Comparison of Students’ Performance on Algorithmic, Conceptual and Graphical Chemistry Gas Problems Bayram Cos ¸tu Published online: 26 June 2007 Ó Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2007 Abstract The purpose of this study was to determine whether there were significant differences in students’ performances amongst conceptual, algorithmic and graph- ical questions tests. Seventy-one eleventh-grade students were involved in this study. In order to assess students’ performance, conceptual, graphical and algorithmic ques- tions tests were utilized. Students’ performances in each test were analyzed statistically. Statistical analysis using one-way ANOVA of student tests scores pointed to statistically significant differences amongst each of three test scores (P < 0.05) in favor of the conceptual test. Further analyses were conducted to compare one type of questions with others. From these comparisons, positive relationships were found between conceptual understand- ing and algorithmic understanding and between conceptual understanding and graphical understanding. Also, results obtained indicated that most of the students lack of graphical understanding. The results suggest that students need more training about graphical understanding. Keywords Students’ performance Á Conceptual question Á Algorithmic question Á Graphical question Introduction There are different approaches in the literature to determine whether students are algorithmic or conceptual problem solvers in chemistry (Bilgin 2006). One of them is the problem solving networks. Ashmore et al. (1979) and Frazer and Sleet (1984) asked students to solve one main problem and its related sub-problems. In this approach, students who cannot solve the main problem but who can solve all its component of sub-problems are coded algo- rithmic problem solver; students who can solve the main problem and its related sub-problems are coded conceptual problem solvers. The second approach utilized a test which involves M-Demand of different items of content from general chemistry topics. Researchers who used this approach developed a test which includes different num- bers of steps to solve problems (Niaz 1987, 1988, 1989; Tsaparlis et al. 1998). In this approach, students who can solve one, two or three-step problems are coded algorith- mic problem solvers and students who can solve four or more-step problems are coded conceptual problem solvers. The third and most common one is asking students pairs of algorithmic and conceptual questions. Researchers who used this approach asked students two questions related to the same topic. One question requires conceptual under- standing while the other requires algorithmic skills (Chiu 2001; Lin et al. 1996; Mason et al. 1997; Nakhleh 1993; Nakhleh and Mitchell 1993; Niaz 1995; Nurrenbern and Pickering 1987; Pickering 1990; Sawrey 1990). These studies indicate that most students use algorithms to solve chemistry problems and that many of them have inadequate understanding of the concepts involved. The seminal report regarding this work was primarily done by Nurrenbern and Pickering (1987). Such results have been replicated in studies with both homogeneous and heterogeneous student populations. For example, Nurrenbern and Pickering (1987) and Pickering (1990) reported that there were significant differences between conceptual and algorithmic questions for all groups. In their paper, 65% of the students had correct responses to the algorithmic questions and 35% B. Cos ¸tu (&) Fatih Faculty of Education, Department of Secondary Science and Mathematics Education, Karadeniz Technical University, 61335 Sogutlu-Trabzon, Turkey e-mail: bayramcostu@yahoo.com 123 J Sci Educ Technol (2007) 16:379–386 DOI 10.1007/s10956-007-9069-z