the knowledge space theory. Chemistry Education: Research and Practice, 8, 376-389.
  36. Tóth, Z., Dobó-Tarai, É., Revák-Markóczi, I., Schneider, I.K. & Oberländer, F. (2007). 1st graders prior knowledge about water: knowledge space theory applied to interview data. Journal of Science Education, 8, 116-119.
  37. Tóth, Z., Revák-Markóczi, I., Schneider, I.K., Oberländer, F. & Dobó-Tarai, É. (2008). Effect of instruction on 1st graders’ thinking patterns regarding the description of water with every day and scientific concepts. Practice and Theory in Systems of Education, 3, 45- 54.
  38. Vaarik, A., Taagepera, M., & Tamm, L (2008). Following the logic of student thinking patterns about atomic structures. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 7, 27-36.
  39. Wood, C. (2006). The development of creative problem solving in chemistry. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 7, 96-113.