problem solving approach in teaching chemistry

Problems and Problem Solving in Chemistry Education: Analysing Data, Looking for Patterns and Making Deductions

Problem solving is central to the teaching and learning of chemistry at secondary, tertiary and post-tertiary levels of education, opening to students and professional chemists alike a whole new world for analysing data, looking for patterns and making deductions. As an important higher-order thinking skill, problem solving also constitutes a major research field in science education. Relevant education research is an ongoing process, with recent developments occurring not only in the area of quantitative/computational problems, but also in qualitative problem solving.

The following situations are considered, some general, others with a focus on specific areas of chemistry: quantitative problems, qualitative reasoning, metacognition and resource activation, deconstructing the problem-solving process, an overview of the working memory hypothesis, reasoning with the electron-pushing formalism, scaffolding organic synthesis skills, spectroscopy for structural characterization in organic chemistry, enzyme kinetics, problem solving in the academic chemistry laboratory, chemistry problem-solving in context, team-based/active learning, technology for molecular representations, IR spectra simulation, and computational quantum chemistry tools. The book concludes with methodological and epistemological issues in problem solving research and other perspectives in problem solving in chemistry.

With a foreword by George Bodner.

• Cite Icon Cite

Problems and Problem Solving in Chemistry Education: Analysing Data, Looking for Patterns and Making Deductions, The Royal Society of Chemistry, 2021.

Download citation file:

• Ris (Zotero)
• Reference Manager

Digital access

Print format, table of contents.

• Front Matter
• Acknowledgments
• Author Biographies
• Chapter 1: Introduction − The Many Types and Kinds of Chemistry Problems p1-14 By Georgios Tsaparlis Georgios Tsaparlis University of Ioannina, Department of Chemistry Ioannina Greece [email protected] Search for other works by this author on: This Site PubMed Google Scholar Abstract Open the PDF Link PDF for Chapter 1: Introduction − The Many Types and Kinds of Chemistry Problems in another window
• Chapter 2: Qualitative Reasoning in Problem-solving in Chemistry p15-37 By Vicente Talanquer Vicente Talanquer Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry, University of Arizona Tucson AZ 85721 USA [email protected] Search for other works by this author on: This Site PubMed Google Scholar Abstract Open the PDF Link PDF for Chapter 2: Qualitative Reasoning in Problem-solving in Chemistry in another window
• Chapter 3: Scaffolding Metacognition and Resource Activation During Problem Solving: A Continuum Perspective p38-67 By Nicole Graulich ; Nicole Graulich Justus-Liebig-Universität Gießen Germany Search for other works by this author on: This Site PubMed Google Scholar Axel Langner ; Axel Langner Justus-Liebig-Universität Gießen Germany Search for other works by this author on: This Site PubMed Google Scholar Kimberly Vo ; Kimberly Vo Monash University Australia [email protected] Search for other works by this author on: This Site PubMed Google Scholar Elizabeth Yuriev Elizabeth Yuriev Monash University Australia [email protected] Search for other works by this author on: This Site PubMed Google Scholar Abstract Open the PDF Link PDF for Chapter 3: Scaffolding Metacognition and Resource Activation During Problem Solving: A Continuum Perspective in another window
• Chapter 4: Deconstructing the Problem-solving Process: Beneath Assigned Points and Beyond Traditional Assessment p68-92 By Ozcan Gulacar ; Ozcan Gulacar University of California, Davis, Department of Chemistry One Shields Avenue Davis CA 95616 USA [email protected] Search for other works by this author on: This Site PubMed Google Scholar Charlie Cox ; Charlie Cox Duke University, Department of Chemistry Box 90346, 128 Science Drive Durham NC 27708-0346 USA Search for other works by this author on: This Site PubMed Google Scholar Herb Fynewever Herb Fynewever Calvin University, Department of Chemistry 3201 Burton SE Grand Rapids MI 49546 USA Search for other works by this author on: This Site PubMed Google Scholar Abstract Open the PDF Link PDF for Chapter 4: Deconstructing the Problem-solving Process: Beneath Assigned Points and Beyond Traditional Assessment in another window
• Chapter 5: It Depends on the Problem and on the Solver: An Overview of the Working Memory Overload Hypothesis, Its Applicability and Its Limitations p93-126 By Georgios Tsaparlis Georgios Tsaparlis University of Ioannina, Department of Chemistry Ioannina Greece [email protected] Search for other works by this author on: This Site PubMed Google Scholar Abstract Open the PDF Link PDF for Chapter 5: It Depends on the Problem and on the Solver: An Overview of the Working Memory Overload Hypothesis, Its Applicability and Its Limitations in another window
• Chapter 6: Mechanistic Reasoning Using the Electron-pushing Formalism p127-144 By Gautam Bhattacharyya Gautam Bhattacharyya Missouri State University, Department of Chemistry 901 South National Avenue Springfield MO 65897 USA [email protected] Search for other works by this author on: This Site PubMed Google Scholar Abstract Open the PDF Link PDF for Chapter 6: Mechanistic Reasoning Using the Electron-pushing Formalism in another window
• Chapter 7: Scaffolding Synthesis Skills in Organic Chemistry p145-165 By Alison B. Flynn Alison B. Flynn Department of Chemistry and Biomolecular Sciences, University of Ottawa 10 Marie Curie Ottawa Ontario K1N 6N5 Canada [email protected] Search for other works by this author on: This Site PubMed Google Scholar Abstract Open the PDF Link PDF for Chapter 7: Scaffolding Synthesis Skills in Organic Chemistry in another window
• Chapter 8: Problem Solving Using NMR and IR Spectroscopy for Structural Characterization in Organic Chemistry p166-198 By Megan C. Connor ; Megan C. Connor Department of Chemistry, University of Michigan Ann Arbor Michigan USA [email protected] Search for other works by this author on: This Site PubMed Google Scholar Ginger V. Shultz Ginger V. Shultz Department of Chemistry, University of Michigan Ann Arbor Michigan USA [email protected] Search for other works by this author on: This Site PubMed Google Scholar Abstract Open the PDF Link PDF for Chapter 8: Problem Solving Using NMR and IR Spectroscopy for Structural Characterization in Organic Chemistry in another window
• Chapter 9: Assessing System Ontology in Biochemistry: Analysis of Students’ Problem Solving in Enzyme Kinetics p199-216 By Jon-Marc G. Rodriguez ; Jon-Marc G. Rodriguez University of Iowa, Department of Chemistry E355 Chemistry Building Iowa City Iowa 52242-1294 USA [email protected] Search for other works by this author on: This Site PubMed Google Scholar Sven J. Philips ; Sven J. Philips Purdue University, Department of Chemistry 560 Oval Drive West Lafayette IN 47907 USA Search for other works by this author on: This Site PubMed Google Scholar Nicholas P. Hux ; Nicholas P. Hux Purdue University, Department of Chemistry 560 Oval Drive West Lafayette IN 47907 USA Search for other works by this author on: This Site PubMed Google Scholar Marcy H. Towns Marcy H. Towns Purdue University, Department of Chemistry 560 Oval Drive West Lafayette IN 47907 USA Search for other works by this author on: This Site PubMed Google Scholar Abstract Open the PDF Link PDF for Chapter 9: Assessing System Ontology in Biochemistry: Analysis of Students’ Problem Solving in Enzyme Kinetics in another window
• Chapter 10: Problem Solving in the Chemistry Teaching Laboratory: Is This Something That Happens? p217-252 By Ian Hawkins ; Ian Hawkins Welch College Gallatin TN 37066 USA Search for other works by this author on: This Site PubMed Google Scholar Vichuda K. Hunter ; Vichuda K. Hunter Middle Tennessee State University, Department of Chemistry PO Box 68 Murfreesboro TN 37132 USA [email protected] Search for other works by this author on: This Site PubMed Google Scholar Michael J. Sanger ; Michael J. Sanger Middle Tennessee State University, Department of Chemistry PO Box 68 Murfreesboro TN 37132 USA [email protected] Search for other works by this author on: This Site PubMed Google Scholar Amy J. Phelps Amy J. Phelps Middle Tennessee State University, Department of Chemistry PO Box 68 Murfreesboro TN 37132 USA [email protected] Search for other works by this author on: This Site PubMed Google Scholar Abstract Open the PDF Link PDF for Chapter 10: Problem Solving in the Chemistry Teaching Laboratory: Is This Something That Happens? in another window
• Chapter 11: Problems and Problem Solving in the Light of Context-based Chemistry p253-278 By Karolina Broman Karolina Broman Umeå University Sweden [email protected] Search for other works by this author on: This Site PubMed Google Scholar Abstract Open the PDF Link PDF for Chapter 11: Problems and Problem Solving in the Light of Context-based Chemistry in another window
• Chapter 12: Using Team Based Learning to Promote Problem Solving Through Active Learning p279-319 By Natalie J. Capel ; Natalie J. Capel Keele University UK [email protected] Search for other works by this author on: This Site PubMed Google Scholar Laura M. Hancock ; Laura M. Hancock Keele University UK [email protected] Search for other works by this author on: This Site PubMed Google Scholar Chloe Howe ; Chloe Howe Keele University UK [email protected] Search for other works by this author on: This Site PubMed Google Scholar Graeme R. Jones ; Graeme R. Jones Keele University UK [email protected] Search for other works by this author on: This Site PubMed Google Scholar Tess R. Phillips ; Tess R. Phillips Keele University UK [email protected] Search for other works by this author on: This Site PubMed Google Scholar Daniela Plana Daniela Plana Keele University UK [email protected] Search for other works by this author on: This Site PubMed Google Scholar Abstract Open the PDF Link PDF for Chapter 12: Using Team Based Learning to Promote Problem Solving Through Active Learning in another window
• Chapter 13: Technology, Molecular Representations, and Student Understanding in Chemistry p321-339 By Jack D. Polifka ; Jack D. Polifka Department of Chemistry, Human Computer Interaction Program, Iowa State University Ames IA 50011 USA [email protected] Search for other works by this author on: This Site PubMed Google Scholar John Y. Baluyut ; John Y. Baluyut Math and Science Division, University of Providence Great Falls MT, 59405 USA Search for other works by this author on: This Site PubMed Google Scholar Thomas A. Holme Thomas A. Holme Department of Chemistry, Human Computer Interaction Program, Iowa State University Ames IA 50011 USA [email protected] Search for other works by this author on: This Site PubMed Google Scholar Abstract Open the PDF Link PDF for Chapter 13: Technology, Molecular Representations, and Student Understanding in Chemistry in another window
• Chapter 14: An Educational Software for Supporting Students’ Learning of IR Spectral Interpretation p340-360 By Maria Limniou ; Maria Limniou School of Psychology, University of Liverpool UK [email protected] Search for other works by this author on: This Site PubMed Google Scholar Nikos Papadopoulos ; Nikos Papadopoulos Department of Chemistry, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki Greece Search for other works by this author on: This Site PubMed Google Scholar Dimitris Gavril ; Dimitris Gavril Department of Chemistry, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki Greece Search for other works by this author on: This Site PubMed Google Scholar Aikaterini Touni ; Aikaterini Touni Department of Chemistry, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki Greece Search for other works by this author on: This Site PubMed Google Scholar Markella Chatziapostolidou Markella Chatziapostolidou Department of Chemistry, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki Greece Search for other works by this author on: This Site PubMed Google Scholar Abstract Open the PDF Link PDF for Chapter 14: An Educational Software for Supporting Students’ Learning of IR Spectral Interpretation in another window
• Chapter 15: Exploring Chemistry Problems with Computational Quantum Chemistry Tools in the Undergraduate Chemistry Curriculum p361-384 By Michael P. Sigalas Michael P. Sigalas Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Laboratory of Quantum and Computational Chemistry, Department of Chemistry Thessaloniki 54124 Greece [email protected] Search for other works by this author on: This Site PubMed Google Scholar Abstract Open the PDF Link PDF for Chapter 15: Exploring Chemistry Problems with Computational Quantum Chemistry Tools in the Undergraduate Chemistry Curriculum in another window
• Chapter 16: Methodological and Epistemological Issues in Science Education Problem-solving Research: Linear and Nonlinear Paradigms p385-413 By Dimitrios Stamovlasis ; Dimitrios Stamovlasis Aristotle University of Thessaloniki Thessaloniki Greece [email protected] Search for other works by this author on: This Site PubMed Google Scholar Julie Vaiopoulou Julie Vaiopoulou Democritus University of Thrace Alexandroupolis Greece [email protected] University of Nicosia Nicosia Cyprus Search for other works by this author on: This Site PubMed Google Scholar Abstract Open the PDF Link PDF for Chapter 16: Methodological and Epistemological Issues in Science Education Problem-solving Research: Linear and Nonlinear Paradigms in another window
• Chapter 17: Issues, Problems and Solutions: Summing It All Up p414-444 By Georgios Tsaparlis Georgios Tsaparlis University of Ioannina, Department of Chemistry Ioannina Greece [email protected] Search for other works by this author on: This Site PubMed Google Scholar Abstract Open the PDF Link PDF for Chapter 17: Issues, Problems and Solutions: Summing It All Up in another window
• Chapter 18: Postscript – Two Issues for Provocative Thought: (a) The Potential Synergy Between HOTS and LOTS (b) When Problem Solving Might Descend to Chaos Dynamics p445-456 By Georgios Tsaparlis Georgios Tsaparlis University of Ioannina, Department of Chemistry Ioannina Greece [email protected] Search for other works by this author on: This Site PubMed Google Scholar Abstract Open the PDF Link PDF for Chapter 18: Postscript – Two Issues for Provocative Thought: (a) The Potential Synergy Between HOTS and LOTS (b) When Problem Solving Might Descend to Chaos Dynamics in another window
• Subject Index p457-467 Open the PDF Link PDF for Subject Index in another window

Advertisement

• Campaigning and outreach
• News and events
• Awards and funding
• Privacy policy
• Journals and databases
• Locations and contacts
• Membership and professional community
• Teaching and learning
• Help and legal
• Cookie policy
• Terms and conditions
• Get Adobe Acrobat Reader
• Registered charity number: 207890
• © Royal Society of Chemistry 2023

This Feature Is Available To Subscribers Only

Sign In or Create an Account

Chemistry Education Research and Practice

Problem solving in chemistry supported by metacognitive scaffolding: teaching associates’ perspectives and practices †.

* Corresponding authors

a Faculty of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences, Monash University, Parkville, VIC 3052, Australia E-mail: [email protected] Tel: +61 3 9903 9611

b Faculty of Medicine, Nursing and Health Sciences, Monash University, Clayton, VIC 3800, Australia

Problem solving is a fundamental skill that chemistry graduates should possess, yet many students have difficulties solving problems in chemistry. These difficulties may be either student- or instructor-driven. Instructor-related difficulties could stem from some teaching practices, such as expecting students to apply procedures without requiring them to show their reasoning or solely focusing on worked examples. Such practices could inhibit the development of problem-solving skills. To address these challenges, our group developed a metacognitive scaffold (Goldilocks Help) to support both students and instructors through structured problem solving. This scaffold breaks down the problem-solving process into phases and places emphasis on reasoning required throughout that process. This study explored how teaching associates (TAs) used the problem-solving scaffold and how this practice affected their teaching and perceptions of student learning. Seven TAs based at a large research-intensive Australian university were interviewed, and the data were analysed using the framework approach. Teaching with the problem-solving scaffold was found to be beneficial, albeit with initial student resistance. The scaffold provided a common thinking structure between the TAs and students, enabling TAs to easily identify mistakes and address specific areas of concern. However, TAs also experienced students’ attention shift from content to the scaffold. Initially, many students unproductively viewed the process as requiring two separate actions of solving the problem and being explicit about the problem-solving process they used, as opposed to an integrated activity. Through constant reinforcement and prompting by TAs during and prior to solving the problem, students continued to grasp how to effectively internalise the scaffold to assist their problem solving. Understanding how TAs use problem-solving scaffolds with students will add to the field of education research to inform innovations in supporting the development of students’ problem-solving skills.

Supplementary files

• Supplementary information PDF (774K)

Article information

Download citation, permissions.

Problem solving in chemistry supported by metacognitive scaffolding: teaching associates’ perspectives and practices

K. Vo, M. Sarkar, P. J. White and E. Yuriev, Chem. Educ. Res. Pract. , 2022,  23 , 436 DOI: 10.1039/D1RP00242B

To request permission to reproduce material from this article, please go to the Copyright Clearance Center request page .

If you are an author contributing to an RSC publication, you do not need to request permission provided correct acknowledgement is given.

If you are the author of this article, you do not need to request permission to reproduce figures and diagrams provided correct acknowledgement is given. If you want to reproduce the whole article in a third-party publication (excluding your thesis/dissertation for which permission is not required) please go to the Copyright Clearance Center request page .

Read more about how to correctly acknowledge RSC content .

Social activity

Search articles by author, advertisements.

• Help & FAQ

Analysing student problem solving: Successes and challenges

• Medicinal Chemistry

Research output : Contribution to conference › Abstract

Access to Document

• 280775625-oa Final published version, 23.4 KB
• https://www.monash.edu/eurovariety-2019

T1 - Analysing student problem solving

T2 - 8th European Variety in University Chemistry Education

AU - Yuriev, Elizabeth

N2 - Two well-known challenges in chemistry education are: developing problem-solving skills by students and teaching of these skills by educators. Extensive chemical education literature deals with the nature of associated difficulties and instructional approaches to address them. One of the main difficulties experienced by students, when solving chemistry problems, stems from the lack of process skills. We have tackled this challenge by developing and evaluating the problem-solving workflow “Goldilocks Help” (Yuriev et al, 2017). It provides specific scaffolding for students faced with procedural difficulties related to solving chemistry problems. The evaluation showed that the workflow helped to shift students’ beliefs about their abilities to use productive self-regulation strategies in problem solving: planning, information management, monitoring, debugging, and evaluation. In fact, analysis of student work showed that many of them could effectively regulate their problem solving though planning and analysis (Yuriev et al, 2019). Furthermore, students who demonstrated structured problem solving and explicit reasoning in their work were more successful in their problem-solving attempts. However, contrary to their stated values, they still found it challenging to monitor, debug, and evaluate effectively. In this presentation, I will use exemplars of student work as well as aggregated analyses to illustrate these findings.We propose that it is important to constructively align teaching and learning activities with assessment that explicitly encourages students to demonstrate their reasoning, and other reflective and evaluative practices, during problem solving.

AB - Two well-known challenges in chemistry education are: developing problem-solving skills by students and teaching of these skills by educators. Extensive chemical education literature deals with the nature of associated difficulties and instructional approaches to address them. One of the main difficulties experienced by students, when solving chemistry problems, stems from the lack of process skills. We have tackled this challenge by developing and evaluating the problem-solving workflow “Goldilocks Help” (Yuriev et al, 2017). It provides specific scaffolding for students faced with procedural difficulties related to solving chemistry problems. The evaluation showed that the workflow helped to shift students’ beliefs about their abilities to use productive self-regulation strategies in problem solving: planning, information management, monitoring, debugging, and evaluation. In fact, analysis of student work showed that many of them could effectively regulate their problem solving though planning and analysis (Yuriev et al, 2019). Furthermore, students who demonstrated structured problem solving and explicit reasoning in their work were more successful in their problem-solving attempts. However, contrary to their stated values, they still found it challenging to monitor, debug, and evaluate effectively. In this presentation, I will use exemplars of student work as well as aggregated analyses to illustrate these findings.We propose that it is important to constructively align teaching and learning activities with assessment that explicitly encourages students to demonstrate their reasoning, and other reflective and evaluative practices, during problem solving.

M3 - Abstract

Y2 - 17 July 2019 through 19 July 2019

Problem Solving Through Cooperative Learning in the Chemistry Classroom

• First Online: 01 January 2014

Cite this chapter

• Liberato Cardellini 3  

1734 Accesses

1 Citations

Cardellini in this chapter analyzes problem solving through cooperative learning in the chemistry classroom at the university level. He presents cooperative learning as an instructional method that should incorporate five criteria, such as positive interdependence, individual accountability, face-to-face interaction, development, and appropriate use of interpersonal skills and periodic self-assessment of group functioning. The review of the literature about cooperative learning is presented and the definition and structure of cooperative learning are presented. He describes in detail how he implements this teaching approach in his university-level chemistry classes, how to motivate and engage the students participating in the general chemistry course, and how to learn chemistry to achieve the best results according to the students’ abilities.

The best answer to the question, “What is the most effective method of teaching?” is that it depends on the goal, the student, the content, and the teacher. But the next best answer is, “Students teaching other students” . Wilbert McKeachie

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

• Available as PDF
• Read on any device
• Instant download
• Own it forever
• Available as EPUB and PDF
• Compact, lightweight edition
• Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
• Free shipping worldwide - see info
• Durable hardcover edition

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Ames, C. (1992). Classrooms: Goals, structures, and student motivation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84 (3), 261–271.

Article   Google Scholar  

Ausubel, D. P., Novak, J. D., & Hanesian, H. (1978). Educational Psychology: A Cognitive View (2nd ed.). New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. In J. D. Novak & D. B. Gowin (1995), Learning how to learn . New York: Cambridge University Press.

Google Scholar  

Bain, K. (2004). What the best college teachers do . Cambridge (MA): Harvard University Press.

Bertucci, A., Meloni, C., Conte, S., & Cardellini, L. (2005). The role of personality, gender and interaction in a cooperative and in a computer supported collaborative learning task. Journal of Science Education , 6 (Special issue), 32–35.

Bertucci, A., Conte, S., & Cardellini, L. (2006). Cooperative Learning. Una metodologia al servizio dei contesti educativi e del “brainframe” del nuovo millennio. Orientamenti Pedagogici , 53 (3), 517–536.

Boekaerts, M. (1997). Self-regulated learning: A new concept embraced by researchers, policy makers, educator, teachers, and students. Learning and Instruction, 7 (2), 161–186.

Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., Cocking, R. R., Donovan, M. S., & Pellegrino, J. W. (2000). How people learn. Brain, mind, experience, and school (Expanded ed.). Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.

Brophy, J. (2004). Motivating students lo learn (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Brown, R. W. (1995). Auto rating: Getting individual marks from team marks and enhancing teamwork. Paper presented at the Frontiers in Education Conference, IEEE/ASEE, Pittsburgh.

Cardellini, L. (2006a). The foundations of radical constructivism: An interview with Ernst von Glasersfeld. Foundations of Chemistry, 8 (2), 177–187.

Cardellini, L. (2006b). Fostering creative problem solving in chemistry through group work. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 7 (2), 131–140.

Cardellini, L., & Felder, R. M. (1999). L’apprendimento cooperativo: Un metodo per migliorare la preparazione e l’acquisizione di abilità cognitive negli studenti. La Chimica nella Scuola, 21 (1), 18–25.

Cardellini, L., & Pascual-Leone, J. (2004). On mentors, cognitive development, education, and constructivism: An interview with Juan Pascual-Leone. Journal of Cognitive Education and Psychology [online], 4 (2), 199–219.

Carson, B. H. (1999). Bad news in the service of good teaching: Students remember ineffective professors. Journal of Excellence in College Teaching, 10 (1), 91–105.

Chiappetta, E. L., & Koballa, T. R. (2006). Science instruction in the middle and secondary schools. Developing fundamental knowledge and skills for teaching (6th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.

Childs, P. E., & Sheehan, M. (2009). What’s difficult about chemistry? An Irish perspective. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 10 (3), 204–218.

Cooper, M. M. (1995). Cooperative learning. An approach for large enrolment courses. Journal of Chemical Education, 72 (2), 162–164.

Damon, C., Buchs, C., & Butera, F. (2002). Epistemic and relational conflicts in sharing identical vs. complementary information during cooperative learning. Swiss Journal of Psychology, 61 (3), 139–151.

Dougherty, R. C., Bowen, C. W., Berger, T., Rees, W., Mellon, E. K., & Pulliam, E. (1995). Cooperative learning and enhanced communication. Effect on student performance, retention, and attitudes in general chemistry. Journal of Chemical Education, 72 (9), 793–797.

El-Banna, H. (1987). The development of a predictive theory of science education based upon information processing theory . Ph.D. thesis, University of Glasgow.

Elliott, J. (1991). Action research for educational change . Milton Keynes: Open University Press.

Felder, R. M. (1996). Active-inductive-cooperative learning: An instructional model for chemistry? Journal of Chemical Education, 73 (9), 832–836.

Felder, R. M., & Brent, R. (1994). Cooperative Learning in Technical Courses: Procedures, Pitfalls, and Payoffs . (ERIC Document Reproduction Service ED 377038, October)

Felder, R. M., & Brent, R. (2007). Cooperative learning. In P. A. Mabrouk (Ed.), Active learning: Models from the Analytical Sciences (pp. 34–53). Washington, DC: American Chemical Society.

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Felder, R. M., & Brent, R. (2008). The ten worst teaching mistakes I. Mistakes 5–10. Chemical Engineering Education, 42 (4), 201–202.

Felder, R. M., & Brent, R. (2009a). The ten worst teaching mistakes I. Mistakes 1–4. Chemical Engineering Education, 43 (1), 15–16.

Felder, R. M., & Brent, R. (2009b). Active Learning: An Introduction. ASQ Higher Education Brief , 2 (4). Retrieved from http://www.ncsu.edu/felder-public/Papers/ALpaper(ASQ).pdf

Gillies, R. M., & Boyle, M. (2009). Teachers’ reflections on cooperative learning: Issues of implementation . Teacher Education: Teaching and.

Goldman, S. R., Mayfield-Stewart, C., Bateman, H. V., Pellegrino, J. W., & Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt (1998). Environments that support meaningful learning. In L. Hoffmann, A. Krapp, K. A. Renninger, & J. Baumert (Eds.), Interest and learning (pp. 184–196). Kiel: IPN.

Hardy, T., & Kirkwood, V. (1994). Toward creating effective learning environments for science teachers: The role of a science educator in the tertiary setting. International Journal of Science Education, 16 (2), 231–251.

Heller, P., & Hollabaugh, M. (1992). Teaching problem solving through cooperative grouping. Part 2: Designing problems and structuring groups. American Journal of Physics, 60 (7), 637–644.

Herron, J. D. (1986). What can we do about sue: A case study of competence. Journal of Chemical Education, 63 , 528–531.

Herron, J. D. (1990). Research in chemical education: Results and directions. In M. Gardner, J. G. Greeno, F. Reif, A. H. Schoenfeld, A. Disessa, & E. Stage (Eds.), Toward a scientific practice of science education (pp. 31–54). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Herron, J. D. (1996). The chemistry classroom. Formulas for successful teaching . Washington, DC: American Chemical Society.

Johnson, D. W., Skon, L., & Johnson, R. T. (1980). Effects of cooperative, competitive, and individualistic conditions on children’s problem-solving performance. American Educational Research Journal, 17 (1), 83–93.

Johnson, D. W., Maruyama, G., Johnson, R., Nelson, D., & Skon, L. (1981). Effects of cooperative, competitive, and individualistic goal structures on achievement: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 89 (1), 47–62.

Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T., & Smith, K. A. (1998). Cooperative learning returns to college: What evidence is there that it works? Change, 30 (4), 27–35.

Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T., & Stanne, M. E. (2000). Cooperative Learning Methods: A meta - analysis. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, Cooperative Learning Center. Retrieved October 25, 2009, from http://www.co-operation.org/pages/cl-methods.html

Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T., & Smith, K. A. (2006). Active Learning: Cooperation in the College Classroom (3rd ed.). Edina, MN: Interaction Book.

Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (2009). An educational psychology success story: social interdependence theory and cooperative learning. Educational Researcher, 38 (5), 365–379.

Johnstone, A. H. (1993). The development of chemistry teaching. A changing response to changing demand. Journal of Chemical Education, 70 (9), 701–705.

Johnstone, A. H. (1997). Chemistry teaching—science or alchemy? Journal of Chemical Education, 74 (3), 262–268.

Johnstone, A. H. (2000). Teaching of chemistry—logical or psychological? Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 1 (1), 9–15.

Kagan, S. (2001). Teaching for character and community. Educational Leadership, 59 (2), 50–55.

Kaufman, D. B., Felder, R. M., & Fuller, H. (2000). Accounting for individual effort in cooperative learning teams. Journal of Engineering Education, 89 (2), 133–140.

Laughlin, P. R., Hatch, E. C., Silver, J. S., & Boh, L. (2006). Groups perform better than the best individuals on letter-to-numbers problems: effects of group size. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90 (4), 644–651.

Lazarowitz, R., Hertz, R. L., Baird, J. H., & Bowlden, V. (1988). Academic achievement and on-task behaviour instructed in a cooperative students instructed in a cooperative small investigative group. Science Education, 72 (4), 475–487.

Lazarowitz, R., Hertz-Lazarowitz, R., & Baird, J. H. (1994). Learning science in a cooperative setting: Academic achievement and affective outcomes. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31 (10), 1121–1131.

Ledlow, S. (2001). An interview with Richard Felder. Retrieved October 30, 2009, from http://clte.asu.edu/active/feldertranscript.htm

Lepper, M. R. (1988). Motivational considerations in the study of instruction. Cognition and Instruction, 5 (4), 289–309.

Mazur, E. (1997). Peer instruction. A user’s manual . Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.

McKeachie, W. J. (1994). Teaching tips. Strategies, research, and theory for college and university teachers (9th ed.). Lexington, MA: D. C. Heath and Co.

Millis, B. J., & Cottell, P. G, Jr. (1998). Cooperative learning for higher education faculty . Phoenix, AZ: Oryx Press.

Nakhleh, M. B. (1992). Why some students don’t learn chemistry. Chemical misconceptions. Journal of Chemical Education, 69 (3), 191–196.

Novak, J. D. (2010). Learning, creating, and using knowledge: Concept maps as facilitative tools in schools and corporations (2nd ed.). New York: Routledge.

Nurrenbern, S. C. (Ed.). (1995). Experiences in cooperative learning: A collection for chemistry teachers . Madison, WI: Institute for Chemical Education.

Oakley, B., Felder, R. M., Brent, R., & Elhajj, I. (2004). Turning student groups into effective teams. Journal of Student Centered Learning, 2 (1), 9–34.

Obaya, A. (1999). Getting cooperative learning. Science Education International, 10 (2), 25–27.

O’Donnell, A. M., & O’Kelly, J. (1994). Learning from peers: Beyond the rhetoric of positive results. Educational Psychology Review, 6 (4), 321–349.

Okebukola, P. A., & Ogunniyi, M. B. (1984). Cooperative, competitive, and individualistic science laboratory interaction patterns—Effects on students’ achievement and acquisition of practical skills. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 21 (9), 875–884.

Open Teaching Toolkit. (1999). Effective group work . Milton Keynes: Open University Press.

Patrick, H., Turner, J. C., Meyer, D. K., & Midgley, C. (2003). How teachers establish psychological environments during the first days of school: associations with avoidance in mathematics. Teachers College Record, 105 (8), 1521–1558.

Pintrich, P. R., & De Groot, E. V. (1990). Motivational and self-regulated learning components of classroom academic performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82 (1), 33–40.

Pintrich, P. R., Smith, D. A. F., Garcia, T., & McKeachie, W. J. (1993). Reliability and predictive validity of the motivated strategies for learning questionnaire (MSLQ). Educational and Psychological Measurement, 53 (3), 801–813.

Prince, M. (2004). Does active learning work? A review of the research. Journal of Engineering Education, 93 (3), 223–231.

Qin, Z., Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1995). Cooperative versus competitive efforts and problem solving. Review of Educational Research, 65 (2), 129–143.

Raven, B. H., & Shaw, J. I. (1970). Interdependence and group problem-solving in the triad. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 14 (2), 157–165.

Reid, N., & Yang, M. J. (2002). Open-ended problem solving in school chemistry: A preliminary investigation. International Journal Science Education, 24 (12), 1313–1332.

Richlin, L. (2006). Blueprint for learning. Constructing college courses to facilitate, assess, and document learning . Sterling: VA, Stylus.

Roadrangka, V., Yeany, R. H., & Padilla, M. J. (1983). The construction and validation of Group Assessment of Logical Thinking (GALT) , Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Dallas.

Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations: Classic definitions and new directions. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25 (1), 54–67.

Robinson, W. R. (1995). Groups-of-three study. In S. C. Nurrenbern (Ed.), Experiences in cooperative learning: A collection for chemistry teachers (pp. 148–149). Madison, WI: Institute for Chemical Education.

Shulman, L. S. (2002). Making differences: A table of learning. Change, 34 (6), 36–44.

Shulman, L. S. (2004). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. In S. M. Wilson (Ed.), The wisdom of practice. Essays on teaching, learning, and learning to teach (pp. 189–215). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Slavin, R. E. (1980). Cooperative learning. Review of Educational Research, 50 (2), 315–342.

Slavin, R. E. (1995). Cooperative learning (2nd ed.). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Slavin, R. E. (1996). Research on cooperative learning and achievement: What we know, what we need to know. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 21 (1), 43–69.

Sleet, R. J., Hager, P., Logan, P., & Hopper, M. (1996). Broader Skill Requirements of Science Graduates (pp. 128-130). Sydney: University of Technology.

Smith, K., Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1981). Can conflict be constructive? Controversy versus concurrence seeking in learning groups. Journal of Educational Psychology, 73 (5), 651–663.

Smith, K. A., Sheppard, S. D., Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (2005). Pedagogies of engagement: Classroom-based practices. Journal of Engineering Education, 94 (1), 1–15.

Soloman, B. A., & Felder, R. M. (1988). Index of Learning Style. Retrieved October 20, 2009, from http://www.engr.ncsu.edu/learningstyles/ilsweb.html

Springer, L., Stanne, M. E., & Donovan, S. (1997). Measuring the Success of Small-Group Learning in College-Level SMET Teaching: A Meta-Analysis. Retrieved November 15, 2009, from http://www.wcer.wisc.edu/archive/CL1/CL/resource/scismet.pdf

Towns, M. H. (1998). How do i get my students to work together? Getting cooperative learning started. Journal of Chemical Education, 75 (1), 67–69.

Vermetten, Y. J., Vermunt, J. D., & Lodewijks, H. G. (2002). Powerful learning environments? How university students differ in their response to instructional measures. Learning and Instruction, 12 (3), 263–284.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1962). Thought and language . Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Book   Google Scholar  

Witkin, H. A. (1974). Psychological differentiation: studies of development . New York: Wiley.

Witkin, H. A., Moore, C. A., Goodenough, D. R., & Cox, P. W. (1977). Field-dependent and field-independent cognitive styles and their educational implications. Review of Educational Research, 47 (1), 1–64.

Witkin, H. A., & Goodenough, D. R. (1981). Cognitive styles: essence and origins. Field dependence and field independence . New York: International Universities Press.

Ziegler, S. (1981). The effectiveness of cooperative learning teams for increasing cross-ethnic friendship: Additional evidence. Human Organization, 40 (3), 264–268.

Zusho, A., & Pintrich, P. R. (2003). Skill and will: the role of motivation and cognition in the learning of college chemistry. International Journal of Science Education, 25 (9), 1081–1094.

Download references

Acknowledgments

I am grateful to Richard Felder of North Carolina State University, who like a father helped me with advice and encouragement in my first hesitating steps in using cooperative learning, and who also offered suggestions for improving an early draft of this chapter.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Università Politecnica delle Marche, Ancona, Italy

Liberato Cardellini

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Liberato Cardellini .

Editor information

Editors and affiliations.

University of Ljubljana, Ljubljana, Slovenia

Iztok Devetak

Saša Aleksij Glažar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2014 Springer Science+Business Media B.V.

About this chapter

Cardellini, L. (2014). Problem Solving Through Cooperative Learning in the Chemistry Classroom. In: Devetak, I., Glažar, S. (eds) Learning with Understanding in the Chemistry Classroom. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-4366-3_8

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-4366-3_8

Published : 15 January 2014

Publisher Name : Springer, Dordrecht

Print ISBN : 978-94-007-4365-6

Online ISBN : 978-94-007-4366-3

eBook Packages : Humanities, Social Sciences and Law Education (R0)

Share this chapter

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

• Research Matters — to the Science Teacher

Problem Solving in Chemistry

One of the major difficulties in teaching introductory chemistry courses is helping students become efficient problem solvers. Most beginning chemistry students find this one of the most difficulty aspects of the introductory chemistry course. What does research tell us about problem solving in chemistry? Just why do students have such difficulty in solving chemistry problems? Are some ways of teaching students to solve problems more effective than others? Problem solving in any area is a very complex process. It involves an understanding of the language in which the problem is stated, the interpretation of what is given in the problem and what is sought, an understanding of the science concepts involved in the solution, and the ability to perform mathematical operations if these are involved in the problem. The first requirement for successful problem solving is that the problem solver understand the meaning of the problem. In order to do so there must be an understanding of the vocabulary and its usage in the problem. There are two types of words that occur in problems, ordinary words that science teachers generally assume that students know and more technical terms that require understanding of concepts specific to the discipline. Researchers have found that many students do not know the meaning of common words such as contrast, displace, diversity, factor, fundamental, incident, negligible, relevant, relative, spontaneous and valid. Slight changes in the way a problem is worded may make a difference in whether a students is able to solve it correctly. For example, when "least" is changed to "most" in a problem, the percentage getting the question correct may increase by 25%. Similar improvements occur for changing negative to positive forms, for rewording long and complex questions, and for changing from the passive to the active voice. Although teachers would like students to solve problems in whatever way they are framed they must be cognizant of the fact that these subtle changes will make a difference in students' success in solving problems. From several research studies on problem solving in chemistry, it is clear that the major reason why students are unable to solve problems is that they do not understand the concepts on which the problems are based. Studies that compare the procedures used by students who are inexperienced in solving problems with experts show that experts were able to retrieve relevant concepts more readily from their long term memory. Studies have also shown that experts concepts are linked to one another in a network. Experts spend a considerable period of time planning the strategy that will be used to solve the problem whereas novices jump right in using a formula or trying to apply an algorithm. In the past few years, science educators have been trying to determine which science concepts students understand and which they do not. Because chemistry is concerned with the nature of matter, and matter is defined as anything that has mass and volume, students must understand these concepts to be successful problem solvers in chemistry. Research studies have shown that a surprising number of high school students do not understand the meaning of mass, volume, heat, temperature and changes of state. One reason why students do not understand these concepts is because when they have been taught in the classroom, they have not been presented in a variety of contexts. Often the instruction has been verbal and formal. This will be minimally effective if students have not had the concrete experiences. Hence, misconceptions arise. Although the very word "misconception" has a negative connotation, this information is important for chemistry teachers. They are frameworks by which the students view the world around them. If a teacher understands these frameworks, then instruction can be formulated that builds on student's existing knowledge. It appears that students build conceptual frameworks as they try to make sense out of their surroundings. In addition to the fundamental properties of matter mentioned above, there are other concepts that are critical to chemical calculations. One of these is the mole concept and another is the particulate nature of matter. There is mounting evidence that many students do not understand either of these concepts sufficiently well to use them in problem solving. It appears that if chemistry problem solving skills of students are to improve, chemistry teachers will need to spend a much greater period of time on concept acquisition. One way to do this will be to present concepts in a variety of contexts, using hands-on activities.

What does this research imply about procedures that are useful for helping students become more successful at problem solving?

Chemistry problems can be solved using a variety of techniques. Many chemistry teachers and most introductory chemistry texts illustrate problem solutions using the factor-label method. It has been shown that this is not the best technique for high school students of high mathematics anxiety and low proportional reasoning ability. The use of analogies and schematic diagrams results in higher achievement on problems involving moles, stoichiometry, and molarity. The use of analogs is not profitable for certain types of problems. When problems became complex (such as in dilution problems) students are unable to solve even the analog problems. For these types of problems, using analogs in instruction would be useless unless teachers are willing to spend additional time teaching students how to solve problems using the analog. Many students are unable to match analogs with the chemistry problems even after practice in using analogs. Students need considerable practice if analogs are used in instruction. When teaching chemistry by the lecture method, concept development needed for problem solving may be enhanced by pausing for a two minute interval at about 8 to 12 minute intervals during the lecture. This provides students time to review what has been presented, fill in the gaps, and interpret the information for others, and thus learn it themselves. The use of concept maps may also help students understand concepts and to relate them to one another. Requiring students to use a worksheet with each problem may help them solve them in a more effective way. The worksheet might include a place for them to plan a problem, that is list what is given and what is sought; to describe the problem situation by writing down other concepts they retrieve from memory (the use of a picture may integrate these); to find the mathematical solution; and to appraise their results. Although the research findings are not definitive, the above approaches offer some promise that students' problem solving skills can be improved and that they can learn to solve problems in a meaningful way.

For further information about this research area, please contact:

Dr. Dorothy Gabel Education Building 3rd and Jordan Bloomington, Indiana 47405

• school Campus Bookshelves
• menu_book Bookshelves
• perm_media Learning Objects
• login Login
• how_to_reg Request Instructor Account
• hub Instructor Commons
• Download Page (PDF)
• Download Full Book (PDF)
• Periodic Table
• Physics Constants
• Scientific Calculator
• Reference & Cite
• Tools expand_more
• Readability

selected template will load here

This action is not available.

1.12: Scientific Problem Solving

• Last updated
• Save as PDF
• Page ID 52325

How can we use problem solving in our everyday routines?

One day you wake up and realize your clock radio did not turn on to get you out of bed. You are puzzled, so you decide to find out what happened. You list three possible explanations:

• There was a power failure and your radio cannot turn on.
• Your little sister turned it off as a joke.
• You did not set the alarm last night.

Upon investigation, you find that the clock is on, so there is no power failure. Your little sister was spending the night with a friend and could not have turned the alarm off. You notice that the alarm is not set—your forgetfulness made you late. You have used the scientific method to answer a question.

Scientific Problem Solving

Humans have always wondered about the world around them. One of the questions of interest was (and still is): what is this world made of? Chemistry has been defined in various ways as the study of matter. What matter consists of has been a source of debate over the centuries. One of the key areas for this debate in the Western world was Greek philosophy.

The basic approach of the Greek philosophers was to discuss and debate the questions they had about the world. There was no gathering of information to speak of, just talking. As a result, several ideas about matter were put forth, but never resolved. The first philosopher to carry out the gathering of data was Aristotle (384-322 B.C.). He recorded many observations on the weather, on plant and animal life and behavior, on physical motions, and a number of other topics. Aristotle could probably be considered the first "real" scientist, because he made systematic observations of nature and tried to understand what he was seeing.

Inductive and Deductive Reasoning

Two approaches to logical thinking developed over the centuries. These two methods are inductive reasoning and deductive reasoning . Inductive reasoning involves getting a collection of specific examples and drawing a general conclusion from them. Deductive reasoning takes a general principle and then draws a specific conclusion from the general concept. Both are used in the development of scientific ideas.

Inductive reasoning first involves the collection of data: "If I add sodium metal to water, I observe a very violent reaction. Every time I repeat the process, I see the same thing happen." A general conclusion is drawn from these observations: the addition of sodium to water results in a violent reaction.

In deductive reasoning, a specific prediction is made based on a general principle. One general principle is that acids turn blue litmus paper red. Using the deductive reasoning process, one might predict: "If I have a bottle of liquid labeled 'acid', I expect the litmus paper to turn red when I immerse it in the liquid."

The Idea of the Experiment

Inductive reasoning is at the heart of what is now called the " scientific method ." In European culture, this approach was developed mainly by Francis Bacon (1561-1626), a British scholar. He advocated the use of inductive reasoning in every area of life, not just science. The scientific method, as developed by Bacon and others, involves several steps:

• Ask a question - identify the problem to be considered.
• Make observations - gather data that pertains to the question.
• Propose an explanation (a hypothesis) for the observations.
• Make new observations to test the hypothesis further.

Note that this should not be considered a "cookbook" for scientific research. Scientists do not sit down with their daily "to do" list and write down these steps. The steps may not necessarily be followed in order. But this does provide a general idea of how scientific research is usually done.

When a hypothesis is confirmed repeatedly, it eventually becomes a theory—a general principle that is offered to explain natural phenomena. Note a key word— explain , or  explanation . A theory offers a description of why something happens. A law, on the other hand, is a statement that is always true, but offers no explanation as to why. The law of gravity says a rock will fall when dropped, but does not explain why (gravitational theory is very complex and incomplete at present). The kinetic molecular theory of gases, on the other hand, states what happens when a gas is heated in a closed container (the pressure increases), but also explains why (the motions of the gas molecules are increased due to the change in temperature). Theories do not get "promoted" to laws, because laws do not answer the "why" question.

• The early Greek philosophers spent their time talking about nature, but did little or no actual exploration or investigation.
• Inductive reasoning - to develop a general conclusion from a collection of observations.
• Deductive reasoning - to make a specific statement based on a general principle.
• Scientific method - a process of observation, developing a hypothesis, and testing that hypothesis.
• What was the basic shortcoming of the Greek philosophers approach to studying the material world?
• How did Aristotle improve the approach?
• Define “inductive reasoning” and give an example.
• Define “deductive reasoning” and give an example.
• What is the difference between a hypothesis and a theory?
• What is the difference between a theory and a law?

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• v.8(5); 2022 May

Game-based learning approach on students’ motivation and understanding of chemistry concepts: A systematic review of literature

Edwin byusa.

a African Centre of Excellence for Innovative Teaching and Learning Mathematics and Science (ACEITLMS), University of Rwanda College of Education (URCE), Kayonza, P.O Box: 55, Rwamagana, Rwanda

Edwige Kampire

b University of Rwanda College of Education (URCE), Kayonza, P.O Box: 55, Rwamagana, Rwanda

Adrian Rwekaza Mwesigye

c Department of Educational Foundation and Psychology, Mbarara University of Science and Technology (MUST), Uganda

Associated Data

The data is uploaded on figshare repository and available at https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.19229217.v1 .

The past decade has seen a significant shift from teacher-centered pedagogy to a learner-centered approach in chemistry education research. Game-based learning has emerged as one of the most beneficial instructional approaches because it emphasizes “hands-on” and “minds-on” activities in chemistry classrooms. However, there has been a scarcity of review studies in chemistry education research that have attempted to document different educational games implemented and how such games have contributed to enhancing students' motivation and understanding of chemistry concepts. A total of 57 articles were reviewed to identify educational games implemented in chemistry classrooms from 2010 to 2021 to address this gap. All the reviewed articles were downloaded from the Google Scholar search engine and have all been indexed by Scopus. A systematic analysis was adopted to identify the purposes, educational game designs and implementation, and the chemistry content areas of focus for all the reviewed studies. Results show that educational games enhance students’ conceptual understanding of chemistry and increase their motivation to learn and have fun while making sense of the learned content.

Activity-based learning; Chemistry concepts; Chemistry education; Game-based learning; Secondary school; Teacher and learner-centered pedagogy.

1. Introduction

Like other physical and natural sciences, chemistry occupies a central position in daily living as it provides affordances for learners to understand the environment around them. However, chemistry teaching and learning at all levels of education has been marked with several challenges. For instance, students’ lack of problem-solving skills, limited spatial visualization, difficulties in understanding chemistry vocabulary, and poor communication between students and teachers have been previously studied ( Childs and Sheehan, 2009 ; Erman, 2017 ). This has prompted researchers from different settings to continuously advocate for a learning environment that would appropriately address such difficulties.

The teacher-centered pedagogy is characterized by the teacher's explanations of content, demonstration of experiments, and limited interactions among students or between students and the teacher ( Eilks et al., 2013 ; Nzeyimana and Ndihokubwayo, 2019 ). This teacher-centered teaching approach is based on the behaviorist point of view, which suggests that giving the correct information to the students enables them to commit such information to memory, assign appropriate meaning, and have it ready to be used in the future ( Mills, 2000 ). In this way, chemistry learning is characterized by students' rote learning. However, the present understanding of meaningful learning in chemistry classrooms has been attributed to learner-centered, active, and cooperative learning approaches ( Cahyana et al., 2017 ; Kara, 2021 ). These approaches to learning stem from the theory of social cognitive and constructivism. The social constructivist learning approach is premised on the notion that meaningful learning can only occur if learners are provided with opportunities to interact as they attach meaning to the learned content ( Amineh and Hanieh, 2015 ). Cognitivists concur that learners pack the mind and understand the content through useful hands-on and mind-on activities ( Yilmaz, 2011 ), such as laboratory activities, animations, computer simulations, and videos ( Ndihokubwayo et al., 2020 ). In fact, there was a need to shift from teacher-centered to learner-centered because it has been proved that learners learn well when they are given the opportunity to learn with their peers instead of sitting passively in their class and listening to the teacher. To achieve this, active learning techniques such as the cooperative learning approach ( Sibomana et al., 2021 ), game-based approach ( North et al., 2021 ), problem-solving approach ( Dorimana et al., 2021 ), and others should be brought to the classroom.

This is why instructional approaches in line with the social constructivist view of learning have been widely used in chemistry classrooms at all levels of education. Instructional approaches such as activity-based learning, cooperative learning, and game-based learning, among others, have been found effective in the teaching and learning of chemistry concepts ( Byusa et al., 2020 ; da Silva Júnior et al., 2021 ; Eilks et al., 2013 ; Prins et al., 2016 ). This has been attributed to the fact that such learning approaches are bound to engage students physically, socially, and cognitively. This eventually brings about a positive attitude, increased interest, and motivation towards learning chemistry. Constructivism connects to games in learning as students are equipped with useful activities to build learning from their experience ( Bhattacharjee, 2015 ).

Although the definition of game-based learning is somewhat ambiguous due to the variety of formats and contexts in which it has been applied. The bottom line is that educational games do not only enhance students’ conceptual understanding but also increase their motivation to learn and allow them to have fun while making sense of the learned content ( Baek et al., 2015 ; da Silva Júnior et al., 2021 ; Franco-Mariscal et al., 2016 ; Partovi and Razavi, 2019 ). Students' understanding is the students grasping a certain concept, fully and scientifically understanding the meaning and usability of that concept in real life. Despite all the benefits that have been highlighted about the game-based approach in chemistry education research, its implementation remains challenging for many teachers, especially in the less developed world. For instance, our previous study revealed that teachers rarely use games in their daily teaching activities ( Byusa et al., 2020 ) while they proved effective in students learning ( Rahman et al., 2020 ).

While several review studies have been conducted on game-based learning ( Cahyana et al., 2017 ), most have generally focused on science. Furthermore, few have narrowed it down to specific content areas of chemistry. In other words, there has been a scarcity of review studies in chemistry education research that have attempted to document different educational games that have been implemented in chemistry classrooms and how such games have contributed to the enhancement of students’ understanding of chemistry concepts or motivation to learn. With this background, we attempted to review different educational games and their contribution to chemistry teaching and learning across all school levels of education. In that regard, our review was guided by the following research questions:

• i. What are some of the game-based learning techniques that have been employed in chemistry classrooms in the last ten years?
• ii. What were the chronological order, source countries, educational level, and delivery modes of the identified game-based learning techniques?
• iii. How could each of the identified game-based techniques contribute to students' motivation and understanding of secondary school chemistry concepts?

2. Methodology

Data to address the already-stated research questions were collected via a systematic review method. This was done by conducting a literature search to gather the published work on the effectiveness of game-based learning in the teaching and learning of chemistry. We used keywords such as game-based learning, activity-based learning, physical embodiment, cognitive embodiment, and collaborative or active learning in chemistry classrooms in the google scholar search engine. Initially, 83 documents were downloaded, including three book chapters, two electronic books, 13 conference papers, and 65 peer-reviewed journal articles. Our literature search was also restricted to the work published from January 2010 to November 2021.

After doing some preliminary analysis of the downloaded literature, we had to exclude some documents because of at least one of the following reasons:

• • The paper is not related to chemistry
• • The paper has been published in a journal not indexed by Scopus
• • The game-based approach employed is not clear
• • The paper does not provide enough information that is needed for addressing the research questions.

Using a similar procedure as the one employed by Kara (2021) and Ukobizaba et al. (2021) , a summary of the article selection process is illustrated in Figure 1 .

Article selection process.

Using the above-prescribed criteria, 57 peer-reviewed articles from reputed journals were deemed suitable for review. Thus, 26 documents—book chapters, electronic books, proceedings, and unreputed journal articles (from predatory or local journals)—were excluded. This means that 26 documents were substracted from 83 and 57 remained. It should also be noted that “reviewed papers” do not constitute all the references because other works were only cited for providing evidence of some claims in the discussion of research findings.

Although we reviewed 57 articles related to game-based learning, some of the selected papers did not mention games (a certain game used was not clear) or related to chemistry. Therefore, we excluded them and retained 24 articles that clearly show an implemented game in teaching and learning chemistry. Thus, we excluded 33 articles. Using manual sorting, we identified the purposes, educational game designs and their implementation, and the chemistry content areas of focus for all the reviewed studies. At the same time, an Excel spreadsheet assisted in descriptive analysis. We identified the game used in the article, its purpose, delivery mode, educational level, year of publication, country of the study, and the chemistry concept catered for.

3. Findings

RQ1. What are some of the game-based learning techniques that have been employed in chemistry classrooms in the last ten years?

Table 1 displays the name of the game/approach, its purpose, and the delivery mode. It also contains the study site (where the study was conducted), education level, and chemistry concepts. The purpose shows the author(s) and the year of publication. Based on the results displayed in Table 1 , it can be inferred that fourteen (24) games or game-based approaches were identified from 2010 till 2021. These games are activity cards, element cycles, card, and computer games, board games, legends of Alkhimia, 3D Role-playing Game (3D RPG), game-based approach, Chemory game, picture-Chem, Chairs!, mobile augmented reality (AR) application, Misha and Kosha game-based learnings, chemical nomenclature, Molebots, Ion Hunters, ChemEscape, card game, and bioplastic synthesis activity, Pantomime MisCoAct, ChemDraw, cooperative games, ORG600, WIL, CheMakers, and ABSQR Code Game.

Table 1

Identified games/game-based approaches for chemistry classrooms.

The reviewed literature also shows that most of these educational games were applied on teaching topics such as elements and compounds, organic chemistry, organic reaction mechanisms, names and formulas of anions and cations, chemical formulas, acids, bases, and salts, lab apparatus, and chemical elements, among others (see Table 1 ).

RQ2. What were the chronological order, source countries, educational level, and delivery modes of the identified game-based learning techniques?

Regarding the chronological order of publication for games developed and used to teach chemistry, one article was published in 2010, another in 2011, and three in 2012, as Figure 2 presents (for the specificity of game, see Table 1 above). Many games were developed and implemented from 2019, where each year got more than three publications. Note that each dot represents a published article that developed or used an educational game in a certain year.

Chronological order of publication for games developed and used to teach chemistry.

Like the chronological order of implemented games in teaching chemistry, Figure 3 shows the number of studies corresponding to their study country. For instance, the United States has produced many studies as it got six (25%) publications from 2010. Africa and Oceania got 0%, South America got 13%, while Asia, Europe, or North America got 29%.

Count of studies related to chemistry games conducted in various countries across the globe.

From the chronological order and country of origin, it was found that the partition or implementation of these games in university or secondary school is quite the same (see Figure 4 ). For instance, only three studies (10% of studies) were done in elementary or primary school. Fifteen (48%) studies or games were done or implemented in secondary or high school, while 13 (42%) studies or games were done or implemented in university. The total does not add up to 24 analyzed studies because some were done in more than one level.

Rate of games implemented across educational levels.

Regarding the second research question, research findings show that some of the identified games were delivered through the use of information, and communications technology (ICT) tools (digital games). In contrast, others did not involve any use of ICT gadgets or tools (non-digital games). While Figure 5 illustrates the proportion of digital, non-digital, and both digital and non-digital games, Table 1 shows the purpose and delivery mode (digital or non-digital) for each identified educational game. Based on the results displayed in Figure 5 , it suffices to point out that the number of non-digital games (n = 12, or 50%) was not substantially different from that of digital games (n = 9 or 37%). Only three (13%) of the identified games had been implemented both in both digital and non-digital modes.

Delivery modes of the identified educational games.

To provide answers to the third research question and compliment the previous research questions, significant findings and future directions for the identified game-based approaches are discussed in the following sub-headings.

4. Discussion

RQ3. How could each of the identified game-based techniques contribute to students’ motivation and understanding of secondary school chemistry concepts?

The third research question relates to the study's main aim on the game-based learning techniques in secondary school students' motivation and understanding of chemistry concepts. To provide answers to this research question, each of the identified game-based learning approaches is discussed in terms of how it affects students' learning of chemistry concepts. In addition, the main proponents and the context for each identified game-based learning approach have also been highlighted.

4.1. 3D role-playing game (3D RPG)

Regardless of the type of exploratory strategy employed, learners showed mild positive motivation towards learning chemistry (chemical formula concepts in particular) via a 3D role-playing game (3D RPG). This game was implemented in a study conducted by Chen et al. (2014) in which one hundred and fifteen (115) eighth-grade students from a Taiwanese school voluntarily participated in the 3-week experiment. These findings provide evidence on the need to engage learners in classroom activities that are bound to offer opportunities for them to make use of the acquired knowledge and skills that would eventually increase their motivation to learn.

4.2. ABSQR code game

Harman and Yenikalayc (2020) administered the ABSQR Code Game to 15 students in three groups for three rounds. These students were drawn from the first-year science teaching program. Research findings revealed that students developed a positive opinion about using games in chemistry teaching and learning. It was further stated that the ABSQR Code game enabled students to learn in a fun but helpful manner. While the game was trialed on tertiary level students, the game is applicable at the secondary school level since secondary students also learn about acids, bases, and salts.

4.3. Activity cards

This approach was implemented by Duvarc (2010) in a chemistry class of grade 9 students. This learning approach was found helpful to students in remembering the concepts of elements and compounds. Increased student interactions and participation were observed, and the game seemed to be more engaging cognitively and collaboratively. A study by Höft and Bernholt (2019) also confirmed that “school science activities, which provide the potential for cognitively activating learning opportunities, could enhance the relationship between students’ interest and conceptual understanding” (p.1). These findings prove the need to encourage students to play with/manipulate the objects because they will tend to learn more when they get involved cognitively, physically, and socially.

4.4. Alkhimia

The “Alkhimia” is a computer-based learning program for the lower secondary school chemistry curriculum. The game was administered by Chee and Tan (2012) to two high-ability classes, of which one class of 40 was assigned to the experimental group while the other class of 38 was assigned to the control group. An attitudinal survey was also administered before and after the Alkhimia intervention. Based on the conceptual understanding of the effective separation task, the study revealed that students who were exposed to the intervention outperformed their counterparts in the control group. The intervention was beneficial as it shifted the traditional classroom culture to a community of inquiry characterized by critical and interrogative thinking.

4.5. Board-game

The results showed that the board game effectively reconstructed students’ knowledge, demonstrating that the games can serve as a useful pedagogical tool in higher education ( Antunes et al., 2012 ).

4.6. Card game and bioplastic synthesis activity

A series of games and hands-on activities relating to the design, synthesis, and function of materials and polymers were designed by Clapson et al. (2020) as complementary learning resources for use in a second-year materials chemistry course for engineering students. The fact that all materials incorporated into the game activities or hands-on guided experimental activities are household items ( Clapson et al., 2020 ), these games and activities helped students to understand the relationships between chemical structure and observable materials properties. Likewise, some activities leveraged a friendly competitive atmosphere to boost engagement and learning.

4.7. Card games and computer games

Rastegarpour and Marashi (2012) found that teacher-made instructional card game and computer games are effective tools for learning chemistry concepts. These games are influential in the learning of abstract concepts. They have the prospective to offer chemistry teachers and educators insight in helping students create intangible associations between different topics and promote meaningful learning of chemistry concepts. The results demonstrated that playing games endorsed active learning, concentration, and utilization of trial and error. The authors believe that a well-developed educational game, in addition to its potential for learning and entertainment, can promote interaction between peers.

4.8. Chairs!

This game was developed to teach the ring flip of cyclohexane in high school and college organic chemistry classrooms. According to Winter et al. (2016) , the ‘ Chairs!’ game was first tested on 41 high school students in 2014, and later on, tested on 50 college students in 2015. The game was found beneficial in both scenarios as it strengthened students' spatial reasoning and improved their conceptual understanding of conformational isomers.

4.9. CheMakers

This game involved 47 first-year students in an organic chemistry course. Implementers of this game ( Zhang et al., 2021 ) found that forty-three (43) of these students gave positive feedback on the possibility of playing the game again. Besides promoting higher-order thinking, creativity, and problem-solving skills, CheMakers improved students' confidence in handling difficult questions. Students’ qualitative feedback also indicated that CheMakers was a suitable teaching tool for enhancing discussions and competition. It was further revealed that CheMakers enabled students to memorize content in “a fun, and stress-free manner.” Finally, the authors recommended that while the game was trialed on undergraduate students, it was adaptable to both the ordinary and advanced level chemistry classrooms.

4.10. ChemDraw

This game involved nine students (players) and was hosted online using web-conferencing software and implemented through a “molecule madness” tournament. Fontana (2020) found that ChemDraw strengthened students' organic chemistry skills, positively impacted their wellness, and improved social interactions. Despite having been developed for second-semester university students, authors have proposed that the ChemDraw is helpful at all levels of chemistry education. It has also been recognized that this approach played a significant role in students’ mental health that has been threatened by the Covid-19 related news and social distancing rules.

4.11. ChemEscape

ChemEscape is a physical adventure game requiring students (players) to solve a series of riddles and puzzles. Clapson et al. (2020) developed four puzzles (Battle boxes) targeting grades 4 to 12 (5000 participants) and first-year engineering students (800 participants). Participants indicated that ChemEscape was a suitable learning tool. It enhanced their knowledge application to new settings, strengthened teamwork and problem-solving skills, and enabled their visualization and enactment of scientific ideas. This game also appears to promote the aspirations of Eilks et al. (2013) , who advocated for “hands-on and minds-on” student-centered activities in chemistry classrooms. According to the authors of the ChemEscape game ( Clapson et al., 2019 ), efforts to associate student learning outcomes of ChemEscape with Bloom's Taxonomy were underway. It was also stated that authors were still exploring incorporating ChemEscape in large classes at tertiary levels of education.

4.12. Chemical nomenclature application

A game-based application named Chemical Nomenclature was developed for Android and IOS, a free-of-charge, dynamic, and easy-to-play game that allows students to review chemical nomenclature ( Sousa Lima et al., 2019 ). Student testing revealed that the game design, content, playability, and usefulness were complementary didactic tools to aid in traditional study. Assessment of student knowledge gains was performed. The results revealed that students who used the game as a complementary tool had higher performance in tests than students who studied nomenclature using only conventional learning methods.

4.13. Chemory game

Student motivation was found to increase significantly by Chemory game compared to the traditional lecture format. This game also was found to increase self-study time per week among the students. The failure rate in the final examination was also reduced, mainly because of bonus points that students could receive upon successful participation in the game ( Daubenfeld and Zenker, 2015 ).

4.14. Element cycles

The game involved 95 s-year high school students. Although the authors ( Pippins et al., 2011 ) did not manage to compare the results of those who participated in the game with those who did not, they concluded that the participants showed a significant improvement in their retention of essential elements from the average pretest score of 40%–50% in the posttest. It was further stated that the game was adaptable to different chemistry content and grade levels. The game was quite enjoyable, fun, and an effective chemistry teaching and learning tool.

4.15. Escape Room

Forty (40) students and four high school and university teachers participated in the “Escape Room Game.” Dietrich (2018) indicated that at least 90% of the survey panel said that the game increased students’ motivation and communication and strengthened their teamwork skills. Furthermore, 67% of the panel indicated that the game promoted active learning among students instead of the traditional classroom environment. The game was found beneficial among students in the classroom and teachers and other technical personnel for team-building.

4.16. Game-based approach

Unlike other studies in which a single game has been used as a teaching tool, Wilson and Samide (2014) incorporated various games in teaching analytical chemistry and organic chemistry to undergraduate students. They also found that a game-based approach enabled students to develop deeper thinking and interactive skills on top of having fun. Overall, these authors argued that, unlike most previous studies that have used games in isolation to teach specific content, it was better to employ various games to teach one specific unit. Though taxing in terms of preparation and implementation time, these findings prove that incorporating multiple games into a single teaching unit is bound to give a context appropriate for learners with diverse interests and reasoning abilities.

4.17. Ion Hunters

This game was piloted with 22 students who had already taken chemistry lessons and the Science Education program at a public university in Turkey. The game was found to be more engaging, enjoyable, and created fun among the students. Yenikalaycl et al. (2019) indicated that ‘Ion Hunters’ effectively improved students' motivation to learn, which eventually led to an enhanced understanding of anions and cations. The authors further indicated that this game could be played at any level of chemistry education where ions are taught.

4.18. Misha and Kosha game-based learnings

Partovi and Razavi (2019) revealed that the educational computer game impacted the academic achievement motivation of elementary students; the experimental group had significantly higher scores for academic achievement motivation than the control group. Since the necessity of using computer-based games in elementary school students was realized, the authors recommended finding a more suitable place in the teachers’ daily lesson plan.

4.19. Molebots

Molebots is a first-person shooter game focused on chemical nomenclature. It was piloted with students in the first semester of a general chemistry course in the United States ( Gupta, 2019 ). The game was announced in an online course conducted through the Desire to Learn (D2L) learning management system. The survey results showed that students enjoyed using the game and preferred games over other media—specifically, the textbook was the least preferred learning method.

4.20. ORG600 (organic reactions game)

Undergraduate students tested and evaluated the game, and their opinions revealed that they liked to use it as a complementary educational tool to aid their studies ( da Silva Júnior et al., 2021 ). The authors concur that the intuitive and interactive features can allow Chemical Engineering and Chemistry students to review the classroom content and improve their exams’ performance. In their next study, authors intend to assess the learning process by comparing performance and academic achievement from classes that do not use the app in their studies.

4.21. Pantomime MisCoAct

Since knowing about misconceptions is of great importance for future chemistry teachers, misconceptions activity “MisCoAct” showed potential to be a fruitful way of consolidating and repeating the most frequently occurring misconceptions. According to Belova and Zowada's (2020) research, the competitive aspect, particularly, leads to increased motivation.

4.22. Picture Chem

The game was first trialed with 18 teachers who volunteered to participate. After identifying the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and possible threats, the game was administered to 20 first-year students (enrolled in a chemistry class/lab). Kavak and Yamak (2016) revealed that teacher participants appreciated the game, indicating that it was quite motivating, fun, and inexpensive despite the game being challenging. The game was also characterized by visual learning opportunities and was suitable for all age groups and gender. This makes it ideal for lower secondary students as well. Some of the weaknesses that were associated with the game include insufficient time and lack of apparatus. Although the game was seen as adaptable to different situations, teacher participants indicated that teachers who do not embrace inquiry-based learning might find it quite odd to incorporate this game in their teaching activities. In the second phase of the Picture Chem game implementation, a paired samples t-test showed a significant improvement in students’ learning and understanding of standard chemistry laboratory apparatus.

4.23. Work-integrated learning (WIL)

Ponikwer and Patel (2021) study has focused on developing a game-based WIL activity that can be conducted on-campus and can create and showcase an array of essential skills that can enhance their employability. This activity focused on evaluating and promoting a new chromatographic column using a range of different marketing mediums. This activity was found effective as it provides the ability to students to showcase a wide range of skills that are often difficult to cover in a chemistry degree program, such as nonscientific communication, video making, and marketing skills.

5. Study implications

The fact that more studies are implementing games in the classroom in current years may be explained by the implementation of blended learning. Specifically, Covid-19 ordered teachers and students to adapt to ICT-related media. While digital game-based learning may be perceived as challenging for developing countries in sub-Saharan Africa, which is not fully equipped technologically, it suffices to point out that technology in education has come to stay. Online learning has become paramount in times of crisis, such as the one being experienced world-over (i.e., the COVID-19 lockdown). This is evident by the results of a recent study by Wang and Zheng (2020) , conducted on Chinese middle school students to compare teaching approaches that were characterized by digital games, non-digital games, and traditional lectures. They found that game-based learning approaches performed significantly better than the conventional teaching approach. While no significant differences in students’ performance in science were detected, the study revealed that students exposed to digital game-based learning approaches exhibited a higher self-efficacy than those exposed to no-digital game-based learning.

These findings are in no way at variance with those of previous studies. For instance, other scholars ( Barko and Sadler, 2013 ; Vogel et al., 2006 ) have also postulated that immersive learning environments offered by digital games are characterized by several benefits, including interactive learning experiences, extraneous load reduction, and the mental construction of scientific knowledge, among others. Furthermore, digital game-based learning has also been found to enable learners to have fun while learning. As such, we concur with Mukuka et al. (2021b) , who recommended a need for the education systems in sub-Saharan Africa to put up infrastructure that supports digital learning to ensure that students continue learning even in times of calamities like the COVID-19 outbreak that may disrupt the face-to-face physical interactions between the teacher and the learners.

Educators use game-based learning in order to stimulate learners' interest. For instance, Baek et al. (2015) denoted that students get motivated while learning chemistry through games. While the study findings and those of previous studies (e.g., Battersby et al., 2020 ; Franco-Mariscal et al., 2016 ; Sousa Lima et al., 2019 ) suggest that game-based learning is bound to improve students' confidence in the subject matter, Zhang et al. (2021) cautioned that there was not enough evidence that the game could improve students' interest in learning chemistry. This demonstrates a need for future users (teachers and researchers) of the game to incorporate some features that will focus on fostering conceptual understanding and increased motivation in chemistry learning as it is also a potential predictor of students’ achievement. The fact that game-based learning was widely found to be used in high schools and colleges than elementary school. Actually, little children like games, but when it comes to playing games while learning, the situation changes. Students in secondary schools and universities are more mature and can be serious in learning through games more than only enjoying like pupils in primary schools. However, this is a motivational outcome that needs more future research outlook from the game designers and capacity or attitude of children.

The scarcity of ICT-related tools may explain the absence of implementing educational games in Africa. Our literature analysis also demonstrates that non-digital games are more physically engaging than digital games. This could be attributed to the fact that some games like Escape Room ( Dietrich, 2018 ) may involve students using different body parts during the activity. This clearly shows that schools with insufficient digital resources can resort to non-digital games that are likely to engage students physically, socially, and intellectually throughout the learning process. Furthermore, studies conducted by Mukuka et al. (2021a) and Ukobizaba et al. (2021) also found that engaging students physically, socially. They intellectually did not only enhance their mathematical reasoning skills but also improved their problem-solving skills. Therefore, this demonstrates a severe need to employ activity-based learning techniques in chemistry classrooms and other STEM subjects such as mathematics, biology, and physics.

6. Conclusion

The literature review shows that most games have been tested in high school and university-level chemistry classrooms. The good thing is that most of these games' developers have indicated that these games could be adapted to the lower levels of chemistry education. The extent to which such approaches address the curriculum requirements equally needs to be explored in future studies. It has been noted that teachers rarely involve games in their teaching. This could be attributed to some reasons, including teachers' inadequate orientation on using the game-based learning approach, lack of resources, and inadequate science classrooms and laboratories. Though challenging in terms of preparation/implementation time, game-based learning has been described as an approach that enhances students’ understanding of science subjects. This calls for a serious need for investing in infrastructure that supports the implementation of game-based learning (both digital and non-digital), especially in the less developed world, where such techniques have not been implemented substantially.

Declarations

Author contribution statement.

All authors listed have significantly contributed to the development and the writing of this article.

Funding statement

This work was supported by the African Center of Excellence for Innovative Teaching and Learning Mathematics and Science (ACEITLMS). The project number is ACE II (P151847).

Data availability statement

Declaration of interests statement.

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Additional information

No additional information is available for this paper.

• Amineh R., Hanieh A. Review of constructivism and social constructivism. J. Soc. Sci. Literat. Lang. 2015; 1 (1):9–16. [ Google Scholar ]
• Antunes M., Pacheco M.A.R., Giovanela M. Design and implementation of an educational game for teaching chemistry in higher education. J. Chem. Educ. 2012; 89 (4):517–521. [ Google Scholar ]
• Baek Y., Xu Y., Han S., Cho J. Exploring effects of intrinsic motivation and prior knowledge on student achievements in game-based learning. Smart Comput. Rev. 2015:368–377. [ Google Scholar ]
• Barko T., Sadler T.D. Practicality in virtuality: finding student meaning in video game education. J. Sci. Educ. Technol. 2013; 22 (2):124–132. [ Google Scholar ]
• Battersby G.L., Beeley C., Baguley D.A., Barker H.D., Broad H.D., Carey N.C., Chambers E.S., Chodaczek D., Blackburn R.A.R., Williams P.D. Go Fischer: an introductory organic chemistry card game. J. Chem. Educ. 2020; 97 (8):2226–2230. [ Google Scholar ]
• Belova N., Zowada C. Innovating higher education via game-based learning on misconceptions. Educ. Sci. 2020; 10 (9):1–10. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bhattacharjee J. Constructivist approach to learning– an effective approach of teaching learning. Res. J. Interdisc. Multidisc. Stud. (IRJIMS) Peer-Rev. Month. Res. J. ISSN. 2015;(65):2394–7969. [ Google Scholar ]
• Byusa E., Kampire E., Mwesigye A.R. Analysis of teaching techniques and scheme of work in teaching chemistry in Rwandan secondary schools. Eurasia J. Math. Sci. Technol. Educ. 2020; 16 (6):1–9. [ Google Scholar ]
• Cahyana U., Paristiowati M., Savitri D.A., Hasyrin S.N. Developing and application of mobile game based learning (M-GBL) for high school students performance in chemistry. Eurasia J. Math. Sci. Technol. Educ. 2017; 13 (10):7037–7047. [ Google Scholar ]
• Chee Y.S., Tan K.C.D. Becoming chemists through game-based inquiry learning: the case of legends of Alkhimia. Electron. J. e Learn. 2012; 10 (2):185–198. [ Google Scholar ]
• Chen M.P., Wong Y.T., Wang L.C. Effects of type of exploratory strategy and prior knowledge on middle school students’ learning of chemical formulas from a 3D role-playing game. Educ. Technol. Res. Dev. 2014; 62 (2):163–185. [ Google Scholar ]
• Chen S., Jamiatul Husnaini S., Chen J.J. Effects of games on students’ emotions of learning science and achievement in chemistry. Int. J. Sci. Educ. 2020; 42 (13):2224–2245. [ Google Scholar ]
• Childs P.E., Sheehan M. What’s difficult about chemistry? An Irish perspective. Chem. Educ. Res. Pract. 2009; 10 (3):204–218. [ Google Scholar ]
• Clapson M.L., Gilbert B.C.T., Musgrove A. Race to the reactor and other chemistry games: game-based and experiential learning experiences in materials and polymer chemistry. J. Chem. Educ. 2020; 97 (12):4391–4399. [ Google Scholar ]
• Clapson M.L., Gilbert B., Mozol V.J., Schechtel S., Tran J., White S. ChemEscape: educational battle box puzzle activities for engaging outreach and active learning in general chemistry. J. Chem. Educ. 2019 [ Google Scholar ]
• da Silva Júnior J.N., Sousa Lima M.A., Ávila Pimenta A.T., Nunes F.M., Monteiro Á.C., de Sousa U.S., Leite Júnior A.J.M., Zampieri D., Oliveira Alexandre F.S., Pacioni N.L., Winum J.Y. Design, implementation, and evaluation of a game-based application for aiding chemical engineering and chemistry students to review the organic reactions. Educ. Chem. Eng. 2021; 34 :106–114. [ Google Scholar ]
• Daubenfeld T., Zenker D. A game-based approach to an entire physical chemistry course. J. Chem. Educ. 2015; 92 (2):269–277. [ Google Scholar ]
• Dietrich N. Escape classroom: the leblanc process-an educational “Escape game. J. Chem. Educ. 2018; 95 (6):996–999. [ Google Scholar ]
• Dorimana A., Uworwabayeho A., Nizeyimana G. Examining mathematical problem-solving beliefs among Rwandan secondary school teachers. Int. J. Learn. Teach. Educ. Res. 2021; 20 (7):227–240. [ Google Scholar ]
• Duvarc D. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences; 2010. Activity-based Chemistry Teaching: A Case of “Elements and Compounds; pp. 2506–2509. [ Google Scholar ]
• Duvarci D. Activity-based chemistry teaching: a case of “elements and compounds. Proc. Soc. Behav. Sci. 2010; 2 (2):2506–2509. [ Google Scholar ]
• Eilks I., Prins G.T., Lazarowitz R. In: Teaching Chemistry–A Studybook. Eilks I., Hofstein A., editors. Sense Publishers; 2013. How to organise the chemistry classroom in a student-active mode; pp. 183–212. [ Google Scholar ]
• Erman E. Factors contributing to students’ misconceptions in learning covalent bonds. J. Res. Sci. Teach. 2017; 54 (4):520–537. [ Google Scholar ]
• Fontana M.T. Gamification of ChemDraw during the COVID-19 pandemic: investigating how a serious, educational-game tournament (molecule madness) impacts student wellness and organic chemistry skills while distance learning. J. Chem. Educ. 2020; 97 (9):3358–3368. [ Google Scholar ]
• Franco-Mariscal A.J., Oliva-Martínez J.M., Blanco-López Á., España-Ramos E. A game-based approach to learning the idea of chemical elements and their periodic classification. J. Chem. Educ. 2016; 93 (7):1173–1190. [ Google Scholar ]
• Gupta T. Game-based learning in chemistry: a game for chemical nomenclature [chapter] ACS (Am. Chem. Soc.) Symp. Ser. 2019; 1318 (March):65–79. [ Google Scholar ]
• Harman G., Yenikalayc N. ABSQR Code Game: reinforcing the names, formulas, types and reactions of acids, bases and salts. J. Mater. Educ. 2020; 42 (1–2):1–14. https://hdl.handle.net/11492/4996 [ Google Scholar ]
• Höft L., Bernholt S. Longitudinal couplings between interest and conceptual understanding in secondary school chemistry: an activity-based perspective. Int. J. Sci. Educ. 2019; 41 (5):607–627. [ Google Scholar ]
• Kara N. A systematic review of the use of serious games in science education. Contemp. Educ. Technol. 2021; 13 (2):ep295. [ Google Scholar ]
• Kavak N., Yamak H. Picture chem: playing a game to identify laboratory equipment items and describe their use. J. Chem. Educ. 2016; 93 (7):1253–1255. [ Google Scholar ]
• Mills J.A. University Press; 2000. Control: A History of Behavioral Psychology. [ Google Scholar ]
• Mukuka A., Mutarutinya V., Balimuttajjo S. Mediating effect of self-efficacy on the relationship between instruction and students’ mathematical reasoning. J. Math. Educ. 2021; 12 (1):73–92. [ Google Scholar ]
• Mukuka A., Shumba O., Mulenga H.M. Students’ experiences with remote learning during the COVID-19 school closure: implications for mathematics education. Heliyon. 2021; 7 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ndihokubwayo K., Uwamahoro J., Ndayambaje I. Effectiveness of PhET simulations and YouTube videos to improve the learning of optics in Rwandan secondary schools. Afr. J. Res. Math. Sci. Technol. Educ. 2020; 24 (2):253–265. [ Google Scholar ]
• North B., Diab M., Lameras P., Zaraik J., Philippe S., Muller J., Fischer H. Developing a platform for using game-based learning in vocational education and training. IEEE Glob. Eng. Educ. Conf. EDUCON. 2021:1345–1352. 2021-April. [ Google Scholar ]
• Nzeyimana J.C., Ndihokubwayo K. Teachers’ role and learners’ responsibility in teaching and learning science and elementary technology in Rwanda. Afr. J. Educ. Stud. Math. Sci. 2019; 15 (2):1–16. https://www.ajol.info/index.php/ajesms/article/view/188762 [ Google Scholar ]
• Partovi T., Razavi M.R. The effect of game-based learning on academic achievement motivation of elementary school students. Learn. Motiv. 2019; 68 (June):101592. [ Google Scholar ]
• Pippins T., Anderson C.M., Poindexter E.F., Sultemeier S.W., Schultz L.D. Element cycles: an environmental chemistry board game. J. Chem. Educ. 2011; 88 (8):1112–1115. [ Google Scholar ]
• Ponikwer F., Patel B.A. Work-integrated learning: a game-based learning activity that enhances student employability. J. Chem. Educ. 2021; 98 (3):888–895. [ Google Scholar ]
• Prins G.T., Bulte A.M.W., Pilot A. An activity-based instructional framework for transforming authentic modeling practices into meaningful contexts for learning in science education. Sci. Educ. 2016:1–32. [ Google Scholar ]
• Rahman A.A., Najmuddin A.F., Abdullah M.F., Ibrahim I.M., Shaffie S.S., Ismail S.R. The development of atomic game-based learning for chemistry. Int. J. Acad. Res. Bus. Soc. Sci. 2020; 10 (11):1364–1372. [ Google Scholar ]
• Rastegarpour H., Marashi P. The effect of card games and computer games on learning of chemistry concepts. Proc. Soc. Behav. Sci. 2012; 31 (2011):597–601. [ Google Scholar ]
• Sibomana A., Karegeya C., Sentongo J. Effect of cooperative learning on chemistry students’ achievement in Rwandan day-upper secondary schools. Eur. J. Educ. Res. 2021; 10 (4):2079–2088. [ Google Scholar ]
• Sousa Lima M.A., Monteiro Á.C., Melo Leite Junior A.J., De Andrade Matos I.S., Alexandre F.S.O., Nobre D.J., Monteiro A.J., Da Silva Júnior J.N. Game-based application for helping students review chemical nomenclature in a fun way. J. Chem. Educ. 2019; 96 (4):801–805. [ Google Scholar ]
• Ukobizaba F., Nizeyimana G., Mukuka A. Assessment strategies for enhancing students ’ mathematical problem-solving skills : a review of literature. Eurasia J. Math. Sci. Technol. Educ. 2021; 17 (3):2–10. [ Google Scholar ]
• Vogel J.J., Vogel D.S., Cannon-Bowers J., Bowers C.A., Muse K., Wright M. Computer gaming and interactive simulations for learning: a meta-analysis. J. Educ. Comput. Res. 2006; 34 (3):229–243. [ Google Scholar ]
• Wan A.T., San L.Y., Omar M.S. Augmented reality technology for year 10 chemistry class: can the students learn better? Int. J. Comput. Assist. Lang. Learn. Teach. 2018; 8 (4):1–20. [ Google Scholar ]
• Wang M., Zheng X. Using game-based learning to support learning science: a study with middle school students. Asia-Pac. Educ. Res. 2020 [ Google Scholar ]
• Wilson A., Samide M.J. Games, games, games; playing to engage with chemistry concepts. Chem. Educat. 2014; 19 (June):167–170. [ Google Scholar ]
• Winter J., Wentzel M., Ahluwalia S. Chairs!: a mobile game for organic chemistry students to learn the ring flip of cyclohexane. J. Chem. Educ. 2016; 93 (9):1657–1659. [ Google Scholar ]
• Yenikalaycl N., Çelikler D., Aksan Z. Ion Hunters: playing a game to practice identifying anions and cations and writing their names and formulas. J. Chem. Educ. 2019; 96 (11):2532–2534. [ Google Scholar ]
• Yilmaz K. The cognitive perspective on learning : its theoretical underpinnings and implications for classroom practices. Clear. House. 2011; 84 :204–212. [ Google Scholar ]
• Zhang Z., Muktar P., Wijaya Ong C.I., Lam Y., Fung F.M. CheMakers: playing a collaborative board game to understand organic chemistry. J. Chem. Educ. 2021; 98 (2):530–534. [ Google Scholar ]

ORIGINAL RESEARCH article

Integrating inquiry and mathematical modeling when teaching a common topic in lower secondary school: an istem approach provisionally accepted.

• 1 Hong Kong Baptist University, Hong Kong, SAR China

The final, formatted version of the article will be published soon.

The world has been increasingly shaped by Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM). This has resulted in educational systems across the globe implementing STEM education. To reap maximum benefits, researchers are now advocating for the integration of STEM domains. In recent studies, the integration of science and mathematics has become increasingly popular. The domains are much more suitable for integration because of their fields of application and their mutual approach towards problem-solving. However, there is little empirical evidence to drive the development of a practical model for classroom implementation. This study aims to cover that gap through integrating mathematics and science concepts when teaching a common topic to two classes of Form 1 (13-14 years) students. A mathematics and a science teacher went through two cycles of lesson study, integrating and teaching the concept of density. Results show a strong synergy between the BSCS 5E instructional model of inquiry and mathematical modeling; hence the methodological approaches can be used to integrate common topics like density. Further, teacher collaboration, teacher immersion in the iSTEM practices, teacher's knowledge, and skills of the other subject and an in-depth understanding of a problem and its contextualization, are variables that can be capitalized on to enhance the teacher's capacity to implement innovative and integrated STEM programs effectively.

Keywords: iSTEM1, Inquiry2, mathematical modeling3, Integration model4, Science5. Mathematics6, Density7

Received: 26 Jan 2024; Accepted: 10 Apr 2024.

Copyright: © 2024 Manunure and Leung. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY) . The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) or licensor are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

* Correspondence: Mr. Kevin Manunure, Hong Kong Baptist University, Kowloon, Hong Kong, SAR China

People also looked at