Chemical educators have often assumed that success in solving mathematical problems should indicate mastery of a chemical concept. To this end, we have developed algorithms. However, Nurrenbern and Piekering (1) and Pick-ering (2) found little connection between solving an algo-rithmically-based problem and understanding the chemical concept behind that problem. Sawrey (3) further supported Nurrenbern and Pickering's findings. These studies quantitatively evaluated success in solving a conceptual problem versus a similar algorithmic problem. These studies found that many students could not use chemical concepts to solve conceptual problems. These findings were further supported by Nakhleh (4). Nakhleh found that across all levels of first-year chemistry students (from remedial to honors) conceptual problem solving ability lagged far behind algorithmic problem-solving ability. She determined through the use of paired exam questions, that a sizable percentage (31% in that sample) of our firsbyear students are low conceptualhigh algorithmic students; students adept a t solving problems with algebraic equations, hut having only limited understanding of the chemistry behind their algorithmic manipulations. In the present study our objective was to ascertain what students do think about when they solve conceptual and algorithmic problems and to determine further if there are differences andlor preferences in their approach to each. We. therefore. used aired exam auestions on rras laws to select studentsfor interviews. In tke interviewwe probed their conce~tual understandinrr and their ~roblem solvine in detail. w e tried to determhe how the' students weni about solving a conceptual problem versus an algorithmic problem. We also endeavored to probe their preferences for solving either type of problem. Method Our sample consisted of 60 freshmen chemistry students who were all enrolled in the same introductory course for declared chemistry majors. No other majors were represented in this sample. The professor for the course used a traditional problem-oriented lecture approach. This study was completed in two parts. The first part of the study used the paired questions technique to identify students as being either conceptual or algorithmic problem solvers. Two problems-one conceptual gas law problem and one algorithmic gas law problem-were placed on the third exam in the course where gas laws were being examined. Success or failure on these were recorded and students were grouped in one of four categories: High AleorithmiJHirrh Conce~tual (answerine both ~ m b l e m s coFrectly,; ~ i ~ t ~ l ~ o r i t h m i r / ~ o w ~once&al (&swering the conceptual prohlem incorrectly J; Low AlgorithmiJHigh Conceptual (answering the algorithmic problem incor-rwtlv); Low AleorithmidLow Conce~tual (answering nei-Problem I. The following diagram represents a cross-sectional area of a rigid sealed steel tank filled with hydrogen gas at 20 ' C and 3 atm pressure. The dots represent the distribution of all the hydrogen molecules in the tank....

Design of the Study Action Research ModelAction research was selected as an appropriate model for this study. Action research is a four-stage model of planning, action, observation, and reflection. Within each cycle, specific innovations are introduced within a course, data are collected and analyzed, and suitable revisions planned. Following each cycle of stages, the research continues by evaluating the outcome of the previous cycle, reorganizing, and proceeding through another cycle (7). Further details about this research are planned for a subsequent publication.

No abstract

No abstract

Attention to teaching and learning issues on a weekly basis appears to have been helpful in developing graduate students' potential as effective instructors and was well received by a majority of graduate instructors. Results of student evaluations indicate that graduate instructors in the trial group were rated more favorably than those in the comparison group in the areas of being prepared, providing lucid explanations, being effective at helping students learn to think, and overall performance.