Advertisement

Mathematics Education Research Journal

, Volume 26, Issue 1, pp 25–46 | Cite as

Proportional reasoning in the learning of chemistry: levels of complexity

  • Ajay Ramful
  • Fawzia Bibi Narod
Original Article
First Online:

Abstract

This interdisciplinary study sketches the ways in which proportional reasoning is involved in the solution of chemistry problems, more specifically, problems involving quantities in chemical reactions (commonly referred to as stoichiometry problems). By building on the expertise of both mathematics and chemistry education research, the present paper shows how the theoretical constructs in proportional reasoning in mathematics education offer rich explanatory accounts of the complexities involved in solving stoichiometry problems. Using Vergnaud's concept of measure spaces, the theoretical analysis shows that proportionality situations are relatively more intricate, involving various layers of complexity in chemistry as compared to those in the mathematics curriculum. Knowledge of proportionality and chemistry are simultaneously required to provide solutions to chemical reactions. Our analysis of a range of stoichiometry situations led us to propose a problem analysis framework involving five levels of difficulty. Further, the specificity of proportionality in stoichiometry is that it can only be established when quantities are interpreted in the unit “mole,” a unit which does not have any physical embodiment in terms of a measure of quantity unlike mass and volume. Our analysis of student-teachers' solution to the stoichiometry problems, shows that they tend to incorrectly (probably intuitively) set proportional relationships when two quantities in a reaction are expressed in non-molar quantities such as mass. The data also bring to the fore the primarily formulaic approach that student-teachers use in setting inherent proportionality relationships. An important finding is the interpretation of a chemical equation as a mathematical equation, rather than a statement of proportionality.

Keywords

Proportional reasoning Transfer Vergnaud Stoichiometry Mole 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. Beall, H., & Prescott, S. (1994). Concepts and calculations in chemistry teaching and learning. Journal of Chemical Education, 71(2), 111–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Behr, M., Harel, G., Post, T., & Lesh, R. (1992). Rational number, ratio and proportion. In D. Grouws (Ed.), Handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 296–333). NY: Macmillan Publishing.Google Scholar
  3. Cramer, K., & Post, T. (1993). Connecting research to teaching proportional reasoning. Mathematics Teacher, 86(5), 404–407. Retrieved December 21, 2012 from http://www.cehd.umn.edu/rationalnumberproject/89_6.html.Google Scholar
  4. DeMeo, S. (2008). Multiple solution methods for teaching science in the classrooms: improving quantitative problem solving using dimensional analysis and proportional reasoning. Boca Raton: Universal Publishers.Google Scholar
  5. diSessa, A. A. (1993). Toward an epistemology of physics. Cognition and Instruction, 10, 105–225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Desjardins, S. G. (2008). Disorder and chaos: Developing and teaching an interdisciplinary course on chemical dynamics. Journal of Chemical Education, 85(8), 1078–1082.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. DeLorenzo, R. (1994). Expanded dimensional analysis: a blending of english and math. Journal of Chemical Education, 71(9), 789–791.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Furio, C., Azcona, R., & Guisasola, J. (2002). The learning and teaching of the concepts ‘amount of substance’ and ‘mole’: A review of the literature. Chemistry Education: Research and Practice in Europe, 3(3), 277–292. Retrieved December 22, 2012 from http://www.uoi.gr/cerp/2002_October/pdf/02Furio.pdf.
  9. Harel, G., Behr, M., Post, T., & Lesh, R., (1991). Variables affecting proportionality: Understanding of physical principles, formation of quantitative relations and multiplicative invariance. In F. Furinghetti (Ed.) Proceedings of the PME XV Conference, (pp. 125-133). Assisi, Italy. Retrieved from http://www.cehd.umn.edu/rationalnumberproject/9l_2.html. Accessed 12 Nov 2012.
  10. Gorin, G. (1994). Mole and chemical amount: a discussion of the fundamental measurements of chemistry. Journal of Chemical Education, 71(2), 114–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Hart, K. M. (1984). Ratio: children's strategies and errors—a report of the strategies and errors in secondary mathematics project. Windsor: Nfer-Nelson.Google Scholar
  12. Heller, P., Ahlgren, A., Post, T., Behr, M., Lesh, R. (1989). Proportional reasoning: The effect of two context variables, rate type, and problem setting. Journal for Research in Science Teaching, 26(1), pp. 205-220. Retrieved from http://www.cehd.umn.edu/rationalnumberproject/89_6.html. Accessed 21 Dec 2012.
  13. Hoban, R. (2011). Mathematical transfer by chemistry undergraduate students. Dublin: Dublin City University.Google Scholar
  14. Johnstone, A. H. (2000). Teaching of chemistry—logical or psychological? Chemistry education: research and practice in Europe, 1(1), 9–15. Retrieved December 21, 2012 from http://pubs.rsc.org.Google Scholar
  15. Kaput, J. J., & West, M. M. (1994). Missing-value proportional reasoning problems: factors affecting informal reasoning patterns. In G. Harel & J. Confrey (Eds.), The development of multiplicative reasoning in the learning of Mathematics (pp. 235–287). Albany: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
  16. Krishnan, S. R., & Howe, A. C. (1994). Developing an instrument to assess conceptual understanding. Journal of Chemical Education, 71(8), 653–655.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Lamon, S. J. (1993). Ratio and proportion: connecting content and children's thinking. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 24(1), 41–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Lamon, S. J. (1994). Ratio and proportion: cognitive foundations in unitizing and norming. In G. Harel & J. Confrey (Eds.), The development of multiplicative reasoning in the learning of mathematics (pp. 89–120). Albany: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
  19. Lamon, S. J. (2007). Rational numbers and proportional reasoning: towards a theoretical framework for research. In F. K. Lester (Ed.), Second handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning: a project of the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (pp. 629–667). Charlotte: Information Age Publishing.Google Scholar
  20. Litwiller, B., & Bright, G. (Eds.). (2002). Making sense of fractions, ratios, and proportion. Reston: The National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.Google Scholar
  21. Jeremy, K., Jane, S., Bradford, F., & National Research Council (US) Mathematics Learning Study Committee (Eds.). (2001). Adding it up: helping children learn mathematics. Washington: National Academy.Google Scholar
  22. Nesher, P. (1988). Multiplicative school word problems: theoretical approaches and empirical findings. In J. Hiebert & M. Behr (Eds.), Number concepts and operations in the middle grades (Vol. 2, pp. 19–40). Reston: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates and National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.Google Scholar
  23. Singer, J. A., Kohn, A. M., & Resnick, L. B. (1997). Knowing about proportions in different contexts. In T. T. Nunes & P. P. Bryant (Eds.), Learning and teaching mathematics: an international perspective (pp. 115–132). Sussex: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
  24. Tourniaire, F., & Pulos, S. (1985). Proportional reasoning: of the literature. Educational Studies in Mathematics: a review , 16(2), 181–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Vergnaud, G. (1983). Multiplicative structures. In R. Lesh & M. Landau (Eds.), Acquisition of mathematics concepts and processes (pp. 127–174). New York: Academic.Google Scholar
  26. Vergnaud, G. (1988). Multiplicative structures. In J. Hiebert & M. Behr (Eds.), Number concepts and operations in the middle grades (Vol. 2, pp. 141–161). Reston: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.Google Scholar
  27. Vergnaud, G. (1996). The theory of conceptual fields. In L. P. Steffe & P. Nesher (Eds.), Theories of mathematical learning (pp. 219–239). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia, Inc. 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Mauritius Institute of EducationReduitMauritius
  2. 2.Research Institute for Professional Practice Learning and Education, Charles Sturt UniversityWaga WagaAustralia

Personalised recommendations

Cite article

Buy options