Research: Science and Education

edited by
Chemical Education Research Diane M. Bunce
The Catholic University of America
Washington, DC 20064

Amy J. Phelps
Middle Tennessee State University
Two Kinds of Conceptual Problems Murfreesboro, TN 37132

in Chemistry Teaching W
Zuzana Haláková* and Miroslav Prokša
Department of Didactics, Psychology and Pedagogy, Comenius University in Bratislava, Mlynská dolina, 842 15
Bratislava, Slovakia; *[email protected]

Many students today believe that to have an idea of what new situations, enhance their critical thinking, and increase
the concept means is enough. They memorize the definitions their enthusiasm for science and learning. In addition, con-
of some concepts or phenomena in chemistry verbatim. Some ceptual questions extend assessment beyond “What does a
weeks later they are able to learn another definition for the student remember?” and “What can a student do?” to “What
same phenomena in another subject using other words. Why does a student understand?” Conceptual questions also pro-
do they do this? Why do they accept new information sepa- vide one route for diagnosing student misconceptions (3).
rately from the older information? What could we do to help The opinion that the ability to solve a conceptual prob-
students to understand, rather than to memorize, and to be lem indicates understanding of chemical concepts has domi-
able to use what they have learned? nated the literature for some time. Students often solve
In chemistry a great deal of attention has been paid to numerical problems successfully using memorized algorithms,
conceptual questions and to students’ success in solving these although the meaning is hidden from them. This is the rea-
kinds of problems compared to algorithmic questions that son studies have focused on students’ conceptual knowledge
are mathematically defined and that are solved mostly in chemistry instead of the numerical problem-solving meth-
through the use of algorithms. Conceptual questions present ods. Earlier research was focused on the particulate nature of
a chemical situation that students have not been trained in. matter (4), chemical equations (5), gas laws and stoichiom-
They ask the students to justify a choice, to predict what hap- etry (6, 7), and density and empirical formulas (2). These
pens next, to explain why something happens, to explain how studies all found that student conceptual knowledge lags far
something happens, to link two or more areas or topics, to behind their algorithmic problem-solving skills. Many stu-
recognize questions phrased in a novel way, and to extract dents who solve mathematical problems successfully do not
useful data from an excess of information. They require stu- understand the chemical concepts behind memorized algo-
dents to synthesize answers or to evaluate a problem in order rithms. They simply memorize and repeat skills without be-
to select the mathematical tools necessary to arrive at an an- ing able to visualize and comprehend the concepts (8).
swer (1). Conceptual understanding is required for solving
conceptual questions (2). Recent Studies
Conceptual questions can take many forms and types.
In our research we used a “pictorial” form (we tried to ex- There have been many studies aimed at students’ con-
press information pictorially or graphically) and a “verbal” ceptual knowledge in chemistry. Pickering (9) showed that
form (we used the written words without pictures for describ- students at Princeton reached only a 38% success rate on
ing the problem). Robinson and Nurrenbern (1) introduce conceptual problems while the success rate for traditional
six types of conceptual questions: (i) tiered multiple-choice numerical problems was 95%. The author concluded that
questions consisting of a pair of questions that ask students students should be able to solve conceptual problems and
what will happen in the first question and ask them to pro- suggested that these problems should be integrated into in-
vide a reason in the following question, (ii) particulate ques- struction frequently. Nurrenbern and Pickering (6) showed
tions representing chemical situation on the atomic or that students are able to solve traditional problems on gases,
molecular (particulate) level using circles or spheres of dif- but they are not able to solve the same problems assigned
ferent sizes or colors, as necessary, to represent the particles, as a diagram, that is, in pictorial form. Similarly, students
(iii) solving laboratory questions where students use graphs, are successful in solving traditional stoichiometry problems,
tables, and other data to predict or to explain what happens but they have trouble writing the chemical equations given
in an experimental situation, (iv) demonstration questions a diagram of a reaction. This result is consistent with the
asking students to answer questions having observed a dem- findings of Yarroch (5) and Gabel and co-workers (4).
onstration, video, or simulation, (v) analogy questions that Sawrey (7) replicated the Nurrenbern and Pickering study
are based on completing an analogy (A is to B as C is to D), with a larger group of students. She separately studied stu-
and (vi) series completion questions that ask students to se- dent success on conceptual versus numerical problems for
lect an item that best completes a series. the top and bottom of the class to see whether the effect
The use of conceptual questions is one tool that can as- disappears for the higher achievers. A statistically signifi-
sist students in obtaining a deeper learning experience, im- cant difference appeared between success in traditional and
prove their understanding and ability to apply learning to conceptual questions.

172 Journal of Chemical Education • Vol. 84 No. 1 January 2007 • www.JCE.DivCHED.org

 Research: Science and Education

Table 1. Pictorial and Verbal Question Comparisons

water
oxygen Success Rate (%) (N = 61)
Task χ2
hydrogen Pictorial Items Verbal Items
1 26.20 08.20 6.96a
2 49.20 57.40 0.82
3 23.00 24.60 0.04
4 49.20 41.00 0.83

? 5
6
34.40
62.30
68.90
77.10
14.47a
3.14
7 11.50 19.70 1.56
liquid Water evaporated water 8 62.30 29.50 13.20a
9 42.60 36.10 0.55
10 21.30 36.10 3.24

? = 11
12
11.50
32.80
16.40
57.40
0.61
7.45a
A B C D E 13 26.20 23.00 0.18
14 36.10 44.30 0.85
The magnified view of a very small portion of liquid water in Statistical significance at p < 0.05.
a

a closed container without any air would show us the

molecules of water. What would the magnified view show
after the water evaporates?
try course for science and engineering majors (all of whom
a. molecules of oxygen and molecules of hydrogen
have had a high school chemistry course). The average grade
b. some water molecules, atoms of oxygen, and atoms on the test were 45% (10 of 22) in the fall and 50% (11 of
of hydrogen 22) the following spring (3, 16). In connection with these
c. nothing, no particules would be noticed results we are interested in whether or not the results of the
d. atoms of oxygen and atoms of hydrogen conceptual test were influenced by the pictorial form of the
questions. We wanted to know whether the unfamiliar pic-
e. water molecules, but less than in liquid water
torial forms were unnecessarily complicating the questions.
Figure 1. Example of a pictorial question (top) and the correspond-
ing verbal question (bottom). Methodology
We modified Robinson and Nurrenbern’s original test
Pickering (9), Nurrenbern and Pickering (6), and Sawrey (3), into 14 multiple-choice questions. Every question was
(7) obtained similar results regarding student success with made in both forms: pictorial and verbal. An example of one
conceptual questions at a rate of 38%. Nakhleh’s research (2) pictorial and verbal question is given in Figure 1. The con-
showed that 85% of students (N = 1090) were good algo- tent of each pair of questions was the same. Two variations
rithmic problem solvers while only 49% of the students were of the test were created, each containing 7 pictorial and 7
successful in solving conceptual questions from the same area verbal conceptual questions. Each question had one correct
of general chemistry. Researchers from around the world in- answer. Sixty-one students were randomly assigned to two
cluding those in Australia, Israel, and Taiwan have obtained different groups. They solved the test simultaneously within
results to support that students are better at solving algorith- 30 minutes. We were interested in the comparison of the stu-
mic problems than conceptual ones (10–12). dents’ success rate in solving pictorial conceptual questions
We would like to know why the studies show this ten- versus verbal conceptual questions.
dency. Are conceptual questions more difficult to solve? They
reflect students’ understanding, not their ability to follow Data Analysis
memorized algorithms without logical thinking. The concep-
tual question could be formatted in a different way. Recent The results for each individual question of the test are
studies have focused on pictorial forms of conceptual ques- shown in Table 1. We computed χ2 (chi-square) for each com-
tions (4, 6, 8, 13–15), but it is also possible to create the ques- parison and in four cases found the difference to be signifi-
tions in verbal form using only words without pictures to cant at the p < 0.05 level. In the majority of questions (2–4,
describe the problem (2). 6, 7, 9–11, 13, and 14) the choice of the right answer does
not appear to depend on the form of the question. The choice
Our Research of the right answer is connected with a particular form of
the question in 4 cases. Students were more likely to choose
We have been influenced by a multiple-choice test cre- the wrong answer in the verbal form than in the pictorial
ated by Nurrenbern and Robinson (3), which could indicate form on questions 1 and 8, whereas questions 5 and 12
the level of students’ misconceptions in chemistry. The test showed a statistically significant higher frequency of right an-
was administered to over 1400 students in a general chemis- swers for the verbal form.

www.JCE.DivCHED.org • Vol. 84 No. 1 January 2007 • Journal of Chemical Education 173

 Research: Science and Education

Results tion to the text. We chose to test the two extremes of the
question form: in strictly verbal form and strictly pictorial
Our sample consisted of 122 first-year students. These form. We cannot speak to the combination of these two types,
students are inclined to study natural science (chemistry, bi- although it could be a key reason for students’ success. In
ology, geography, etc.) further and would like to teach these our opinion, the low success rate on the test in our research
subjects at secondary schools in the future. The test was given is caused mainly by the difficulties with content and a lack
to students at the beginning of the fall term. of conceptual understanding. The form (verbal or pictorial)
The overall average score on the test was 36.71% with a was not important and did not have a great influence on stu-
verbal item score of 38.52% and a pictorial item score of dent success.
34.89%. The results correspond with the previous research. We realize that students’ experiences and knowledge are
The success rate is low for both the verbal questions and the important in determining whether they consider a question
pictorial questions. These results gave us reason to suppose conceptual or algorithmic. The more opportunities given to
that there is another factor that is more important than the them the better their ability to solve these kinds of chemical
form of the question. It was possible for students to guess problems. We hope to help them imbibe new experience and
the right answer even if they had no idea about the ques- knowledge and enrich their minds. Conceptual questions may
tion. They often did not choose a logical or reasonable an- be one way to do so.
swer but were more likely to pick a familiar but incorrect
answer. Acknowledgment
We examined the data in terms of students’ chemistry
This work was supported by Ministry of Education of
interest. Students who would like to continue their chemis-
Slovak Republic (Grant Vega No.1/0030/03).
try studies achieved 39.39% success overall, 41.13% on ver-
bal questions and 37.66% on pictorial questions. Students W
Supplemental Material
without special chemistry interest achieved 35.71% overall,
in the verbal questions 37.56% and in the pictorial questions The two versions of the conceptual tests are available in
33.87%. There were not any statistically significant differ- this issue of JCE Online.
ences between compared samples.
Based on these results we cannot say anything about what Literature Cited
leads to success in solving these problems but our data show 1. Robinson, W. R.; Nurrenbern, S. C. Conceptual Questions
that question form has little effect on success, which is im- (CQs). http://jchemed.chem.wisc.edu/JCEDLib/QBank/collection/
portant. Perhaps the low performance on these conceptual CQandChP/CQs/WhatAreCQs.html (accessed Aug 2006).
questions, whether they are pictorial or verbal, is associated 2. Nakhleh, M. B. J. Chem. Educ. 1993, 70, 52–55.
with a lack of conceptual understanding on the part of the 3. Robinson, W. R.; Nurrenbern, S. C. Conceptual Questions
students. The students’ conceptual understanding is what the (CQs). http://jchemed.chem.wisc.edu/JCEWWW/Features/
questions were trying to assess and this kind of understand- CQandChP/CQs/CQIntro.html (accessed Aug 2006).
ing is essential for many other science disciplines. The level 4. Gabel, D. L.; Samuel, K. V.; Hunn, D. J. Chem. Educ. 1987,
of understanding of general chemistry concepts is not as high 64, 695–697.
as expected for students who are successful at solving ques- 5. Yarroch, W. L. J. Res. Sci. Teach. 1985, 22, 449–459.
tions that involve algorithms. 6. Nurrenbern, S. C.; Pickering, M. J. Chem. Educ. 1987, 64,
We should think about these alarming test results. Is it 508–510.
the nontraditional form or the understanding of content re- 7. Sawrey, B. A. J. Chem. Educ. 1990, 67, 253–254.
flected in the outcome? If the problem lies in the question 8. Smith, K. J.; Metz, P. A. J. Chem. Educ. 1996, 73, 233–235.
form, we would have expected to find differences between 9. Pickering, M. J. Chem. Educ. 1990, 67, 254–255.
the success in solving the verbal and the pictorial conceptual 10. George, A.; Masters, A.; Prabhakar, C. Manipulating Chemi-
problems. One form should be better than the other one. cals Equations—the Bête Noire of Junior Chemistry Students.
Our data indicate that it is likely that the content and the http://www.itl.usyd.edu.au/itl/Showcase2001/docs/GEOR28.pdf
lack of conceptual understanding are playing an important (accessed Aug 2006).
role in these results. 11. Ashkenazi, G. Learning Style, Personality Type and Academic
Achievement in Learning Style. http://www.fh.huji.ac.il/~guy/
Conclusion projects/FourTypes.html (accessed Aug 2006).
12. Chiu, M.–H. Algorithmic Problem Solving and Conceptual
Results of our research do not indicate a preference for Understanding of Chemistry by Students at a Local High
either of the two types of chemical conceptual questions. The School in Taiwan. http://nr.stic.gov.tw/ejournal/ProceedingD/
verbal form of the question in comparison with the pictorial v11n1/20-38.pdf (accessed Aug 2006).
form does not always provide the better method for students 13. Mas, C. J. Furio; Perez, J. H.; Harris, H. H. J. Chem. Educ.
to achieve success on the test. There are some other factors: 1987, 64, 616–618.
a long verbal question could exhaust a student before the stu- 14. Nakhleh, M. B.; Mitchell, R. C. J. Chem. Educ. 1993, 70,
dent is able to understand the point of it. The choice of words 190–192.
could be too complicated and in many cases it is more use- 15. Sanger, M. J.; Badger, S. M. J. Chem. Educ. 2001, 78, 1412–
ful to substitute the text for the picture. On the other hand, 1416.
the picture is not always clear and the student may not pay 16. Mulford, D. R.; Robinson, W. R. J. Chem. Educ. 2002, 79,
enough attention to it because it is just something in addi- 739–744.

174 Journal of Chemical Education • Vol. 84 No. 1 January 2007 • www.JCE.DivCHED.org