Browse > Article

Inductive Influence of Algorithmic and Conceptual Problems  

Noh, Tae-Hee (Seoul National University)
Kang, Hun-Sik (Seoul National University)
Jeon, Kyung-Moon (Gwangju National University of Education)
Publication Information
Journal of The Korean Association For Science Education / v.24, no.2, 2004 , pp. 320-326 More about this Journal
Abstract
This study investigated whether algorithmic problem solving and conceptual problem solving influenced each other or not. Four classes of 12th grade (N= 112) that are equal in prior achievement were randomly assigned to group AC (Algorithmic-Conceptual problem) and group CA (Conceptual-Algorithmic problem). Students of group AC solved the conceptual problems after learning the related algorithmic problems, and those of group CA solved the same problems in reverse order. The results revealed that learning the algorithmic problems improved students' ability to solve the related conceptual problems, but learning the conceptual problems did not help students solve the related algorithmic problems. Regarding the confidence on problem solving, learning the algorithmic problems had little effect on the related conceptual problems. Learning the conceptual problems also had little effect on students' confidence on solving of the related algorithmic problems.
Keywords
algorithmic problem; conceptual problem; problem solving ability; confidence on problem solving;
Citations & Related Records
연도 인용수 순위
  • Reference
1 Chiu, 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: Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 11(1), 20-38
2 Laurillard, D.(1993). Rethinking university teaching: A framework for the effective use of educational technology. New York: Routledge
3 Reid, N. & Yang, M.-J.(2002). The solving of problems in chemistry: The more open-ended problems. Research in science & Technological Education, 20(1), 83-98   DOI   ScienceOn
4 Wolfer, A. J.(2000). Introductory college chemistry students' understanding of stoichiometry: Connections between conceptual and computational understandings and instruction. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Oregon State University
5 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(11), 987-989   DOI
6 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), 758-762   DOI   ScienceOn
7 송인섭(2003). 통계학의 이해. 서울: 학지사
8 Stewart, J.(1982). Two aspects of meaningful problem solving in science. Science Education, 66(7), 731-741   DOI
9 Anderson, J. R.(1995). Learning and Memory: An Integrated Approach. New York: John Wiley & Sons
10 Noh, T. & Scharmann, L. C.(1997). Instructional influence of a molecular-level pictorial presentation of matter on students' conceptions and problem-solving ability. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 34(2), 199-217   DOI   ScienceOn
11 Glaser, R.(1994). Learning theory and instruction. In G. d'Ydewalle, P. Eelen, & P. Bertelson (Eds.), International Perspectives on Psychological Science, Vol. 2: The state of the art (pp. 341-357). Hove, UK: Larence Erlbaum Associates
12 Pushkin, D. B.(1998), Introductory students, conceptual understanding, and algorithmic success. Journal of Chemical Education, 75(7), 809-810   DOI   ScienceOn
13 Dukes, P., Pritchard, D. E., & Morote, E.-S.(2002). Inductive influence of related quantitative and conceptual problems. A paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching (New Orleans, LA, April 6-10), ED 463978
14 Gagne, E. D., Yekovish, C. W., & Yekovish, F. R.(1993). The Cognitive Psychology of School Learning. New York: Harper Collins College Publishers
15 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(2), 195-211   DOI   ScienceOn
16 Nurrenbem, S. C. & Pickering, M.(1987). Concept learning versus problem solving: Is there a difference? Journal of Chemical Education, 64(6), 508-510   DOI
17 Neto, A. & Valente, M. O.(1997). Problem solving in physics: Towards a metacognitively developed approach. A paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching (70th, Oak Brook, IL, March 21-24), ED 405217
18 Kim, E. & Pak, S.-J.(2002). Students do not overcome conceptual difficulties after solving 1000 traditional problems. American Journal of Physics, 70(7), 759-765   DOI   ScienceOn
19 Schrader, C. L.(1987). Using algorithms to teach problem solving. Journal of Chemical Education, 64(6), 518-519   DOI
20 Beall, H. & Prescott, S.(1994). Concepts and calculations in chemistry teaching and learning. Journal of Chemical Education, 71(2), 111-112   DOI   ScienceOn
21 Nakhleh, M. B.(1993). Are our students conceptual thinkers or algorithmic problem solvers? Journal of Chemical Education, 70(1), 52-55   DOI
22 Niaz, M.(1995). Progressive transitions from algorithmic to conceptual understanding in student ability to solve chemistry problems: A Lakatosian interpretation. Science Education, 79(1), 19-36   DOI   ScienceOn