Advertisement

THAI GRADE 10 AND 11 STUDENTS’ UNDERSTANDING OF STOICHIOMETRY AND RELATED CONCEPTS

  • Chanyah Dahsah
  • Richard Kevin Coll
Article

Abstract

The research reported in this case study explores the understanding of stoichiometry and related concepts of Thai science students in grades 10 and 11 after major national curriculum reforms. Students’ conceptions and alternative conceptions were investigated using a questionnaire - the Stoichiometry Concept Questionnaire (SCQ) (N = 97), which consists of 16 multiple-choice items, the choices for which respondents are required to provide reasons. The findings suggest that less than half of the students surveyed hold what is considered by a panel of experts to be a scientifically acceptable understanding for the conceptions investigated. The main student alternative conceptions are that one mole of all substances has a volume of 22.4 L at STP, that a solution that contains a greater mass of solute has the higher molar concentration, and that the limiting reagent is the reagent for which the lowest mass of reactant is present. Examination of students’ reasons suggests that they resort to the use of algorithms with little understanding of the underlying concepts. It thus seems the national educational reforms have not resulted in a sound understanding of some science concepts. It is recommended that curriculum developers should specify a need for conceptual understanding along with capability in numerical problem-solving in their learning objectives, and link this to assessment regimes that reward conceptual understanding. A need for on-going professional development seems essential if the intentions of the Thai curriculum reforms are to be realized.

Key words

alternative conceptions curriculum reform stoichiometry students’ conceptions Thailand 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Bodner G.M. & Heron, J.D. (2002). Problem-solving in chemistry. In J.K. Gilbert, O. De Jong, R. Justi, D.F. Treagust & J.H. Van Driel (Eds.), Chemical education: Towards research-based practice (pp. 235–266). Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  2. Bennett, J. & Holman, J. (2002). Context-based approaches to the teaching of chemistry: What are they and what are their effects? In J.K. Gilbert, O. De Jong, R. Justi, D.F. Treagust & J.H. Van Driel (Eds.), Chemical education: Towards research-based practice (pp. 165–184). Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  3. Boonklurb, N. (2004). Thailand. Retrieved 14 September, 2004 from: http://www.ibe.unesco.org/curriculum/China/Pdf/IIthailand.pdf.
  4. BouJaoude, S. & Barakat, H. (2000). Secondary school students’ difficulties with stoichiometry”. School Science Review, 81, 91–98.Google Scholar
  5. Cain, L. (1986). S’Mores: A demonstration of stoichiometry relationships. Journal of Chemical Education, 63, 1048–1049.Google Scholar
  6. Camacho, M. & Good, R. (1989). Problem solving and chemical equilibrium successful versus unsuccessful performance. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 26, 251–272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cervellati, R., Montuschi, A., Perugini, D., Grimellini-Tomasina, N. & Balandi, B.P. (1982). Investigation of secondary school students’ understanding of the mole concept in Italy. Journal of Chemical Education, 59, 852–856.Google Scholar
  8. Chuepangam, M. (2000). Analysis of misconception in chemistry of mathayom suksa 5 students. Retrieved 14 January, 2003 from: http://www.grad.cmu.ac.th/abstract/2000/edu/abstract/edu/11001.html.
  9. Cobern, W.W. & Aikenhead, G.S. (1998). Cultural aspects of learning science. In B.J. Fraser & K.G. Tobin (Eds.), International handbook of science education (pp. 39–52). Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  10. Coll, R.K. & Treagust, D.F. (2003). Learners’ mental models of metallic bonding: A cross-age study. Science Education, 87, 685–707.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Coll, R.K., Lay, M.C. & Zegwaard, K.E. (2002). Enhancing access to experiential learning in a science and technology degree programme. Journal of Vocational Education and Training, 54, 197–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Dominic, S. (1996). What’s a mole for? Journal of Chemical Education, 73, 309–310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Duit, R. (1995). The constructivist view: A fashionable and fruitful paradigm for science education research and practice. In L.P. Steffe & J. Gale (Eds.), Constructivism in education (pp. 271–285). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  14. Duncan, I.M. & Johnstone, A.H. (1973). The mole concept. Education in Chemistry, 10, 213–214.Google Scholar
  15. Gabel, D (1998). The complexity of chemistry and implications for teaching. In B.J. Fraser & K.G. Tobin (Eds.), International handbook of science education (pp. 233–248). Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  16. Erickson, G.L. (1979). Children’s conceptions of heat and temperature. Science Education, 63, 221–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Erickson, G.L. (1980). Children’s viewpoints of heat: A second look. Science Education, 64, 323–336.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 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, 277–292.Google Scholar
  19. Gabel, D.L. & Sherwood, R.D. (1984). Analyzing difficulties with mole-concept tasks by using familiar analog tasks. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 21, 843–851.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Guba, E.G. & Lincoln, Y.S. (1989). Fourth generation evaluation. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  21. Guba, E.G. & Lincoln, Y.S. (1994). Competing paradigms in qualitative research. In N.K. Denzin & Y.S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 105–117). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  22. Haidar, A.H. (1997). Prospective chemistry teachers’ conception of the conservation of matter and related concepts. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 34, 181–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Harrison, A.G. & Treagust, D.F. (2002). Models and modeling in chemical education. In J.K. Gilbert, O De Jong, R. Justi, D.F. Treagust & J.H. Van Driel (Eds.) Chemical education: Towards research-based practice (pp. 47–68). Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  24. Harrison, A.G. & Coll, R.K. (2007, in press). Analogies for science teachers. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.Google Scholar
  25. Huddel, 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Institution for Promoting Science and Technology (2000). Chemistry textbook 2 (S 036) (5th ed.). Bangkok: Curusaphaladphoa.Google Scholar
  27. Institution for Promoting Science and Technology (2001a). Chemistry textbook 2 (S 031) (10th ed.). Bangkok: Curusaphaladphoa.Google Scholar
  28. Institution for Promoting Science and Technology (2001b). Chemistry textbook 3 (S 032) (11th ed.). Bangkok: Curusaphaladphoa.Google Scholar
  29. Institution for Promoting Science and Technology (2003a). The manual of content of science learning. Bangkok: Curusaphaladphoa.Google Scholar
  30. Institution for Promoting Science and Technology (2003b). Chemistry textbook 2 (2nd edn). Bangkok: Curusaphaladphoa.Google Scholar
  31. International Bureau of Education (2004). Development of education in Thailand. Retrieved December 10, 2004. from: http://www.ibe.unesco.org/International/ICE/natrap/Thailand.pdf.
  32. Johnstone, A.H. (1982). Macro- and micro-chemistry. School Science Review, 64, 377–379.Google Scholar
  33. Johnstone, A.H. (1983). Chemical education research: Facts, findings, and consequences. Journal of Chemical Education, 60, 968–971.Google Scholar
  34. Johnstone, A.H. (1991). Why is science difficult to learn? Things are seldom what they seem. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 7, 75–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Johnstone, A.H. (1993). The development of chemistry teaching. Journal of Chemical Education, 70(9), 701–705.Google Scholar
  36. Justi, R. & Gilbert, J.K. (2002). Problem-solving in chemistry. In J.K. Gilbert, O. De Jong, R. Justi, D.F. Treagust & J.H. Van Driel (Eds.), Chemical education: Towards research-based practice (pp. 235–266). Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  37. Khlainin, S. (2002). Thai science education comparison with international study: Research report. Bangkok: Institution for Promoting Science and Technology.Google Scholar
  38. Kolb, D. (1978). The mole. Journal of Chemical Education, 55, 728–732.Google Scholar
  39. Krishnan, S.R. & Howe, A.C. (1994). Developing an instrument to assess conceptual understanding. Journal of Chemical Education, 71, 653–655.Google Scholar
  40. Lincoln, Y.S. & Guba, E.G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  41. Mayer, R.H. (1999). Designing instruction for constructivist learning. In C.M. Reigeluth (Ed.), Instructional-design theories and models (vol. 2, pp. 141–159). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  42. Merriam, S.B. (1988). Case study research in education: A qualitative approach. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  43. Moreland, J., Jones, A. & Northover, A. (2001). Enhancing teachers’ technological knowledge and assessment practices to enhance student learning in technology: A two-year classroom study. Research in Science and Technology Education, 31, 155–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Niaz, M. (1995). Progressive transitions from algorithmic to conceptual understanding in student ability to solve chemistry problems: A Lakotasian interpretation. Science Education, 79, 19–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Office of the National Education Commission (ONEC) (1999). National Education Act B.E. 2542 (1999). Bangkok: Office of the National Education Commission (ONEC).Google Scholar
  46. Office of the National Education Commission (ONEC) (2001a). Research report: To develop the policy in science education reform of Thailand. Bangkok: Office of the National Education Commission (ONEC).Google Scholar
  47. Office of the National Education Commission (ONEC) (2001b). Seminar report: Science education reform of Thailand. Bangkok: Office of the National Education Commission (ONEC).Google Scholar
  48. Office of the National Education Commission (ONEC) (2003). Executive summary. Retrieved 16 June, 2003 from: http://www.onec.go.thenglish_ver/chin_po/sum_chpo.htm.
  49. Oppenheim, A.N. (1966). Questionnaire design and attitude measurement. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  50. Programme for International Student Assessment (2006). Retrieved 22 December 2006, from http://www.pisa.oecd.org/pages/0,2987,en_32252351_32235731_1_1_1_1_1,00.html.
  51. Rollnick, M.S. & Rutherford, M. (1990). African primary school teachers: What ideas do they hold on air and air pressure? International Journal of Science Education, 12, 101–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Schmidt, H.J. (1994). Stoichiometry problem solving in high school chemistry. International Journal of Science Education, 16, 191–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Schmidt, H.J. & Jigneus, C. (2003). Students’ strategies in solving algorithmic stoichiometry problems. Chemistry Education: Research and Practice, 4, 305–317.Google Scholar
  54. Springer, L., Stanne, M.E. & Donovan, S.S. (1999). Effects of small-group learning on undergraduates in science, mathematics, engineering, and technology: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 69(1), 21–51.Google Scholar
  55. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Stavy, R. (1991). Using analogy to overcome misconceptions about conservation of matter. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 28, 305–313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Sudman, S. & Bradburn, N.M. (1982). Asking questions. San Francsico: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  58. Taber, K. (2002a). Chemical misconceptions: Prevention, diagnosis and cure. Vol. 1: Theoretical background. London: Royal Society of Chemistry.Google Scholar
  59. Taber, K. (2002b). Chemical misconceptions: Prevention, diagnosis and cure. Vol. 1: Classroom resources. London: Royal Society of Chemistry.Google Scholar
  60. Taylor, N. & Coll, R.K. (1999). Pre-service primary teacher’s self-efficacy in science teaching: The Fiji perspective. Pacific-Asian Education, 11, 31–44.Google Scholar
  61. Taylor, N. & Coll, R. (2001). Employing models and analogies to engender conceptual change in science amongst pre-service primary school teachers in Fiji. Asia-Pacific Journal of Education, 21, 53–66.Google Scholar
  62. Termpittayapaisith, A. (2006). Thailand and its knowledge economy. Retrieved 25 January 2006 from http://www.nrct-tbs.com/index.php?lay=show&ac=article&Id=306963&Ntype=2.
  63. Tinger, J.B. & Good, R. (1990). Effects of cooperative grouping on stoichiometric problem solving in high school chemistry. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 27, 671–683.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Treagust, D.F., Chittleborough, G. & Mamiala, T.L. (2003). 25(11), 1353–1368.Google Scholar
  65. Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS). Retrieved 20 December 2006 from, http://nces.ed.gov/timss/.
  66. Vulliamy, G. (1988). Adopting secondary school science for rural development: Some lessons from Papua New Guinea. Compare, 18, 79–91.Google Scholar
  67. Westbrook, S.L. & Marek, E.A. (1991). A cross-age study of students’ understanding of the concept of diffusion. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 28, 649–660.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© National Science Council, Taiwan 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Centre for Science & Technology Education ResearchUniversity of WaikatoHamiltonNew Zealand

Personalised recommendations