Non‐algorithmic quantitative problem solving in university physical chemistry: a correlation study of the role of selective cognitive factors

This work provides a correlation study of the role of the following cognitive variables on problem solving in elementary physical chemistry: scientific reasoning (level of intellectual development/developmental level), working‐memory capacity, functional mental (M) capacity, and disembedding ability (i.e., degree of perceptual field dependence–independence). Nine individual studies, with seven problems and with various samples of first‐year undergraduate chemistry students at the University of Ioannina, were used. The problems were open‐book, while the students were as a rule not supplied with the necessary data (facts, figures, values of constants, etc.). The results were analysed by calculating Spearman’s ρ and Pearson r correlation coefficients. In addition, the seven individual studies were combined using a quasi meta‐analysis (n = 250). The main findings are: (1) scientific reasoning showed lack of correlation; (2) working‐memory capacity also showed weak correlation, but stronger than scientific reasoning; and (3) functional M‐capacity and disembedding ability played a very important role. The field may thus be of paramount importance in the novel (for the students) non‐algorithmic problems used in this study. Implications of the findings are discussed.

[1]  Correlates of formal operational reasoning: A neo‐piagetian analysis , 1991 .

[2]  Mansoor Niaz,et al.  Manipulation of M Demand of Chemistry Problems and its Effect on Student Performance: A Neo-Piagetian Study. , 1988 .

[3]  Alex H. Johnstone,et al.  Learning Difficulties in School Science‐‐Towards a Working Hypothesis , 1980 .

[4]  M. Muir Physical Chemistry , 1888, Nature.

[5]  Sara Salloum,et al.  Relationships between selective cognitive variables and students' ability to solve chemistry problems , 2004 .

[6]  Mansoor Niaz The Relationship between M-Demand, Algorithms, and Problem Solving: A Neo-Piagetian Analysis. , 1989 .

[7]  Alex H. Johnstone,et al.  Understanding learning difficulties—A predictive research model , 1989 .

[8]  Georgios Tsaparlis,et al.  Higher and lower-order cognitive skills: The case of chemistry , 1997 .

[9]  Uri Zoller,et al.  Are lecture and learning compatible? Maybe for LOCS: Unlikely for HOCS , 1993 .

[10]  Richard C. Atkinson,et al.  Human Memory: A Proposed System and its Control Processes , 1968, Psychology of Learning and Motivation.

[11]  Mansoor Niaz,et al.  Pascual-Leone and Baddeley's Models of Information Processing as Predictors of Academic Performance , 1996 .

[12]  D. Stamovlasis,et al.  Conceptual understanding versus algorithmic problem solving: Further evidence from a national chemistry examination , 2005 .

[13]  William F. Polik,et al.  Factors Influencing Success in Physical Chemistry. , 2004 .

[14]  Susan L. Westbrook,et al.  Examining the development of scientific reasoning in ninth-grade physical science students , 1994 .

[15]  R. Cabeza,et al.  Imaging Cognition II: An Empirical Review of 275 PET and fMRI Studies , 2000, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

[16]  H. A. Witkin A Manual for the embedded figures tests , 1971 .

[17]  Julien Genyea Improving students' problem solving skills: a methodical approach for a preparatory chemistry course , 1983 .

[18]  J. D. McGaugh Memory--a century of consolidation. , 2000, Science.

[19]  Herman A. Witkin,et al.  Cognitive styles in personal and cultural adaptation , 1977 .

[20]  Anton E. Lawson,et al.  Balancing chemical equations: The role of developmental level and mental capacity , 1985 .

[21]  Leonard S. Kogut Critical Thinking in General Chemistry , 1996 .

[22]  C. Bryce Room for scientific thought , 1991 .

[23]  Alex H. Johnstone,et al.  New stars for the teacher to steer by , 1984 .

[24]  C. Marmar Conitive Styles: Essence and Origins , 1982 .

[25]  Georgios Tsaparlis,et al.  Molecular‐equilibrium problems: Manipulation of logical structure and of M‐demand, and their effect on student performance , 1998 .

[26]  Hamdy El-Banna The development of a predictive theory of science education based upon information processing theory , 1987 .

[27]  Dorothy L. Gabel,et al.  Problem‐solving skills of high school chemistry students , 1984 .

[28]  Mansoor Niaz,et al.  Relationship between student performance on conceptual and computational problems of chemical equilibrium , 1995 .

[29]  Mansoor Niaz,et al.  Progressive Transitions from Algorithmic to Conceptual Understanding in Student Ability To Solve Chemistry Problems: A Lakatosian Interpretation. , 1995 .

[30]  Dimitrios Stamovlasis,et al.  A Complexity Theory Model in Science Education Problem Solving: Random Walks for Working Memory and Mental Capacity , 2003, Nonlinear dynamics, psychology, and life sciences.

[31]  Mansoor Niaz,et al.  Dimensional Analysis: a Neo-Piagetian evaluation of M-demand of chemistry problems , 1989 .

[32]  Mary B. Nakhleh,et al.  Are Our Students Conceptual Thinkers or Algorithmic Problem Solvers? Identifying Conceptual Students in General Chemistry , 1993 .

[33]  Mansoor Niaz,et al.  Reasoning strategies of students in solving chemistry problems as a function of developmental level, functional M‐capacity and disembedding ability , 1996 .

[34]  A. Pilot,et al.  Solving Quantitative Problems: Guidelines for Teaching Derived from Research. , 1988 .

[35]  H. A. Witkin Psychological differentiation and forms of pathology. , 1965, Journal of abnormal psychology.

[36]  Mustafa Sözbilir What Makes Physical Chemistry Difficult? Perceptions of Turkish Chemistry Undergraduates and Lecturers , 2004 .

[37]  Achievement in Science as a Function of the Mobility—Fixity Dimension , 1994 .

[38]  Juan Pascual-Leone,et al.  A mathematical model for the transition rule in Piaget's developmental stages , 1970 .

[39]  Achievement in Chemistry Problem-Solving as a Function of the Mobility-Fixity Dimension , 2002, Perceptual and motor skills.

[40]  Gayle Nicoll,et al.  An Investigation of the Factors Influencing Student Performance in Physical Chemistry , 2001 .

[41]  Mansoor Niaz Pascual‐Leone's Theory of Constructive Operators as an Explanatory Construct in Cognitive Development and Science Achievement , 1994 .

[42]  Dimitrios Stamovlasis,et al.  Application of Complexity Theory to an Information Processing Model in Science Education , 2001 .

[43]  D. Stamovlasis,et al.  Nonlinear Analysis of the Effect of Working Memory Capacity on Student Performance in Problem Solving , 2003 .

[44]  Juan Pascual-Leone,et al.  The encoding and decoding of symbols by children: A new experimental paradigm and a neo-Piagetian model , 1969 .

[45]  Georgios Tsaparlis,et al.  A Model of Problem Solving: Its Operation, Validity, and Usefulness in the Case of Organic-Synthesis Problems. , 2000 .

[46]  D. Stamovlasis,et al.  NON-LINEAR ANALYSIS OF THE EFFECT OF WORKING-MEMORY CAPACITY ON ORGANIC-SYNTHESIS PROBLEM SOLVING , 2000 .

[47]  Robert H. Logie,et al.  Working Memory, Mental Capacity and Science Education: towards an understanding of the ‘working memory overload hypothesis’ , 1993 .

[48]  Georgios Tsaparlis,et al.  Dimensional analysis and predictive models in problem solving , 1998 .

[49]  Mansoor Niaz,et al.  Relation between M space of students and M demand of different items of general chemistry and its interpretation based upon the neo-Piagetian theory of Pascual Leone , 1987 .

[50]  Frederick Reif,et al.  Teaching problem solving‐A scientific approach , 1981 .

[51]  Mansoor Niaz The information‐processing demand of chemistry problems and its relation to Pascual‐Leone's functional M‐capacity , 1988 .

[52]  H. Eysenck Cognitive styles: Essence and origins: Herman A. Witkin and Donald R. Goodenough International Universities Press, New York (1981). 141 pp. , 1982 .

[53]  Anton E. Lawson,et al.  The development and validation of a classroom test of formal reasoning , 1978 .

[54]  Paul Ammon,et al.  Piagetian Theory and Neo-Piagetian Analysis as Psychological Guides in Education , 1978 .

[55]  Mansoor Niaz,et al.  Manipulation of logical structure of chemistry problems and its effect on student performance , 1992 .

[56]  J. Pascual-Leone ORGANISMIC PROCESSES FOR NEO‐PIAGETIAN THEORIES: A DIALECTICAL CAUSAL ACCOUNT OF COGNITIVE DEVELOPMENT , 1987 .

[57]  D. A. Kenny,et al.  Correlation and causality , 1979 .

[58]  G. Freytag [CORRELATION AND CAUSALITY]. , 1964, Psychiatrie, Neurologie, und medizinische Psychologie.

[59]  H. A. Witkin Psychological differentiation; studies of development , 1974 .

[60]  Albert Pilot,et al.  Teaching and Learning Problem Solving in Science. Part I: A General Strategy. , 1980 .

[61]  Ron Good,et al.  Problem solving and chemical equilibrium: Successful versus unsuccessful performance , 1989 .

[62]  Norman Reid,et al.  Open-ended problem solving in school chemistry: A preliminary investigation , 2002 .

[63]  A. Baddeley Human Memory: Theory and Practice, Revised Edition , 1990 .

[64]  Mansoor Niaz Relation between Pascual‐Leone's structural and functional M‐space and its effect on problem solving in chemistry , 1989 .

[65]  M. J. Frazer,et al.  Nyholm Lecture. Solving chemical problems , 1982 .

[66]  C. Tinajero,et al.  Field dependence‐independence and academic achievement: a re‐examination of their relationship , 1997 .

[67]  Edward E. Smith,et al.  Working Memory: A View from Neuroimaging , 1997, Cognitive Psychology.

[68]  Robert K. Crocker Determinants of implementation of an elementary science program , 1984 .

[69]  D. Stamovlasis,et al.  Conceptual Understanding Versus Algorithmic Problem Solving , 2004 .