Multidimensional analysis system for quantitative chemistry problems: Symbol, macro, micro, and process aspects

Journal of Research in Science Teaching

Volumn 40, Issue 3, 2003, Pages 278-302

  Dori, Yehudit J ^a,b   Hameiri, Mira ^a  

^a TECHNION ISRAEL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY   (Israel)

^b MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0037345197     PISSN: 00224308     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/tea.10077     Document Type: Article

References (62)

1. Ahtee, M. & Varjola, I. (1998). Students' understanding of chemical reaction. International Journal of Science Education, 20, 305–316.
2. Baker, D. (1998). Equity issues in science education. In Fraser, B.J. & Tobin, K.J. (Eds.), International handbook of science education (pp. 869–895). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic.
3. Beall, H. & Prescott, S. (1994). Concepts and calculations in chemistry teaching and learning. Journal of Chemical Education, 71, 111–112.
4. Ben‐Zvi, N. & Gai, R. (1994). Macro‐ and micro‐chemical comprehension of real‐world phenomena. Journal of Chemical Education, 71, 730–732.
5. Ben‐Zvi, R., Eylon B., & Silberstein, Y. (1987). Students visualization of a chemical reaction. Education in Chemistry, 24, 117–120.
6. Ben‐Zvi, R. & Silberstein, Y. (1987). Chemistry—a challenge [in Hebrew]. Rehovot, Israel: Weizmann Institute of Science.
7. de Jong, O. & Acampo, J. (1993). Creating conditions of learning chemistry: Teachers' actions and reflections. In Voorbach, J.T. (Ed.), Research and development in teachers' education in the Netherlands (pp. 121–129). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Swets & Zeitlinger.
8. Dierks, W., Weninger, J., & Herron, J.D. (1985a). Mathematics in the chemistry classroom. Part 1. The special nature of quantity equations. Journal of Chemical Education, 62, 839–841.
9. Dierks, W., Weninger, J., & Herron, J.D. (1985b). Mathematics in the chemistry classroom. Part 2. Elementary entities play their part. Journal of Chemical Education, 62, 1021–1023.
10. Dori, Y.J. & Hameiri M. (1996). “The Mole Environment”: Development and implementation of a studyware. Journal of Chemical Information and Computer Science, 36, 625–628.
11. Dori, Y.J. & Hameiri, M. (1998). The “Mole Environment” studyware: Applying multidimensional analysis to quantitative chemistry problems. International Journal of Science Education, 20, 317–333.
12. Dori, Y.J. & Herscovitz, O. (1999). Question posing capability as an alternative evaluation method: Analysis of an environmental case study. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36, 411–430.
13. Eylon, B.H. & Linn, M.C. (1988). Learning and instruction: An examination of four research perspectives in science education. Review of Educational Research, 58, 251–301.
14. Gabel, D.L. (1993). Use of particle nature of matter in developing conceptual understanding. Journal of Chemical Education, 70, 193–194.
15. Gabel, D.L. (1998). The complexity of chemistry and implications for teaching. In Fraser, B.J. & Tobin, K.J. (Eds.), International handbook of science education (pp. 233–248). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic.
16. Gabel, D.L., Briner, D., & Haines, D. (1992). Modeling with magnets: A unified approach to chemistry problem solving. The Science Teacher, 59, 58–63.
17. Gabel, D.L. & Bunce, D.M. (1994). Research on problem solving: Chemistry. In Gabel, D.L. (Eds.), Handbook of research on science teaching and learning (pp. 301–326). New York: Macmillan.
18. Garnett, P.J., Garnett, P.J., & Hackling, M.E. (1995). Students' alternative conceptions in chemistry: A review of research and implications for teaching and learning. Studies in Science Education, 25, 69–95.
19. Gower, D.M., Daniels, D.J., & Lloyd, G. (1977a). The mole concept. School Science Review, 58, 658–676.
20. Gower, D.M., Daniels, D.J., & Lloyd, G. (1977b). Hierarchies among the concepts which underlie the mole. School Science Review, 59, 255–299.
21. Hobden, P. (1998). The role of routine problem tasks in science teaching. In Fraser, B.J. & Tobin, K.J. (Eds.), International handbook of science education (pp. 219–231). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic.
22. 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, 65–77.
23. Jenkins, E.W. (1997). Gender and science & technology education. Connect, UNESCO Science Technology & Environmental Education Newsletter, 12. (Available: http://www.unesco.org/education/educprog/ste/newsletter/eng_n1/gender.html).
24. Johnstone, A.H. (1991). Why is science difficult to learn? Things are seldom what they seem. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 7, 75–83.
25. Koch, H. (1995). Simplifying stoichiometry. The Science Teacher, 62, 36–39.
26. Kolb, D. (1978). The mole. Journal of Chemical Education, 55, 728–732.
27. Lythcott, J. (1990). Problem solving and requisite knowledge of chemistry. Journal of Chemical Education, 67, 248–252.
28. Maatman, R.W. (1995). Simplifying mathematical concepts in chemistry courses. Journal of Chemical Education, 72, 1089.
29. Maskill, R., Cachapuz, F.C., & Koulaidis, V. (1997). Young pupils' ideas about the microscopic nature of matter in three different European countries. International Journal of Science Education, 19, 631–645.
30. Meloan, C.E., Meloan M.L., & Meloan, M.J. (1994). Applications and analogies, candy sprinkles to illustrate one part per million. Journal of Chemical Education, 71, 658.
31. Murdoch, J.D. (1995). Real chemistry in the classroom. Education in Chemistry, 32, 98–99.
32. Nakhleh, M.B. (1992). Why some students don't learn chemistry. Journal of Chemical Education, 69, 191–196.
33. Nakhleh, M.B. (1993). Are our students conceptual thinkers or algorithmic problem solvers? Journal of Chemical Education, 70, 52–55.
34. Nakhleh, M.B. & Mitchell, R.C. (1993). Concept learning versus problem solving. Journal of Chemical Education, 70, 190–192.
35. Niaz, M. (1988). Manipulation of M‐demand of chemistry problems and its effect on student performance: A neo‐Piagetian study. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 25, 643–657.
36. Niaz, M. (1995). Cognitive conflict as a teaching strategy in solving chemistry problems: A dialectic‐constructivist perspective. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 32, 959–970.
37. Niaz, M. & Lawson, A.E. (1985). Balancing chemical equations: The role of developmental level and mental capacity. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 22, 41–51.
38. Noh, T.L. & Scharmann, L.C. (1997). Instructional influence of a molecular‐level pictorial presentation of matter on students' conceptions and problem‐solving ability. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 34, 199–217.
39. Nurrenberg, S.C. & Pickering, M. (1987). Concept learning versus problem solving: Is there a difference? Journal of Chemical Education, 64, 508–510.
40. Orna, M.G., Schreck, J.O., & Heikkinen, H. (1994). ChemSource: Instructional Resources for Pre‐service and In‐service Chemistry Teachers. New Rochelle, NY: ChemSource, Inc.
41. Phelps, A.J. (1996). Teaching to enhance problem solving: It's more than numbers. Journal of Chemical Education, 73, 301–304.
42. Savoy, L.G. (1988). Balancing chemical equations. School Science Review, 69, 713–720.
43. Schmidt, H.J. (1997a). Students' misconceptions: Looking for a pattern. Science Education, 81, 123–135.
44. Schmidt, H.J. (1997b). An alternate path to stoichiometric problem solving. Research in Science Education, 27, 237–249.
45. Schmidt, H.J. & Beine, M. (1992). Setting multiple‐choice tests. Education in Chemistry, 1, 19–21.
46. Sevenait, J.P. & Burkett, A.R. (1988). Difficulty and discrimination of multiple‐choice questions: A counter‐intuitive result. Journal of Chemical Education, 65, 441–442.
47. Silberman, R.G. (1981). Problems with chemistry problems: Student perception and suggestions. Journal of Chemical Education, 58, 1036.
48. Staver, J.R. & Jacks, T. (1988). The influence of cognitive reasoning level, cognitive restructuring ability, disembedding ability, working memory capacity, and prior knowledge on students' performance on balancing equations by inspection. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 25, 763–775.
49. Staver, J.R. & Lumpe, A.T. (1993). A content analysis of the presentation of the mole concept in chemistry textbooks. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 30, 321–337.
50. Staver, J.R. & Lumpe, A.T. (1995). Two investigations of students' understanding of the mole concept and its use in problem solving. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 32, 177–193.
51. Stromdahl, H., Tullberg, A., & Lybeck, L. (1994). The qualitatively different conceptions of 1 mole. International Journal of Science Education, 16, 17–26.
52. Thompson, J.S. (1988). A simple rhyme for a simple formula. Journal of Chemical Education, 65, 704–705.
53. Toloudis, M. (1996). The size of a mole. Journal of Chemical Education, 73, 348.
54. Treagust, D., Duit, R., & Nieswandt, M. (2000). Sources of students' difficulties in learning chemistry. Educaion Quimica, 11, 228–235.
55. Tsaparlis, G. (1998). Dimensional analysis and predictive models in problem solving. International Journal of Science Education, 20, 335–350.
56. Tsaparlis, G. & Angelopoulos, V. (2000). A model of problem solving: Its operation, validity, and usefulness in the case of organic‐synthesis problems. Science Education, 84, 131–153.
57. Tullberg, A., Stromdahl, H., & Lybeck, L. (1994). Students' conceptions of 1 mole and educators' conceptions of how they teach “the mole.” International Journal of Science Education, 16, 145–156.
58. Voska, K.W. & Heikkinen, H.W. (2000). Identification and analysis of student conceptions used to solve chemical equilibrium problems. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37, 160–176.
59. Wandersee, H., Mintzes, J.J., & Novak, J.D. (1994). Research on alternative conceptions in science. In Gabel, D.L. (Ed.), Handbook of research on science teaching and learning (pp. 179–198). New York: Macmillan.
60. Yager, R.E. & Tamir, P. (1993). STS approach: Reasons, intentions, accomplishments, and outcomes. Science Education, 77, 637–658.
61. Yalcinalp, S., Geban, O., & Ozkan, I. (1995). Effectiveness of using computer assisted supplementary instruction for teaching the mole concept. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 32, 1083–1095.
62. Yarroch, W.L. (1985). Student understanding of chemical equation balancing. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 22, 449–459.