Research in Science Education

, Volume 41, Issue 4, pp 587–609 | Cite as

Conceptual Versus Algorithmic Problem-solving: Focusing on Problems Dealing with Conservation of Matter in Chemistry

  • Katerina Salta
  • Chryssa Tzougraki


The students’ performance in various types of problems dealing with the conservation of matter during chemical reactions has been investigated at different levels of schooling. The participants were 499 ninth grade (ages 14, 15 years) and 624 eleventh grade (ages 16, 17 years) Greek students. Data was collected using a written questionnaire concerning basic chemical concepts. Results of statistical factor and correlation analysis confirmed the classification of the problems used in three types: “algorithmic-type”, “particulate-type”, and “conceptual-type”. All the students had a far better performance in “particulate-type” problems than in the others. Although students’ ability in solving “algorithmic-type” problem increases as their school experience in chemistry progresses, their ability in solving “conceptual-type” problems decreases. Students’ achievement in chemistry was measured by a Chemical Concepts Test (CCT) containing 57 questions of various forms. High-achievement students scored higher both on “algorithmic-type” and “particulate-type” problems than low achievers with the greatest difference observed in solving “algorithmic-type” problems. It is concluded that competence in “particulate-type” and “algorithmic-type” problem solving may be independent of competence in solving “conceptual-type” ones. Furthermore, it was found that students’ misconceptions concerning chemical reactions and equivalence between mass and energy are impediments to their problem solving abilities. Finally, based on the findings, few suggestions concerning teaching practices are discussed.


Algorithmic problems Chemical reaction Chemistry Conceptual problems Conservation of matter Misconceptions 



This work was partial supported by fund from “Special Account for Research Grants” of the National and Kapodistrian University of Athens.


  1. Agung, S., & Schwartz, M. S. (2007). Students’ understanding of conservation of matter, stoichiometry, and balancing equations in Indonesia. International Journal of Science Education, 29, 1679–1702.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Andersson, B. (1986). Pupils’ explanations of some aspects of chemical reactions. Science Education, 70, 549–563.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bilgin, I. (2006). The effects of pair problem solving technique incorporating Polya’s problem solving strategy on undergraduate students’ performance in chemistry. Journal of Science Education, 7, 101–106.Google Scholar
  4. Bodner, M. G., & Herron, 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. 235–265). Kluwer Academic Publishers: Netherlands.Google Scholar
  5. BouJaoude, S., Salloum, S., & Abd-El-Khalick, F. (2004). Relationship between cognitive variables and students’ ability to solve chemistry problems. International Journal of Science Education, 26, 63–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bowen, W. C., & Bunce, M. D. (1997). Testing for conceptual understanding in General Chemistry. The Chemical Educator, 2, 1–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bunce, D. M., & Gabel, D. L. (2002). Differential effects on the achievement of males and females of teaching the particulate nature of chemistry. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39, 911–927.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cracolice, M. S., Deming, J. C., & Ehlert, B. (2008). Concept learning versus problem solving: a cognitive difference. Journal of Chemical Education, 85, 873–878.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. DeMeo, S. (2001). Making assumptions explicit: how the law of conservation of matter can explain empirical formula problems. Journal of Chemical Education, 78, 1050–1052.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Duffy, D. Q., Shaw, S. A., Bare, W. D., & Goldsby, K. A. (1995). More chemistry in a soda bottle: a conservation of mass activity. Journal of Chemical Education, 72, 734–736.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Duschl, R. A., Schweingruber, H. A., & Shouse, A. W. (Eds.). (2007). Taking science to school: learning and teaching science in grades K-8. Washington: National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  12. Field, A. (2000). Discovering statistics using SPSS for Windows. London: SAGE Publications.Google Scholar
  13. Gabel, D. L. (1999). Improving teaching and learning through education research: a look to the future. Journal of Chemical Education, 76, 548–554.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Glachino, G. G. (1987). Control of variables and the conservation of matter. Journal of Chemical Education, 64, 353.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Gomez, M.-A., Pozo, J.-I., & Sanz, A. (1995). Students’ ideas on conservation of matter: effects of expertise and context variables. Science Education, 79, 77–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Haidar, A. H. (1997). Prospective chemistry teachers’ conceptions of the conservation of matter and related concepts. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 34, 181–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Haláková, Z., & Proksa, M. (2007). Two kinds of conceptual problems in chemistry teaching. Journal of Chemical Education, 84, 172–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hesse, J. J., & Anderson, C. W. (1992). Students' conceptions of chemical change. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29, 277–299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Lythcott, J. (1990). Problem solving and requisite knowledge of chemistry. Journal of Chemical Education, 67, 248–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Martin, D., Russel, R. D., & Thomas, N. (1992). Demonstrating the conservation of matter: a trilogy of experiments. Journal of Chemical Education, 69, 925–926.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Mason, D. S., Shell, D. F., & Crawley, F. E. (1997). Differences in problem solving nonscience majors in introductory chemistry on paired algorithmic-conceptual problems. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 34, 905–923.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Ministry of National Education and Religious Affairs (2008). The Educational System. Retrieved June 8, 2010, from
  23. Nakhleh, M. B. (1993). Are our student’s conceptual thinkers or algorithmic problem solvers? Journal of Chemical Education, 70, 52–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Nakhleh, M. B., & Mitchell, R. C. (1993). Concept learning versus problem solving: there is a difference. Journal of Chemical Education, 70, 190–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Niaz, M. (1988). The information processing demand of chemistry problems and its relation to Pascual-Leone’s functional M-capacity. International Journal of Science Education, 10, 231–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Niaz, M. (1995). Progressive transitions from algorithmic to conceptual understanding in student ability to solve chemistry problems: a Lakatosian interpretation. Science Education, 79, 19–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Noh, T., & Scharmannn, 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Nurrenbern, S., & Pickering, M. (1987). Concept learning versus problem solving. Is there a difference? Journal of Chemical Education, 64, 508–510.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Ozmen, H., & Ayas, A. (2003). Students’ difficulties in understanding of conservation of matter in open and closed-system chemical reactions. Chemistry Education: Research and Practice, 4, 279–290.Google Scholar
  30. Pauling, L. (1970). General chemistry. New York: Dover Publications, Inc.Google Scholar
  31. Piaget, J., & Inhelder, B. (1974). The child’s construction of quantities. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
  32. Pickering, M. (1990). Further studies on concept learning versus problem solving. Journal of Chemical Education, 67, 254–255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Robinson, W. R., & Nurrenbern, S. C. (2009a). Conceptual Questions (CQs). Retrieved June 10, 2010, from
  34. Robinson, W. R., & Nurrenbern, S. C. (2009b). Conceptual Questions (CQs). Retrieved June 10 2010, from
  35. Salta, K. (2007). An investigation of Students’ Knowledge, Cognitive Skills, and Attitudes Acquired from the Chemistry Courses in Secondary Education. Dissertation, University of Athens.Google Scholar
  36. Sanger, M. J. (2000). Using particulate drawings to determine and improve students’ conceptions of pure substances and mixtures. Journal of Chemical Education, 77, 762–766.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Sanger, M., & Phelps, A. J. (2007). What are students thinking when they pick their answer? A content analysis of students’ explanations of gas properties. Journal of Chemical Education, 84, 870–874.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Sawrey, B. A. (1990). Concept learning versus problem solving: revisited. Journal of Chemical Education, 67, 253–254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Smith, J. K., & Metz, A. P. (1996). Evaluating student understanding of solution chemistry through microscopic representations. Journal of Chemical Education, 73, 233–235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Treptow, R. S. (1986a). Conservation of mass: fact or fiction? Journal of Chemical Education, 63, 103–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Treptow, R. S. (1986b). Conservation of mass: it’s proper place. Journal of Chemical Education, 63, 1052.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Tuckman, B. W. (1999). Conducting educational research (5th ed.). Orlando: Harcourt Brace College Publishers.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Laboratory of Organic Chemistry; Department of ChemistryNational and Kapodistrian University of AthensAthensGreece

Personalised recommendations