A Solution to Stoichiometry: Teaching Problem-Solving in Chemistry

Douglas Le, Secondary Science MAT

Introduction

Placed at William M. Davies Jr., Career & Technical High School in Lincoln, RI All students are in a 4-year academic program, as well as a 4-year technical program Taught the only 2 sections of 11th grade College Prep (CP) Chemistry

Introduction

Chemistry can be challenging, especially given what is covered in a traditional high school course (Deters 2006) One of the most abstract yet fundamental concepts covered in high school Chemistry is stoichiometry (BouJaoude 2003)

Introduction
Stoichiometry: the proportional relationships between two or more substances during a chemical reaction (Myers 2006) Stoichiometry: calculations that involve the amount of substances in a chemical reaction (Le 2013)

Introduction

Stoichiometry is difficult for various reasons (Haidar 2008) Students around the world have difficulty learning stoichiometryand teachers have trouble teaching it! (BouJaoude 2003, Dahsah 2007, Haidar 2008, Okanlawon 2010) If so challenging, why choose this topic?

Introduction

My research aimed to answer two questions:

1) Does

If yes, then students should be able to:

1) analyze

emphasizing units and dimensions promote understanding and problem-solving in Chemistry? 2) Can a graphic organizer enhance students understanding and problem-solving in Chemistry? and solve novel stoichiometry problems by focusing on the units and dimensions

2) adapt

a graphic organizer to accommodate novel stoichiometry problems

Methods & Materials

3 curricular units over the course of 1 quarter:

Unit 1 (U1): Chemical Equations & Reactions Unit 2 (U2): Solution Chemistry Unit 3 (U3): Acid-Base Chemistry

Decided to use a combination of two researchbased methods for teaching stoichiometry (DeMeo 2008):
1) Dimensional

Analysis 2) Graphic Organizer

Methods & Materials

Dimensional Analysis (DA): conversion of a given quantity from one system of units to another (Le 2013)

Conversion Factor (CF): a ratio that is derived from the equality of two different units and that can be used to convert from one unit to another (Myers 2006)

Example: How many seconds in 1 year?

1 min 60 s 1 min = 60 s or or 60 s 1 min

365 d 24 hr 60 min 60 s 1 yr = 3,153,600 s 1 yr 1d 1 hr 1 min

Methods & Materials

Graphic Organizer (GO) Ault 2001, 2006 Adapted Version

Methods & Materials

Various pieces of student work and class assignments were assessed While each assignment had a unique answer key, all of them were assessed based on the following two criteria:
1) Identification

of appropriate CFs 2) Use of CFs in appropriate order

1 2 3 4

365 d 24 hr 60 min 60 s 1 yr = 3,153,600 s 1 yr 1d 1 hr 1 min

Results
Assessment of Student Understanding of Stoichiometry
100
90 80

% of Total Students

70 60 50 40 30 20

10
0 Diagnostic Assessment

Understood CFs

Used correct CFs

CFs in correct order

Results

Results
Assessment of Student Understanding of Stoichiometry
100 90 80

% of Total Students

70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Diagnostic Assessment Understood CFs Used correct CFs Formative Assessment 1 CFs in correct order Used the GO

Results

Results
Assessment of Student Understanding of Stoichiometry
100 90 80

% of Total Students

70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Diagnostic Assessment Understood CFs Formative Assessment 1 Used correct CFs CFs in correct order Formative Assessment 2 Used the GO

Results
One of the summative assessments was a twoquestion survey designed to answer the 2 questions behind this project

Results

Results

Results

Results
Assessment of Student Understanding of Stoichiometry
100 90 80

% of Total Students

70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Diagnostic Assessment Understood CFs Formative Assessment 1 Used correct CFs Formative Assessment 2 CFs in correct order Summative Assessment Used the GO

Discussion

Overall there was a small but not very significant improvement in students ability to solve stoichiometry problems Results seem to indicate two main reasons for the limited success:

DA relies heavily on CFs, but certain CFs are easier to understand than others Inconsistent use and reinforcement of GO led to students not taking advantage of this tool

Discussion
Results of summative assessment had direct implications for the two research questions: 1) Does emphasizing units and dimensions promote understanding and problem-solving in Chemistry?

Not necessarily authentic understanding, more likely to enable a plug and chug mentality in students

2)

Can a graphic organizer enhance students understanding and problem-solving in Chemistry?

Graphic organizers can help alleviate some of the plug and chug mentality, but not likely to enhance their skills

Conclusion
Two possibilities for future directions: 1) Revamp the DA/GO method

Be more consistent with GO Use more relevant, real-life applications

2) Consider

additional/alternative methods

Symbolic Algebra (DeToma 1994) Mole-Ratio Flow Chart (Wagner 2001) Reaction Tables (Watkins 2003) Cross-Proportions (Cook 2005)

References

Ault, A. (2001) How to say how much: Amounts and stoichiometry. Journal of Chemical Education, 78(10), 1347 1349. Ault, A. (2006). Mole city: A stoichiometric analogy. Journal of Chemical Education, 83(11), 1587. BouJaoude, S., & Barakat, H. (2003). Students problem solving strategies in stoichiometry and their relationships to conceptual understanding and learning approaches. Electronic Journal of Science Education, 7(3). Cook, E., & Cook, R. L. (2005). Cross-proportions: A conceptual method for developing quantitative problemsolving skills. Journal of Chemical Education, 82(8), 11871189. Dahsah, C., & Coll, R. K. (2008). Thai grade 10 and 11 students understanding of stoichiometry and related concepts. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 6(3), 573600. DeMeo, S. (2008). Multiple Solution Methods for Teaching Science in the Classroom: Improving Quantitative Problem Solving Using Dimensional Analysis and Proportional Reasoning. Boca Raton, FL: Universal Publishers. Deters, K. M. (2006). What are we teaching in high school chemistry? Journal of Chemical Education, 83(10), 14921498. DeToma, R. P. (1994). Symbolic algebra and stoichiometry. Journal of Chemical Education 71(7), 568570. Haidar, A. H., & Al Naqabi, A. K. (2008). Emiratii high school students understandings of stoichiometry and the influence of metacognition on their understanding. Research in Science & Technological Education, 26(2), 215237. Myers, R. T., Oldham, K. B., & Tocci S. (2004). Holt Chemistry. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart & Winston. Okanlawon, A. E. (2010). Teaching reaction stoichiometry: Exploring and acknowledging Nigerian chemistry teachers pedagogical content knowledge. Cypriot Journal of Educational Sciences, 5(2), 107129. Wagner, E. P. (2001). A study comparing the efficacy of a mole ratio flow chart to dimensional analysis for teaching reaction stoichiometry. School Science and Mathematics, 101(1), 1022. Watkins, S. F. (2003). Applying the reaction table method for chemical reaction problems (stoichiometry and equilibrium). Journal of Chemical Education, 80(6), 658661.

Acknowledgments
I would like to acknowledge the following individuals for their assistance in my research: Janet Butler Ben Abrams Kerrie Medeiros and Tom Weaver Dan Bisaccio My students

Appendix: Student Work

Appendix: Student Work

Appendix: Student Work