• Canan NakiboğluEmail author
  • H. Esra Yildirir


This study presents the results of an analysis of high school chemistry textbooks and teacher-generated questions about gas laws. The materials that were analyzed consisted of 456 questions about gas laws found in seven grade 10 chemistry textbooks and 264 teacher-generated examination questions prepared by seven chemistry teachers from three schools. These questions were classified into three categories (recall, algorithmic, and conceptual); the conceptual questions (ConQ) were further classified into six subcategories (particulate, demonstration, tiered, laboratory, analogy, and series completion) using the descriptions provided on the Conceptual Questions and Challenge Problems website. The findings indicate that most of the textbook questions were algorithmic and that these textbooks were less likely to facilitate or encourage student comprehension of the properties and behaviors of gases or gas law theories. Furthermore, most of the textbook questions do not enable students to develop conceptual understanding and gain higher-order cognitive skills. Although the findings imply that most of the teacher-generated questions were ConQ, the large majority were partially conceptual type questions. The major implication of this research is the need for teachers, textbook writers, and academics to consider question types when creating questions or analyzing chemistry questions at all educational levels.

Key words

conceptual understanding gases high school chemistry textbooks problem solving 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Beall, H. & Prescott, S. (1994). Concepts and calculations in chemistry teaching and learning. Journal of Chemical Education, 71, 111–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bennett, C., Evans, R. & Michel, R. (2003). The relationship of teacher generated lecture questions, lab questions, test questions, and student achievement. In L. P. McCoy (Ed.), Studies in teaching: 2003 research digest (pp. 6–10). Winston-Salem: Wake Forest University.Google Scholar
  3. Berg, C. A. & Smith, P. (1994). Assessing students’ abilities to construct and interpret line graphs: Disparities between multiple-choice and free-response instruments. Science & Education, 78, 527–554.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bodner, G. M. (1991). Toward a unified theory of problem solving: A view from chemistry. In M. U. Smith (Ed.), Toward a unified theory of problem solving: Views from the content domain (pp. 21–34). Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  5. Bodner, G. M. & Herron, J. D. (2003). Problem solving in chemistry. In J. K. Gilbert, O. De Jong, R. Justi, D. F. Treagust, & J. H. Van Driel (Eds.), Chemical education: Towards research-based practice (pp. 235–266). New York: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bodner, G. M. & McMillan, T. L. B. (1986). Cognitive restructuring as an early stage in problem solving. Journal of Research and Science Teaching, 23, 727–737.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. BouJaoude, S., Salloum, S. & Abd-El-Khalick, F. (2004). Relationships between selective cognitive variables and students’ ability to solve chemistry problems. International Journal of Science Education, 26, 63–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Brasell, H. M. & Rowe, M. B. (1993). Graphing skills among high school physics students. School Science and Mathematics, 93, 63–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Camacho, M. & Good, R. (1989). Problem solving and chemical equilibrium: Successful versus unsuccessful performance. Journal of Research and Science Teaching, 26, 251–272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cartrette, D. P. & Bodner, G. M. (2009). Non-mathematical problem solving in organic chemistry. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47, 643–660. doi: 10.1002/tea.20306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Chei, M. H. (2001). Algorithmic problem solving and conceptual understanding of chemistry by students at a local high school in Taiwan. Proceedings of the National Science Council, Republic of China. Part D, 11, 20–38.Google Scholar
  12. Chiappetta, E. L., Fillman, D. A. & Sethna, G. H. (1991). A method to quantify major themes of scientific literacy in science textbooks. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 28(8), 713–725.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Coştu, B. (2007). Comparison of students’ performance on algorithmic, conceptual and graphical chemistry gas problems. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 16, 379–386.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Dávila, K. & Talanquer, V. (2010). Classifying end-of-chapter questions and problems for selected general chemistry textbooks used in the United States. Journal of Chemical Education, 87, 97–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. De Berg, K. C. (1989). The emergence of quantification in the pressure–volume relationship for gases: A textbook analysis. Science & Education, 73, 115–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. De Berg, K. C. & Treagust, D. F. (1993). The presentation of gas properties in chemistry textbooks and as reported by science teachers. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 30(8), 871–882.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Dori, Y. J. & Hameiri, M. (2003). Multidimensional analysis system for quantitative chemistry problems—Symbol, macro, micro and process aspects. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40, 278–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Gabel, D. L. (1986). Problem solving in chemistry. In Research matters—To the science teacher. NARST Occasional Publication, ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED266957. Retrieved from
  19. Gabel, D. L. & Bunce, D. M. (1994). Research on problem solving: Chemistry. In D. L. Gabel (Ed.), Handbook of research in science teaching and learning (pp. 301–326). New York: MacMillan.Google Scholar
  20. Gabel, D. L., Samuel, K. V. & Hunn, D. (1987). Understanding the particulate nature of matter. Journal of Chemical Education, 64, 695–697.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Gay, L. R. & Airasion, P. (2000). Educational research: Competencies for analysis and application. Upper Saddle River: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  22. Herron, J. D. (1996). The chemistry classroom: Formulas for successful teaching. Washington: American Chemical Society.Google Scholar
  23. Heyworth, R. M. (1999). Procedural and conceptual knowledge of expert and novice students for the solving of a basic problem in chemistry. International Journal of Science Education, 21, 195–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Johnstone, A. H. (2000). Chemical education research: Where from here? University Chemistry Education, 4, 34–38.Google Scholar
  25. Karamustafaoğlu, S., Sevim, S., Karamustafaoğlu, O. & Çepni, S. (2003). Analysis of Turkish high-school chemistry-examination questions according to Bloom’s taxonomy. Chemistry Education: Research and Practice, 4, 25–30.Google Scholar
  26. Kautz, C. H., Heron, P. R. L., Loverude, M. E. & McDermott, L. C. (2005). Student understanding of the ideal gas law, part I: A macroscopic perspective. American Journal of Physics, 73, 1055–1063.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Lin, H. S., Cheng, H. J. & Lawrenz, F. (2000). The assessment of students and teachers’ understanding of gas laws. Journal of Chemical Education, 77, 235–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Mulford, D. R. & Robinson, W. R. (2002). An inventory for alternate conceptions among first-semester general chemistry students. Journal of Chemical Education, 79, 739–744.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Nakhleh, M. B. (1993). Are our students conceptual thinkers or algorithmic problem solvers? Journal of Chemical Education, 70, 52–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Nakhleh, M. B. & Mitchell, R. C. (1993). Concept learning versus problem solving: There is a difference. Journal of Chemical Education, 70, 190–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Niaz, M. (1994). Progressive transitions from algorithmic to conceptual understanding in student ability to solve chemistry problems: A Lakatosian interpretation. ERIC Document Reproduction Service ED368577.Google Scholar
  32. Niaz, M. (2000). A rational reconstruction of the kinetic molecular theory of gases based on history and philosophy of science and its implications for chemistry textbooks. Instructional Science, 28, 23–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Niaz, M. & Robinson, W. R. (1992). From ‘algorithmic mode’ to ‘conceptual gestalt’ in understanding the behavior of gases: An epistemological perspective. Research Science and Technology Education, 10, 53–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Niaz, M. & Robinson, W. R. (1993). Teaching algorithmic problem solving or conceptual understanding: Role of developmental level, mental capacity, and cognitive style. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 2, 407–416.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Nurrenbern, S. C. & Pickering, M. (1987). Concept learning versus problem solving: Is there a difference? Journal of Chemical Education, 64, 508–510.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Nurrenbern, S. C. & Robinson, W. R. (1998). Conceptual questions and challenge problems. Journal of Chemical Education, 75, 1502–1503.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Overton, T. & Potter, N. (2008). Solving open-ended problems, and the influence of cognitive factors on student success. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 9, 65–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Papaphotis, G. & Tsaparlis, G. (2008). Conceptual versus algorithmic learning in high school chemistry: The case of basic quantum chemical concepts. Part 2. Students’ common errors, misconceptions and difficulties in understanding. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 9, 332–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Pickering, M. (1990). Further studies on concept learning versus problem solving: Is there a difference? Journal of Chemical Education, 67, 254–255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Robinson, W. R. (2003). Chemistry problem-solving: Symbol, macro, micro, and process aspects. Journal of Chemical Education, 80, 978–982.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Robinson, W. R. & Nurrenbern, S. C. (2010). Conceptual questions and challenge problems. JCE QBank. Retrieved from
  42. Roth, W. M. & McGinn, M. K. (1997). Graphing: Cognitive ability or practice? Science & Education, 81, 91–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Schrader, C. L. (1987). Using algorithms to teach problem solving (SYMP). Journal of Chemical Education, 64, 518–519.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Stains, M. & Talanquer, V. (2008). Classification of chemical reactions: Stages of expertise. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45(7), 771–793.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Stamovlasis, D. & Tsaparlis, G. (2005). Cognitive variables in problem solving: A nonlinear approach. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 3, 7–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Stavy, R. (1988). Children’s conception of gas. International Journal of Science Education, 10, 553–560.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Sternberg, R. J. & Williams, W. M. (2002). Educational psychology. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.Google Scholar
  48. Taasoobshirazi, G. & Glynn, S. M. (2009). College students solving chemistry problems: A theoretical model of expertise. Journal of Research and Science Teaching, 46(10), 1070–1089.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Tsaparlis, G. (2005). Non-algorithmic quantitative problem solving in university physical chemistry: A correlation study of the role of selective cognitive factors. Research in Science & Technological Education, 23, 125–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Tsaparlis, G. & Zoller, U. (2003). Evaluation of higher vs. lower-order cognitive skills-type examinations in chemistry: Implications for university in-class assessment and examinations. University Chemistry Education, 7, 50–57.Google Scholar
  51. Zoller, U. (1993). Are lecture and learning compatible? Maybe for LOCS: Unlikely for HOCS (SYM). Journal of Chemical Education, 70, 195–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Zoller, U. & Puskin, P. (2007). Matching higher-order cognitive skills (HOCS) promotion goals with problem-based laboratory practice in a freshman organic chemistry courses. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 8, 153–171.Google Scholar
  53. Zoller, U., Lubezky, A., Nakhleh, M. B., Tessier, B. & Dori, Y. J. (1995). Success on algorithmic and LOCS vs. conceptual chemistry exam questions. Journal of Chemical Education, 72, 987–989.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© National Science Council, Taiwan 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Chemistry Education Division, Necatibey Education FacultyBalıkesir UniversityBalıkesirTurkey
  2. 2.Chemistry Education Division, Necatibey Education FacultyBalikesir UniversityBalikesirTurkey

Personalised recommendations