Results of an interview study as basis for the development of stepped supporting tools for stoichiometric problems

Chemistry Education Research and Practice

Volumn 8, Issue 1, 2007, Pages 13-31

  Fach, Martin ^a   De Boer, Tanja ^a   Parchmann, Ilka ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF OLDENBURG   (Germany)

Author keywords

Misconceptions; Problem solving; Problem centered interviews; Stepped supporting tools; Stoichiometry

Indexed keywords

EID: 33846652941     PISSN: None     EISSN: 11094028     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1039/B6RP90017H     Document Type: Review

References (29)

1. Barker V., (2000), Beyond appearances: students' misconceptions about basic chemical ideas: a report prepared for the Royal Society of Chemistry, Education Division, Royal Society of Chemistry London.
2. BouJaoude S. and Barakat H., (2000), Secondary school students' difficulties with stoichiometry, School Science Review, 81, No. 296, 91-98.
3. BouJaoude S. and Barakat H., (2003), Students' problem solving strategies in stoichiometry and their relationships to conceptual understanding and learning approaches, Electronic Journal of Science Education, 1, No.3, online journal, http://unr.edu/homepage/jcannon/ejse/ejse.html.
4. Bybee R.W., (1997), Achieving scientific literacy: from purposes to practices, Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann Publishing.
5. Duit R., Häußler P. and Prenzel M., (2001), Schulleistungen im Bereich der naturwissenschaftlichen Bildung [School performances in the field of science education], In Weinert, F.E. (ed.), Leistungsmessungen in Schule [Assessment in school], Weinheim, Basel: Beltz Verlag.
6. Duit R., Gropengießer H. and Kattmann U., (2005), Towards science education research that is relevant for improving practice: the model of educational reconstruction, In Fischer, H.E. (ed.), Developing standards in research on science education, London: Taylor and Francis.
7. Entwistle N. and Ramsden P., (1983), Understanding student learning, New York: Nichols Publishing Company.
8. Fiebig S. and Melle I., (2001), "Problemthemen" des Chemieunterrichts in der Sekundarstufe I -gegenwärtige Situation und fachdidaktische Konsequenzen ["Problematic issues" in secondary school chemistry lessons - present situation and educational consequences], CHEMKon, 8, No. 4, 199-202.
9. ForschergruppeKassel, (2004), Aufgaben mit gestuften Lernhilfen [Stepped supporting tools for problems in school science], Lernchancen, 7, No. 41, 38-39.
10. ForschergruppeKassel, (2006), Archimedes und die Sache mit der Badewanne - Gestufte Hilfen im naturwissenschaftlichen Unterricht [Archimedes and the question about the bathtub - stepped supporting tools in science education], Friedrich Jahresheft - Diagnostizieren und Fördern, No. XXIV, 84-88.
11. Frazer M.J. and Servant D., (1986), Aspects of stoichiometry titration calculations, Education in Chemistry, 23, 54-56.
12. Frazer M.J. and Servant D., (1987), Aspects of stoichiometry - where do students go wrong? Education in Chemistry, 24, 73-75.
13. Furió C., Azcona R. and 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, 3, 277-292.
14. Gabel D.L. and Bunce D.M., (1994), Research on problem solving: chemistry, In Gabel, D.L. (ed.), Handbook of research on science teaching and learning, New York: Mac Millan.
15. Griffiths A.K., (1994), A critical analysis and synthesis of research on students' chemistry misconceptions, In Schmidt, H.-J. (ed.), Problem solving and misconceptions in chemistry and physics, Hong Kong: ICASE.
16. Huddle P.A. and 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.
17. Kaminski B., Jansen W. and Flint A., (1994), Chemische Formeln im Anfangsunterricht [Chemical formulae in freshmen chemistry courses], CHEMKon, 1, No. 4, 183-188.
18. Lijnse P.L., (1995), 'Developmental research' as a way to empirically based 'didactical structure' of science, Science Education, 79, 189-199.
19. Mitchell I.J. and Gunstone R.F., (1984), Some student conceptions brought to the study of stoichiometry, Research in Science Education, 14, 78-88.
20. Packer J.E., (1980), Letters to the editor - titrimetric calculations, Education in Chemistry, 17, 154.
21. Parchmann I., Gräsel C., Baer A., Nentwig P., Demuth R., Ralle, B. and the ChiK Project Group (2006), 'Chemie im Kontext': A symbiotic implementation of a context-based teaching and learning approach, International Journal of Science Education, 28, 1041-1062.
22. Ralle B., (2001), Eine veränderte Aufgabenkultur als Herausforderung [A different culture of using tasks as a challenge], Der Mathematisch-Naturwissenschaftliche Unterricht (MNU), 54, 387.
23. Rossa E., (1998), Das Mol im Bild [The mole in a picture], Chemie in der Schule, 45, 8-13.
24. Schmidt H.-J., (1990), Secondary school students' strategies in stoichiometry, International Journal of Science Education, 12, 457-471.
25. Schmidt, H.-J. (1994). Stoichiometric problem solving in high school chemistry, International Journal of Science Education, 16, 191-200
26. Schmidt H.-J. and Jignéus C., (2003), Students' strategies in solving algorithmic stoichiometry problems, Chemistry Education: Research and Practice, 4, 305-317.
27. Tóth Z. and Kiss E., (2005), Hungarian secondary school students' strategies in solving stoichiometric problems, Journal of Science Education - Revista de educación en ciencias, 6, 47-49.
28. Williams D.G., (1980), Letters to the Editor - titrimetric calculations, Education in Chemistry, 17, 182.
29. Witzel A., (2000), The problem-centered interview, Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 1, No. 1, online-journal, http://qualitative-research.net/ fqs.