Students' dilemmas in reaction stoichiometry problem solving: Deducing the limiting reagent in chemical reactions

Chemistry Education Research and Practice

Volumn 10, Issue 1, 2009, Pages 14-23

  Chandrasegaran, A L ^a   Treagust, David F ^a   Waldrip, Bruce G ^b   Chandrasegaran, Antonia ^c  

^a CURTIN UNIVERSITY   (Australia)

^b UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN QUEENSLAND   (Australia)

^c NANYANG TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY   (Singapore)

Author keywords

Limiting reagent; Reasoning strategies; Retrospective verbalisations; Stoichiometry problem solving; Think aloud protocols

Indexed keywords

EID: 59149101047     PISSN: None     EISSN: 11094028     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1039/b901456j     Document Type: Article

References (50)

1. Ben-Zvi R., Eylon B. and Silberstein J., (1987), Students' visualisations of a chemical reaction, Educ. Chem., 24, 117-120.
2. Bodner G. M. and Herron J. D., (2002), Problem-solving in chemistry, in Gilbert J. K., De Jong O., Justi R., Treagust D. F. and Van Driel J. H., eds., Chemical education: towards research-based practice, Dordrecht, Kluwer, pp. 235-266.
3. Bou Jaoude S. and Barakat H., (2000), Secondary school students' difficulties with stoichiometry, Sch. Sci Rev., 81, (296), 91-98.
4. Bowen C. W., (1994), Think-aloud method in chemistry education, J. Chem. Educ., 71, 184-190.
5. Bucat B. and Fensham P., (1995), Selected papers in chemical education research: Implications for the teaching of chemistry, Delhi, The Committee on Teaching of Chemistry (CTC) of the International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry (IUPAC).
6. Burton G., Holman J., Pilling G. and Waddington D., (1994), Salters Advanced Chemistry chemical storylines, Oxford, Heinemann.
7. Cracoline M. S., Deming J. C. and Ehlert B., (2008), Concept learning versus problem solving: a cognitive difference, J. Chem. Educ., 85, 873-878.
8. Dahsan C. and Coll R. K., (2007), Thai Grade 10 and 11 students' understanding of stoichiometry and related concepts, Int. J. Sci. Math. Educ., DOI: 10.1007/s10763-007-9072-0. Retrieved 7 July 2008 from: http://www.springerlink.com/content/35281870u068w20k/
9. De Astudillo L. R. and Niaz M., (1996), Reasoning strategies used by students to solve stoichiometric problems and its relationship to alternative conceptions, prior knowledge and cognitive variables, J. Sci. Educ. Technol., 5, 131-40.
10. De Jong O., (1997), Protocol analysis as a fruitful tool for a problem posing teacher education, Eur. J. Teach. Educ., 20, 191-201.
11. De Jong O. and Schmidt H-J., (1999), Empirical research into chemical education: The motivation, research domains, methods and infrastructure of a maturing science discipline, Univ. Chem. Educ., 3, 28-30.
12. De Jong O., Veal W. R. and Van Driel J. H., (2002), Exploring chemistry teachers' knowledge base, in Gilbert J. K., De Jong O., Justi R., Treagust D. F. and Van Driel J. H., eds., Chemical education: towards research-based practice, Dordrecht, Kluwer, pp. 369-390.
13. Dierks W., Weninger J. and Herron D. J., (1985), Mathematics in the chemistry classroom. Part 1. The special nature of quantity equations, J. Chem. Educ., 62, 839-841.
14. Dorin H., (1987), Chemistry - the study of matter, Newton, MA, Allyn and Bacon.
15. Duncan I. M. and Johnstone A. H., (1973), The mole concept, Educ. Chem., 10, 213-214.
16. Ericsson K. A. and Simon H. A., (1980), Verbal reports on data, Psychol. Rev., 87, 215-251.
17. Ericsson K. A. and Simon H. A., (1993), Protocol analysis: verbal reports as data, Cambridge, MA, MIT Press.
18. Fach M., de Boer T. and Parchmann I., (2007), Results of an interview study as basis for the development of stepped supporting tools for stoichiometric problems, Chem. Educ. Res. Pract., 8, 13-31.
19. Flower L. S. and Hayes J. R., (1980), The dynamics of composing: making plans and juggling constraints, in Gregg L. W. and Steinberg E. R., eds., Cognitive processes in writing, NJ, Erlbaum.
20. 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, Chem. Educ. Res. Pract., 3, 277-292.
21. Furio C., Azcona R., Guisasola J. and Ratcliffe M., (2000), Difficulties in teaching the concepts of 'amount of substance' and 'mole', Int. J. Sci. Educ., 22, 1285-1304.
22. Gabel D. L. and Sherwood R. D., (1984), Analysing difficulties with mole-concept tasks by using familiar analogue tasks, J. Res. Sci. Teach., 21, 843-841.
23. Gabel D. L., Sherwood R. D. and Enochs L., (1984), Problem-solving skills of high school chemistry students, J. Res. Sci. Teach., 21, 221-223.
24. Gauchon L. and Méheut M., (2007), Learning about stoichiometry: from students' preconceptions to the concept of limiting reactant, Chem. Educ. Res. Pract., 8, 362-375.
25. Hayes J. R. and Flower L. S., (1980), Identifying the organisation of writing processes, in Gregg L. W. and Steinberg E. R., eds., Cognitive processes in writing, NJ, Erlbaum.
26. Koch H., (1995), Simplifying stoichiometry: students react with confidence to a new approach to quantitative chemistry problems, Sci. Teach., 62 (8), 36-39.
27. Kvale S., (1996), Inter Views: an introduction to qualitative research interviewing, Thousand Oaks, CA, Sage Publications.
28. Lybeck L., Marton F., Strömdahl H. and Tullberg A., (1988), The phenomenography of the "mole concept" in chemistry, in Ramsden P., ed., Improving learning: new perspectives, London, Kogan Page, pp. 81-108.
29. Lythcott J. J., (1990), Problem solving and requisite knowledge in chemistry, J. Chem. Educ., 67, 248-252.
30. Mason D. and Crawley F. E., (1994, March), Differences between algorithmic and conceptual problem solving by nonscience majors in introductory chemistry, Paper presented at the 67th. Annual Meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Anaheim, CA.
31. Merriam S. B., (1998), Qualitative research and case study applications in education, 2nd. ed., San Francisco, CA, Jossey-Bass.
32. Mitchell I. and Gunstone R., (1984), Some student conceptions brought to the study of stoichiometry, Res. Sci. Educ., 14, 78-88.
33. Mulford D. R. and Robinson W. R., (2002), An inventory of alternate conceptions among first semester general chemistry students, J. Chem. Educ., 79, 739-744.
34. Nakhleh M. B., (1993), Are our students conceptual thinkers or algorithmic problem solvers? Identifying conceptual students in general chemistry, J. Chem. Educ., 70, 52-55.
35. Niaz M., (1995), Cognitive conflict as a teaching strategy in solving chemistry problems. A dialectic-constructivist perspective, J. Res. Sci. Teach., 32, 959-70.
36. Nickerson R. S., (1985), Understanding understanding, Am. J. Educ., 93, 201-239.
37. Novick S. and Menis J., (1976), A study of student perceptions of the mole concept, J. Chem. Educ., 53, 720-722.
38. Nurrenbern S. C., (1979), Problem solving behaviours of concrete and formal operational high school chemistry students when solving chemistry problems requiring Piagetian formal reasoning skills, Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Purdue University, Layfayette, IN.
39. Olmsted J. A. III, (1999), Amounts tables as a diagnostic tool for flawed stoichiometric reasoning, J. Chem. Educ., 76, 52-54.
40. Sanger M. J., (2005), Evaluating students' conceptual understanding of balanced chemical equations and stoichiometric ratios using a particulate drawing, J. Chem. Educ., 82, 131-134).
41. Schmidt H-J., (1984), How pupils think: empirical studies on pupils' understanding of simple quantitative relationships in chemistry, Sch. Sci. Rev., 66, (234), 156-162.
42. Schmidt H-J., (1994), Stoichiometric problem solving in high school chemistry, Int. J. Sci. Educ., 16, 191-200.
43. Schmidt H-J., (1997), An alternative path to stoichiometric problem solving, Res. Sci. Educ., 27, 237-249.
44. Schmidt H-J. and Jignéus C., (2003), Students' strategies in solving algorithmic stoichiometric problems, Chem. Educ. Res. Pract., 4, 305-317.
45. Smoot R. C., Price J. and Smith R. G., (1987), Chemistry: a modern course, Columbus, OH, Merril.
46. Staver J. R. and Lumpe A. T., (1995), Two investigations of students' understanding of the mole concept and its use in problem solving, J. Res. Sci. Teach., 32, 177-193.
47. Strömdahl H., Tullberg A. and Lybeck L., (1994), The qualitatively different conceptions of 1 mol, Int. J. Sci. Educ., 16, 17-26.
48. Van Den Haak M., De Jong M. and Schellens P. J., (2003), Retrospective vs. concurrent think-aloud protocols: testing the usability of an online catalogue, Behav. Inform. Technol., 22, 339-351.
49. Van Weijen D., Van Den Bergh H., Rijlaarsdam G. and Sanders T., (2008, June), Comparing the relationship between cognitive activities and text quality in L1 and L2 writing. Paper presented at the 11th International SIG on Writing Conference of the European Association for Research on Learning and Instruction in Lund, Sweden.
50. Yarroch W. L., (1985), Student understanding of chemical equation balancing, J. Res. Sci. Teach., 22, 449-459.