A Closer Look at the Relationships between College Students’ Cognitive Abilities and Problem Solving in Stoichiometry

Ozcan Gulacar; Tina L. Overton; Charles R. Bowman

doi:10.51724/ijpce.v5i2.80

Authors

Ozcan Gulacar The University of California, Davis https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7709-0524
Tina L. Overton University of Hull https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5141-6194
Charles R. Bowman Drexel University https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2226-8668

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.51724/ijpce.v5i2.80

Keywords:

Cognitive Variables, General Chemistry, Problem Solving, Stoichiometry

Abstract

Several cognitive abilities were investigated in order to determine whether they correlated with undergraduates’ ability to solve stoichiometry problems. The problems were analyzed and broken down into constituent sub-problems in stoichiometry. Students were given a series of tests to measure their cognitive abilities in working memory capacity, formal reasoning, cognitive development, and conceptual understanding of the particulate nature of matter and the mole concept. A mixed qualitative and quantitative approach was used to analyze students’ difficulties with stoichiometry problems. The investigation of the cognitive variables indicated that only formal reasoning ability and understanding of the mole concept were good predictors of students’ success in stoichiometry. Although understanding of the particulate nature of matter did not correlate with success in solving general stoichiometry problems, it was significantly correlated with writing and balancing chemical equations.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

👁 Abstract Views: 1,218📥 PDF Downloads: 682

References

Ajzen, I. (2002). Perceived Behavioral Control, Self-Efficacy, Locus of Control, and the Theory of Planned Behavior. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 32(4), 665-683. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2002.tb00236.x

Akatugba, A.A., & Wallace, J. (1999). Sociocultural Influences on Physics Students' Use of Proportional Reasoning in a Non-Western Country. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36(3), 305-320. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-2736(199903)36:3<305::AID-TEA5>3.0.CO;2-1

Arasasingham, R.D., Taagepera, M., Potter, F. & Lonjers, S. (2004). Using knowledge space theory to assess student understanding of stoichiometry. Journal of Chemical Education, 81(10), 1517-1523. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1021/ed081p1517

Astudillo, L. & Niaz, M. (1996). Reasoning strategies used by students to solve stoichiometry problems and its relationship to alternative conceptions, prior knowledge, and cognitive variables. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 5(2), 131-140. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01575153

Atwater, M.M. & Alick, B. (1990). Cognitive Development and Problem Solving of Afro-American Students in Chemistry. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 27(2), 157-172. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660270207

Ault, A. (2001). How to Say How Much: Amounts and Stoichiometry. Journal of Chemical Education, 78(10), 1347. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1021/ed078p1347

Baddeley, A.D. (1986). Working memory. Oxford [Oxfordshire]; New York: Clarendon Press ; Oxford University Press.

Baddeley, A.D. (2002). Is Working Memory Still Working? European Psychologist, 7(2), 85-97. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1027//1016-9040.7.2.85

Bauer, C.F. (2005). Beyond "Student Attitudes": Chemistry Self-Concept Inventory for Assessment of the Affective Component of Student Learning. Journal of Chemical Education, 82(12), 1864-1870. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1021/ed082p1864

Bauer, C.F. (2008). Attitude toward Chemistry: A Semantic Differential Instrument for Assessing Curriculum Impacts. Journal of Chemical Education, 85(10), 1440. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1021/ed085p1440

Bédard, J. & Chi, M.T.H. (1992). Expertise. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 1(4), 135-139. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8721.ep10769799

Bird, L. (2010). Logical Reasoning Ability and Student Performance in General Chemistry. Journal of Chemical Education, 87(5), 541-546. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1021/ed8001754

BouJaoude, S., & Barakat, H. (2003). Students' problem solving strategies in stoichiometry and their relationships to conceptual understanding and learning approaches. Electronic Journal of Science Education, 7(3), 1-42.

BouJaoude, S., Salloum, S. & Abd-El-Khalick, F. (2004). Relationships between Selective Cognitive Variables and Students' Ability to Solve Chemistry Problems. Research Report. International Journal of Science Education, 26(1), 63-84. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/0950069032000070315

Bowman, C.R. (2012). Relationship Between Study Habits and Student Attitudes Towards Science and Technology. (Ph.D.), Drexel University. Retrieved from http://hdl.handle.net/1860/3836

Bunce, D.M. & Gabel, D. (2002). Differential Effects on the Achievement of Males and Females of Teaching the Particulate Nature of Chemistry. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(10), 911-927. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.10056

Cantu, L.L. & Herron, J.D. (1978). Concrete and formal Piagetian stages and science concept attainment. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 15(2), 135-143. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660150208

Chandran, S., Treagust, D.F., & Tobin, K.G. (1987). The role of cognitive factors in chemistry achievement. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 24, 145-160. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660240207

Chi, M.T.H., Glaser, R. & Rees, E. (1981). Expertise in problem solving. Pittsburgh, PA: Learning Research and Development Center, University of Pittsburgh.

Childs, P.E. & Sheehan, M. (2009). What's difficult about chemistry? An Irish perspective. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 10(3), 204-218. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1039/b914499b

Cui, L., Zollman, D.A. & Rebello, N.S. (2005). Investigating introductory college students’ knowledge of the particular nature of matter. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Dallas, TX.

Dori, Y.J. & Hameiri, M. (2003). Multidimensional Analysis System for Quantitative Chemistry Problems: Symbol, Macro, Micro, and Process Aspects. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40(3), 278-302. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.10077

Duncan, I.M. & Johnstone, A.H. (1973). The mole concept. Education in Chemistry (London, United Kingdom), 10(6), 213-214.

Eberlein, T., Kampmeier, J., Minderhout, V., Moog, R.S., Platt, T., Varma-Nelson, P. & White, H.B. (2008). Pedagogies of engagement in science: A comparison of PBL, POGIL, and PLTL. Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Education, 36(4), 262-273. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/bmb.20204

Felder, R.M. (1990). Stoichiometry without tears. Chemical Engineering Education, 24(4), 188-196.

Furio, C., Azcona, R. & Guisasola, J. (2002). The learning and teaching of the concepts 'amount of substance' and 'mole': A review of the literature. Chemistry Education: Research and Practice in Europe, 3(3), 277-292. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1039/B2RP90023H

Furió, C., Azcona, R., Guisasola, J. & Ratcliffe, M. (2000). Difficulties in teaching the concepts of 'amount of substance' and 'mole'. International Journal of Science Education, 22(12), 1285-1304. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/095006900750036262

Gabel, D.L. & Bunce, D.M. (1994). Research on problem solving: Chemistry. In D.L. Gabel (Ed.), Handbook of research on science teaching and learning (pp. 26). New York: Macmillan.

Gabel, D.L. & Sherwood, R.D. (1979). The ACS-NSTA chemistry achievement exam - Beyond test results. Journal of Chemical Education, 56(12), 813. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1021/ed056p813

Gabel, D.L., Sherwood, R.D. & Enochs, L. (1984). Problem-solving skills of high school chemistry students. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 21(2), 221-233. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660210212

Gauchon, L. & Meheut, M. (2007). Learning about stoichiometry: from students' preconceptions to the concept of limiting reactant. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 8(4), 362-375. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1039/B7RP90012K

Gerace, W. (2001). Problem solving and conceptual understanding. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 2001 Physics Education Research Conference PERC Publishing, Rochester, NY. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1119/perc.2001.inv.005

Gower, D.M. (1977). Hierarchies Among the Concepts Which Underlie the Mole. School Science Review, 59(207), 285-299.

Griffiths, A.K., Kass, H. & Cornish, A. G. (1983). Validation of a learning hierarchy for the mole concept. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 20(7), 639-654. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660200705

Gulacar, O. & Fynewever, H. (2010). A Research Methodology for Studying What Makes Some Problems Difficult to Solve. International Journal of Science Education, 32(16), 2167-2184. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690903358335

Harrison, A. & Treagust, D.E. (2002). The particulate nature of matter: Challenges in understanding the submicroscopic world. In J.K. Gilbert (Ed.), Chemical Education: Towards Research-Based Practice. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Herron, J.D. (1978). Piaget in the classroom. Guidelines for applications. Journal of Chemical Education, 55(3), 165. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1021/ed055p165

Howe, A.C. & Durr, B. (1982). Using concrete materials and peer interaction to enhance learning in chemistry. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 19(3), 225-232. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660190305

Huddle, P.A. & Pillay, A.E. (1996). An In-Depth Study of Misconceptions in Stoichiometry and Chemical Equilibrium at a South African University. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33(1), 65-77. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-2736(199601)33:1<65::AID-TEA4>3.3.CO;2-U

Huitt, W. & Hummel, J. (2003). Piaget's theory of cognitive development. Educational Psychology Interactive. http://www.edpsycinteractive.org/topics/cognition/piaget.html

Inhelder, B. & Piaget, J. (1964). The early growth of logic in the child: Classification and seriation. New York, NY: W. W. Norton & Company Inc.

Johnstone, A.H. (1984). New stars for the teacher to steer by? Journal of Chemical Education, 61(10), 847-849. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1021/ed061p847

Johnstone, A.H., & El-Banna, H. (1986). Capacities, demands and processes– a predictive model for science education. Education in Chemistry (London, United Kingdom), 23(5), 80-84.

Johnstone, A.H. & El-Banna, H. (1989). Understanding learning difficulties - A predictive research model. Studies in Higher Education, 14(2), 159-168. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/03075078912331377486

Johnstone, A.H. & Kellett, N.C. (1980). Learning Difficulties in School Science Towards a Working Hypothesis. European Journal of Science Education, 2(2), 175-181. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/0140528800020208

Kintsch, W. (1970). Learning, memory, and conceptual processes: New York, Wiley.

Kolb, D. (1978). The chemical formula. Part I: Development. Journal of Chemical Education, 55(1), 44. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1021/ed055p44

Krishnan, S.R. & Howe, A.C. (1994). The Mole Concept: Developing an Instrument To Assess Conceptual Understanding. Journal of Chemical Education, 71(8), 653-655. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1021/ed071p653

Kwon, Y.J., Lawson, A.E., Chung, W.H. & Kim, Y.S. (2000). Effect on Development of Proportional Reasoning Skill of Physical Experience and Cognitive Abilities Associated with Prefrontal Lobe Activity. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(10), 1171-1182. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/1098-2736(200012)37:10<1171::AID-TEA8>3.3.CO;2-1

Larson, J.O. (1997). Constructing Understanding of the Mole Concept: Inteactions of Chemistry Text, Teacher and Learner. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Oak Brook, IL.

Lawson, A.E., Renner, J.W. & Karplus, R. (1975). Relationships of science subject matter and developmental levels of learners. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 12, 347-358. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660120405

Lesh, R., Post, T. & Behr, M. (1988). Proportional reasoning. In J. Hiebert & M. Behr (Eds.), Number concepts and operations in the middle grades (pp. 93-118). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, Lawrence Earlbaum

Lewis, E.L. & Linn, M.C. (1994). Heat energy and temperature concepts of adolescents, adults, and experts: Implications for curricular improvements. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31, 657-677. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660310607

Lyle, K.S. & Robinson, W.R. (2001). Teaching Science Problem Solving: An Overview of Experimental Work. Journal of Chemical Education, 78(9), 1162. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1021/ed078p1162

McKinnon, J.W. & Renner, J.W. (1971). Are colleges concerned about intellectual development? American Journal of Physics, 39(9), 1047-1052. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1119/1.1986367

Miller, G.A. (1956). The magical number seven, plus or minus two : some limits on our capacity for processing information. Indiana: Bobbs-Merrill. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/h0043158

Moog, R.S. & Spencer, J.N. (2008). Process oriented guided inquiry learning (POGIL), Washington, D.C. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1021/bk-2008-0994

Nakhleh, M.B. & Mitchell, R.C. (1993). Concept learning versus problem solving: There is a difference. Journal of Chemical Education, 70(3), 190-192. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1021/ed070p190

Niaz, M. & Robinson, W.R. (1992). Manipulation of logical structure of chemistry problems and its effect on student performance. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29(3), 211-226. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660290303

Nurrenbern, S.C. & Pickering, M. (1987). Concept Learning versus Problem Solving: Is There a Difference? Journal of Chemical Education, 64(6), 508-510. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1021/ed064p508

Opdenacker, C., Fierens, H., Van Brabant, H., Sevenants, J., Spruyt, J., Slootmaekers, P.J. & Johnstone, A.H. (1990). Academic performance in solving chemistry problems related to student working memory capacity. International Journal of Science Education, 12(2), 177-185. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/0950069900120206

Overton, T.L. & Potter, N.M. (2008). Solving open-ended problems, and the influence of cognitive factors on student success. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 9(1), 65-69. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1039/B801307C

Overton, T.L. & Potter, N.M. (2011). Investigating students' success in solving and attitudes towards context-rich open-ended problems in chemistry. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 12(3), 294-302. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1039/C1RP90036F

Pandey, N.N., Bhattacharya, S.B. & Rai, V.K. (1993). Longeot test of cognitive development in Indian context. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 19(4), 425-430. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0191-491X(10)80007-0

Phelps, A.J. (1996). Teaching to Enhance Problem Solving: It's More Than the Numbers. Journal of Chemical Education, 73(4), 301-304. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1021/ed073p301

Piaget, J. (1950). The psychology of intelligence London, NY: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

Ross, M.R. & Fulton, R.B. (1994). Active Learning Strategies in the Analytical Chemistry Classroom. Journal of Chemical Education, 71(2), 141-143. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1021/ed071p141

Sanchez, K. & Betkouski, M. (1986). A study of factors affecting student performance in community college general chemistry course. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, San Francisco, CA.

Schmidt, H.J. (1997). An Alternate Path To Stoichiometric Problem Solving. Research in Science Education, 27(2), 237-249. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02461319

Sheehan, D.J. (1970). The effectiveness of concrete and formal instructional procedures with concrete and formal-operational students. (Ph.D. Doctoral dissertation), State University of New York at Albany, Albany. Retrieved from http://worldcat.org /z-wcorg/ database.

Shiffrin, R.M. & Nosofsky, R.M. (1994). Seven plus or minus two: A commentary on capacity limitations. Psychological Review, 101(2), 357-361. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037//0033-295X.101.2.357

Stamovlasis, D. & Tsaparlis, G. (2000). Non-linear analysis of the effect of working memory capacity on organic-synthesis problem solving. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 1(3), 375-380. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1039/B0RP90017F

Stieff, M. & Wilensky, U. (2002). ChemLogo: An Emergent Modeling Environment for Teaching and Learning Chemistry. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the International Conference of the Learning Sciences, Seattle, WA.

Tingle, J.B. & Good, R. (1990). Effects of Cooperative Grouping on Stoichiometric Problem Solving in High School Chemistry. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 27(7), 671-683. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660270707

Tobin, K.G. & Capie, W. (1981). The Development and Validation of a Group Test of Logical Thinking. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 41(2), 413-423. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/001316448104100220

Trifone, J.D. (1987). The Test of Logical Thinking: Applications for Teaching and Placing Science Students. The American Biology Teacher, 49(8), 411-416. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/4448601

Tuncer, Y. (2003). Turkish pupils' understanding of phase changes. Science Education International, 14(3), 14-20.

Valanides, N. (2000). Primary student teachers understanding of the particulate nature of matter and its transformations during dissolving. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 1(2), 249-262. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1039/A9RP90026H

Vygotsky, L.S. (1978). Mind in society (M. Cole, V. John-Steiner, S. Scribner & E. Souberman Eds.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Ward, C. R., Nurrenbern, S. C., Lucas, C., & Herron, J. D. (1981). Evaluation of the longeot test of cognitive development. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 18(2), 123-130. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660180204

Williamson, V., Huffman, J. & Peck, L. (2004). Testing Students' Use of the Particulate Theory. Journal of Chemical Education, 81(6), 891. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1021/ed081p891

Wolfer, A.J. & Lederman, N.G. (2000). Introductory College Chemistry Students' Understanding of Stoichiometry: Connections between Conceptual and Computational Understandings and Instruction. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, New Orleans, LA.

Yalçinalp, S., Geban, Ö. & Özkan, I. (1995). Effectiveness of Using Computer-Assisted Supplementary Instruction for Teaching the Mole Concept. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 32(10), 1083-1095. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660321007