Teaching algorithmic problem solving or conceptual understanding: Role of developmental level, mental capacity, and cognitive style
Tóm tắt
It has been shown previously that many students solve chemistry problems using only algorithmic strategies and do not understand the chemical concepts on which the problems are based. It is plausible to suggest that if the information is presented in differing formats, the cognitive demand of a problem changes. The main objective of this study is to investigate the degree to which cognitive variables, such as developmental level, mental capacity, and disembedding ability explain student performance on problems which: (1) could be addressed by algorithms or (2) require conceptual understanding. All conceptual problems used in this study were based on a figurative format. The results obtained show that in all four problems requiring algorithmic strategies, developmental level of the students is the best predictor of success. This could be attributed to the fact that these are basically computational problems, requiring mathematical transformations. Although all three problems requiring conceptual understanding had an important aspect in common (the figurative format), in all three the best predictor of success is a different cognitive variable. It was concluded that: (1) the ability to solve computational problems (based on algorithms) is not the major factor in predicting success in solving problems that require conceptual understanding; (2) solving problems based on algorithmic strategies requires formal operational reasoning to a certain degree; and (3) student difficulty in solving problems that require conceptual understanding could be attributed to different cognitive variables.
Tài liệu tham khảo
Anamuah-Mensah, J. (1986). Cognitive strategies used by chemistry students to solve volumetric analysis problems.Journal of Research in Science Teaching 23: 759–769.
Ben-Zvi, R., Eylon, B., and Silberstein, J. (1986). Is an atom of copper malleable?Journal of Chemical Education 63: 64–66.
Bodner, G., and McMillen, T. (1986). Cognitive restructuring as an early stage in problem solving.Journal of Research in Science Teaching 23: 727–737.
Chandran, S., Treagust, D., and Tobin, K. (1987). The role of cognitive factors in chemistry achievement.Journal of Research in Science Teaching 24: 145–160.
Chase, W. G., and Simon, H. A. (1973). The mind's eye in chess. In Chase, W. G. (Ed.),Visual Information Processing, Academic Press, New York.
de Ribaupierre, A., and Pascual-Leone, J. (1979). Formal operations and M-power: A neo-Piagetian investigation. In Kuhn, D. (Ed.),New Directions in Child Development: Intellectual Development Beyond Childhood, Jossey-Bass, Inc., San Francisco.
Educational Policies Commission (1961). The central purpose of American education. National Education Association, Washington, D.C.
Gabel, D. L., and Sherwood, R. D. (1984). Analyzing difficulties with mole-concept tasks by using familiar analogue tasks.Journal of Research in Science Teaching 21: 843–851.
Gabel, D. L., Sherwood, R. D., and Enochs, L. (1984). Problemsolving skills of high school chemistry students.Journal of Research in Science Teaching 21: 221–233.
Herron, J. D. (1975). Piaget for chemists.Journal of Chemical Education 52: 146–150.
Herron, J. D. (1986).Understanding Chemistry (2nd Ed.). Random House, New York.
Herron, J. D. (1988). View from the discipline. In Gardner, M. (Ed.),Towards a Science of Science Education. Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ.
Johnstone, A. H., and El-Banna, H. (1986). Capacities, demands, and processes—a predictive model for science education.Education in Chemistry 23: 80–84.
Kleinman, R., Griffin, H., and Kerner, N. K. (1987). Images in chemistry.Journal of Chemical Education 64: 766–770.
Lawson, A. E. (1983). Predicting science achievement: The role of developmental level, disembedding ability, mental capacity, prior knowledge, and beliefs.Journal of Research in Science Teaching 20: 117–129.
McIntosh, W. (1986). The effect of imagery generation on science rule learning.Journal of Research in Science Teaching 23: 1–9.
Mitchell, A. and Lawson, A. E. (1988). Predicting genetics achievement in nonmajors college biology.Journal of Research in Science Teaching 25: 23–37.
Mitchell, H., and Kellington, S. (1982). Learning difficulties associated with the particulate theory of matter in the Scottish Integrated Science Course.European Journal of Science Education 4: 429–440.
Niaz, M. (1987a). 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.Journal of Chemical Education 64: 502–505.
Niaz, M. (1987b). The role of cognitive factors in the teaching of science.Research in Science and Technological Education 5: 7–16.
Niaz, M. (1988). Manipulation of M-demand of chemistry problems and its effect on student performance: A neo-Piagetian study.Journal of Research in Science Teaching 25: 643–657.
Niaz, M. (1989a). The relationship between M-demand, algorithms, and problem solving: A neo-Piagetian analysis.Journal of Chemical Education 66: 422–424.
Niaz, M. (1989b). The role of cognitive style and its influence on proportional reasoning.Journal of Research in Science Teaching 26: 221–235.
Niaz, M. (1990). Does Newton's falling apple require an explanation? Antecedent variables in cognitive development: Controversy and resolution.Perceptual and Motor Skills 70: 755–758.
Niaz, M. (1993). Pascual-Leone's theory of constructive operators as an explanatory construct in cognitive development and science achievement.Educational Psychology 13: (in press).
Niaz, M., and Lawson, A. E. (1985). Balancing chemical equations: The role of developmental level and mental capacity.Journal of Research in Science Teaching 22: 41–51.
Novick, S., and Nussbaum, J. (1978). Junior high school pupils understanding of the particulate nature of matter: An interview study.Science Education 62: 273–281.
Nummedal, S. G., and Collea, F. P. (1981). Field independence, task ambiguity, and performance on a proportional reasoning task.Journal of Research in Science Teaching 18: 255–260.
Nurrenbern, S. C., and Pickering, M. (1987). Concept learning versus problem solving: Is there a difference?Journal of Chemical Education 64: 508–510.
Pascual-Leone, J. (1969). Cognitive development and cognitive styles: A general psychological integration. Unpublished PhD dissertation, University of Geneva.
Pascual-Leone, J. (1970). A mathematical model for the transition rule in Piaget's developmental stages.Acta Psychologica 32: 301–345.
Pascual-Leone, J. (1987). Organismic processes for neo-Piagetian theories: A dialectical causal account of cognitive development.International Journal of Psychology 22: 531–570.
Pascual-Leone, J. (1989). An organismic process model of Witkin's field-dependence/independence. In Globerson, T., and Zelniker, T. (Eds.),Cognitive Style and Cognitive Development, Ablex, Norwood, NJ.
Pascual-Leone, J., and Burtis, P. J. (1974). FIT: Figural intersection test, a group measure of M-capacity. Unpublished manuscript, York University, Ontario.
Pascual-Leone, J., and Niaz, M. (1988). Organismic constraints in science teaching: A neo-Piagetian perspective. Unpublished manuscript, York University, Ontario.
Pascual-Leone, J., and Smith, J. (1969). The encoding and decoding of symbols by children: A new experimental paradigm and a neo-Piagetian model.Journal of Experimental Child Psychology 8: 328–355.
Pascual-Leone, J., Goodman, D., Ammon, P., and Subelman, I. (1978). Piagetian theory and neo-Piagetian analysis as psychological guides in education. In Gallagher, J. M., and Easley, J. A. (Eds.),Knowledge and Development, Plenum, New York.
Pickering, M. (1990). Further studies on concept learning versus problem solving.Journal of Chemical Education 67: 254–255.
Renner, J. W. (1982). The power of purpose.Science Education 66: 709–716.
Roadrangka, V., Yeany, R. H., and Padilla, M. J. (1983). The construction and validation of Group Assessment of Logical Thinking (GALT). Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching (NARST), Dallas, April.
Rosnick, P., and Clement, J. (1980). Learning without understanding: The effect of tutoring strategies on algebra misconceptions.Journal of Mathematical Behavior 3: 3–28.
Sawrey, B. E. (1990). Concept learning versus problem solving: Revisited.Journal of Chemical Education 67: 253–254.
Seddon, G. M., Eniaiyeju, P. A., and Chia, L. H. L. (1985). The factor structure for mental rotations of three-dimensional structures represented in diagrams.Research in Science & Technological Education 3: 29–42.
Seddon, G. M., and Tariq, R. H., and Santos Veiga, J. (1982). The visualization of spatial transformations in diagrams of molecular structures.European Journal of Science Education 4: 409–420.
Shayer, M., and Adey, P. (1981).Towards a Science of Science Teaching: Cognitive Development and Curriculum Demand. Heinemann, London.
Staver, J. R., and Jacks, T. (1988). The influence of cognitive reasoning level, cognitive restructuring ability, disembedding ability, working memory capacity, and prior knowledge on students' performance on balancing equations by inspection.Journal of Research in Science Teaching 25: 763–775.
White, R. T. (1988).Learning Science. Basil Blackwell, Oxford, U.K.
Witkin, H. A., Oltman, P. K., Raskin, E., and Karp, S. A. (1971).A Manual for the Embedded Figures Test. Consulting Psychologists Press, Palo Alto, California.