Study Citation
Purpose of Study and
Research Questions
Nakhleh, M. (1993). Are
Our Students
Conceptual Thinkers or
Algorithmic Problem
Solvers? Journal of
Chemical Education,
70(1).
Purpose: Identifying
Conceptual Students in
General Chemistry
Question: Are our
students’ conceptual
thinkers or algorithmic
problem solvers?
Mitchell, R., Nakhleh, M.
(1993). Concept
Learning Versus
Problem Solving: There
is A Difference. Journal
of Chemical Education,
70(3).
Theoretical
Framework
Constructs and
Definitions
Methodology and Methods
Findings and Results
Limitations and
Criticism
None stated
Second-tier students
are those that want to
understand chemistry
at a deeper level than
just being able to do
the algorithmic
functions
Methodology: Quantitative
Method: A test consisting of 5
question pairs was given to 1000
chemistry students. The results
were analyzed.
The data showed that many
students are able to answer
algorithmic questions and
unable to answer conceptual
questions about the same
topic
It is not stated
whether or not all
sections were
taught by the
same teacher,
which I think is
important.
Researcher Conclusion: Algorithmic
chemistry might not appeal to second-tier
students.
My conclusion: This article provided
valuable information about
cognitive/conceptual understanding of
chemistry.
The purpose of this
study is to find out
what students think
about when they
answer algorithmic and
conceptual chemistry
problems and which
they prefer.
None stated
Methodology: Quantitative and
Qualitative
Method: One paired question
was given on a test. Results
were analyzed Six students were
then interviewed and told to
vocalize their thoughts while
answering new questions.
Holme, T., Murphy, K.
(2011). Assessing
Conceptual and
Algorithmic Knowledge
in General Chemistry
with ACS Exams.
Journal of Chemical
Education, 88. Doi.
10.1021/ed100106k
Hurh, E. (2005). A Study
of the Effect of
Conceptual Questions
on Students’
Understanding and
Students’ Interest in
Chemistry. Journal of
the Korean Chemical
Society, 49(5), 497-502
The purpose is to
analyze student
performance on the
ACS exam that was
formatted to have a
conceptual question
paired with every
traditional question.
None Stated
An algorithmic
problem requires
using mathematical
skills in order to obtain
the correct answer. A
conceptual problem
requires a deeper
understanding in order
choose the correct
answer.
The ACS exam is the
official standardized
chemistry test
produced by the
American Chemical
Society
More students were shown
to have high algorithmic
ability than students with
high conceptual ability.
Interviews further showed
that the ones thought to
have high conceptual
actually used algorithmic
processes to get the correct
answer.
Because of the statistical
analysis and trial testing, the
ACS now has two exams
that will allow a teacher to
test their students equally
algorithmically and
conceptually.
Only six students
were interviewed
even though the
interviews
showed “high
conceptual”
students to
actually not have
a conceptual
understanding.
No comparison
was made
between how
students perform
between the two
types of
questions.
The purpose of this
study is an attempt to
increase conceptual
understanding of
chemistry by using
more conceptual
questions in lecture
and homework.
None stated
There was no statistical
difference between the two
groups and their
performance on conceptual
and algorithmic questions on
the final exam.
The majority of
students in this
class were
engineering
majors. It would
have been better
if the students
were chemistry
majors.
Researcher Conclusion: Students that
were classified as high algorithmic and high
conceptual used their algorithmic skills to
solve conceptual problems. Students prefer
conceptual problems as homework, but
algorithmic problems on exams.
My Conclusion: This study was done well.
All students were in the same class and
therefore taught by the same teacher. It
provided for a good control.
Researcher Conclusion: The article was
written to provide statistical analysis of the
paired-question ACS exams Teachers can
use this information to compare their
students to students across the nation.
My Conclusion: Because there are newer
and older versions of the ACS exam, these
results are limited to teachers who use the
specific exams.
Researcher Conclusion: A short-term
intervention in conceptual problems is not
suitable to attain better conceptual
understanding in chemistry.
My Conclusion: I think the article was done
well. Care was taken that the control and
treatment groups were of equal abilities. All
the students were taught by the same
instructor.
Nakhleh, M.B., Lowrey,
K.A., & Mitchell, R.C.
(1996). Narrowing the
Gap Between Concepts
and Algorithms in
Freshman Chemistry.
Journal of Chemical
Education, 73(8), 758762.
Nurrenbern, S.C., &
Pickering, M. (1987).
Concept Learning
versus Problem Solving:
Is There a Difference?
Journal of Chemical
Education, 64(6), 508510
The purpose of this
study was to narrow
the gap between
conceptual
understanding and
algorithmic
understanding of
chemistry problems.
Theoretical
Perspective:
Students create
meaning from general
instruction, personal
experiences, and their
theories and beliefs
about the world.
The statistical
significance of
exam III could
have been due to
fewer special
sessions.
The purpose of the
study is to find out if
the acceptance of
algorithmic problem
solving being the same
as understanding is
justified.
None stated
Field notes suggest students
believe special sessions
were worthwhile. For exam I
and III there was a
significant difference
between conceptual and
algorithmic understanding.
This was not the case for
exams II and IV.
In all classes for all
questions, there was a
statistical difference in
conceptual understanding
and algorithmic
understanding. The
students could do the math
without understanding the
concept.
An algorithmic
problem requires
using mathematical
skills in order to obtain
the correct answer. A
conceptual problem
requires a deeper
understanding in order
choose the correct
answer.
Special Sessions are
when students work in
cooperative groups on
challenging
conceptual problems
and report results to
the class.
Algorithmic problems
require completing
mathematical
calculations.
Conceptual problems
involve higher level
thinking skills.
Methodology: Quantitative
Methods: The exams used in
this study had paired question
sets, algorithmic and conceptual
problems, in chemistry. The
results of several thousands of
students ACS exams were
examined using an item-level
analysis method.
Methodology: Quantitative and
Qualitative
Methods: Ten paired questions
were created and administered
to students on the final exam. A
control group was used. The test
group was given conceptual
questions as homework and
during lecture. The control group
received algorithmic problems.
Methodology: Action Research
Methods: One lecture period a
week was replaced with a special
session. Four exams were
administered, containing
conceptual and algorithmic
problems.
Methodology: Quantitative
Methods: Students were asked
to solve a traditional algorithmic
problem on gases and a purely
conceptual problem on gases as
part of a routine exam.
Only one set of
questions was
used for one
topic. This study
would have been
more useful with
more chemistry
topics and more
question pairs.
Conclusions (theirs and yours, distinctly
separated)
Researcher Conclusion: Special Sessions
and conceptual exam questions can lead to
an improvement in successful achievements
conceptually and algorithmically.
My Conclusion: This article provides useful
information that there is a possibility that
there are teaching methods that will help
close the gap. I would like to see this study
repeated elsewhere though.
Researcher Conclusion: In the past studies
have been done to figure out why students
can’t do the math, now the focus has
switched. There are important differences
between problem solving and conceptual
understanding and mastering one does not
imply mastery of the other.
My Conclusion: I agree with the researcher
conclusion and am curious to know when the
switch in emphasis occurred.