Home⇛Universal Journal of Educational Research⇛vol. 4 no. 4 (2025)

Pedagogical Framework For Teaching Quantitative Problem Solving On Gas Laws For Novice Learners

Jesam E. Beldineza

Discipline: Education

 

Abstract:

Gas Laws are one of the introductory competencies that learners are expected to learn in secondary-level chemistry. This concept involves various abstract and mathematical problem-solving elements, making the topic difficult for novice learners. This study sought to develop and validate a pedagogical framework to teach novice learners quantitative problem-solving on gas laws. It employed a development research design, and the procedural development of the innovation was based on three developmental stages, which included a preliminary study, development, and validation stage for attaining the research objectives. Specifically, procedures included a literature review of related articles on pedagogical approaches, in-depth interviews with teachers who utilized various teaching approaches, and experts' validation in developing and validating the pedagogical framework. The findings revealed that the developed pedagogical framework showcases evident features in terms of the following aspects, such as pedagogical approach, content relevance, and teacher support and professional development; hence, it was considered valid and appropriate based on the evaluation of expert validators. The developed pedagogical framework was recognized as a helpful tool for teaching and learning quantitative problem-solving in gas laws and other areas of chemistry.



References:

  1. Acido, J., & Caballes, D. G. (2024). Assessing educational progress: A comparative analysis of PISA results (2018 vs. 2022) and HDI correlation in the Philippines. World Journal of Advanced Research and Reviews, 21(1), 462–474. https://doi.org/10.30574/wjarr.2024.21.1.0020
  2. Akben, N. (2020). Effects of the problem-posing approach on students’ problem-solving skills and metacognitive awareness in science education. Research in Science Education, 50(3), 1143–1165. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-018-9726-7
  3. Akinoso, S. O., Oladimeji, O. F., Taiwo, A., R., & Agoro, A. A. (2016). Mathematics and chemistry an inseparable companion in science and technology education. IJES, 13(1), 119–129. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/342247942
  4. Anchen, C., & Ying, Z. (2022). Mathematics learning performance: Its correlation with chemistry learning performance. Indonesian Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 5(2), 134–146. https://doi.org/10.24042/ijsme.v5i2.12075
  5. Aslam, R., Khan, N., & Oad, L. (2021). Constructive feedback, learning motivation and academic achievement in chemistry subject: Qualitative experiences from classroom intervention. Global Educational Studies Review, 6(1), 341–353. https://doi.org/10.31703/gesr.2021(vi-i).34
  6. Bain, K., Rodriguez, J. G., & Towns, M. H. (2019). Chemistry and mathematics: research and frameworks to explore student reasoning. Journal of Chemical Education, 96(10), 2086–2096. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jchemed.9b00523
  7. Beckmann, A., & Michelsen, C. (2022). Conceptual understanding and mathematical literacy through interdisciplinary activities between mathematics and the sciences—findings with physics, chemistry, and biology. In C. Michelsen, A. Beckmann, V. Freiman, U. T. Jankvist, & A. Savard (Eds.), Mathematics and Its Connections to the Arts and Sciences (MACAS): 15 Years of Interdisciplinary Mathematics Education (pp. 363–381). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-10518-0_20
  8. Bodner, G. M., & Herron, J. D. (2002). Problem solving in chemistry. In J. K. Gilbert, O. De Jong, R. Justi, D. F. Treagust, & J. H. Van Driel (Eds.), Chemical Education: Towards Research-based Practice (pp. 235–266). Springer Netherlands. https://doi.org/10.1007/0-306-47977-X_11
  9. Broman, K., Bernholt, S., & Parchmann, I. (2018). Using model-based scaffolds to support students solving context-based chemistry problems. International Journal of Science Education, 40(10), 1176–1197. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2018.1470350
  10. Byun, H., Lee, J., & Cerreto, F. A. (2014). Relative effects of three questioning strategies in ill-structured, small group problem solving. Instructional Science, 42(2), 229–250. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-013-9278-1
  11. Cai, J., & Hwang, S. (2020). Learning to teach through mathematical problem posing: Theoretical considerations, methodology, and directions for future research. International Journal of Educational Research, 102, 101391. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2019.01.001
  12. Chapman, O. (2015). Mathematics teachers’ knowledge for teaching problem solving. LUMAT, 3(1), 19–36. https://doi.org/10.31129/lumat.v3i1.1049
  13. Chen, O., & Kalyuga, S. (2019). Exploring factors influencing the effectiveness of explicit instruction first and problem-solving first approaches. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 35(3), 607–624. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10212-019-00445-5
  14. Cresswell, S. L., Loughlin, W. A., & Kim, T. H. (2024). Implementing an interactive online platform in a large undergraduate general chemistry course and its impact on student learning and perceptions. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 25, 703–720. https://doi.org/10.1039/D3RP00221G
  15. De Berg, K. C. (2012). Using the origin of chemical ideas to enhance an understanding of the chemistry of air: Issues and challenges for including mathematics in the teaching and learning of chemistry. Educación Química, 23, 265–270. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0187-893X(17)30153-2
  16. Egolum, E. O., Samuel, N. N. C., & Okonkwo, I. G. A. (2021). Enhancing students’ interest in chemistry through inculcation of problem solving skills. South Eastern Journal Of Research And Sustainable Development, 4(2), 116–128.
  17. Eilks, I., & Hofstein, A. (2015). Relevant chemistry education: from theory to practice. Sense Publishers Rotterdam. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6300-175-5
  18. Essiam, C., Osei-Antwi, D., & Quayson, C. (2023). Are chemistry topics difficult to learn? The stance of ghanaian senior high school students. International Journal of New Trends in Arts, Sports & Science Education, 12(2), 112–121.
  19. Febriana, R. (2016). Identifikasi komponen model pelatihan pedagogi untuk meningkatkan profesionalitas calon guru kejuruan. Jurnal Pendidikan Teknologi dan Kejuruan, 23(1), 79. https://doi.org/10.21831/jptk.v23i1.9487
  20. Gulacar, O., Cox, C., & Eilks, I. (2022). Ending students’ common question, “Why do we learn chemistry?”: The importance of making the subject relevant and meaningful. Education Sciences. https://www.mdpi.com/journal/education/special_issues/why_do_we_learn_chemistry
  21. Gunn, B., Smolkowski, K., Strycker, L. A., & Dennis, C. (2021). Measuring explicit instruction using classroom observations of student-teacher interactions (COSTI). Perspectives on Behavior Science, 44(2-3), 267–283. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40614-021-00291-1
  22. Hancock, L., Howe, C., Jones, G., Phillips, T., & Plana, D. (2017). Scratching the surface of team-based learning. RSC Education. https://edu.rsc.org/feature/scratching-the-surface-of-team-based-learning/3007103.article
  23. Hesser, T. L., & Gregory, J. L. (2015). Exploring the use of faded worked examples as a problem-solving approach for underprepared students. Higher Education Studies, 5(6), 36. https://doi.org/10.5539/hes.v5n6p36
  24. Indriyanti, N. Y., Saputro, S., & Sungkar, R. L. (2020). Problem-solving and problem-posing learning model enriched with the multiple representation in tetrahedral chemistry to enhance students’ conceptual understanding. EDUSAINS, 12(1). https://doi.org/10.15408/es.v12i1.13282
  25. Iriani, R., & Hidayah, N. (2017). The effect of problem posing and problem solving model on chemistry learning outcome. 87–90. https://doi.org/10.2991/seadric-17.2017.19
  26. Lamina, O., & Arañes, F. Q. (2020). Peer-Led Team Learning (PLTL), student achievement and engagement in learning chemistry. SSRN Electronic Journal. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3573527
  27. Lawrie, G. A. (2023). Embedding feedback in digital learning environments to promote learners’ thinking about their thinking in chemistry. In Y. Dori, C. Ngai, & G. Szteinberg (Eds.), Digital learning and teaching in chemistry (pp. 352–368). Royal Society of Chemistry. https://doi.org/10.1039/9781839167942
  28. Lee, Y., Capraro, R. M., & Capraro, M. M. (2018). Mathematics teachers’ subject matter knowledge and pedagogical content knowledge in problem posing. International Electronic Journal of Mathematics Education, 13(2). https://doi.org/10.12973/iejme/2698
  29. Mamoon-Al-Bashir, M., Kabir, M. R., & Rahman, I. (2016). The value and effectiveness of feedback in improving students’ learning and professionalizing teaching in higher education. Journal of Education and Practice, 7(16), 38–41. http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1105282.pdf
  30. Mills, S. (2016). Conceptual understanding: a concept analysis. The Qualitative Report, 21(3), 546–557. http://dx.doi.org/10.46743/2160-3715/2016.2308
  31. Mosher, M., & Ketler, P. (2023). Chemical calculations—Introducing quantitative chemistry. In An Introduction to Chemistry (pp. 99–140). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-90267-4_3
  32. Persky, A. M., & Robinson, J. D. (2017). Moving from novice to expertise and its implications for instruction. American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, 81(9), 6065. https://doi.org/10.5688/ajpe6065
  33. Persky, A. M., & Robinson, J. D. (2017). Moving from novice to expertise and its implications for instruction. American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, 81(9), 6065. https://doi.org/10.5688/ajpe6065
  34. Pushkin, D. B. (1998). Introductory students, conceptual understanding, and algorithmic success. Journal of Chemical Education, 75(7), 809. https://doi.org/10.1021/ed075p809
  35. Reid, N. (2021). The Johnstone Triangle: The Key to Understanding Chemistry. The Royal Society of Chemistry. https://doi.org/10.1039/9781839163661
  36. Reid, N., & Yang, M. (2002). The solving of problems in chemistry: The more open-ended problems. Research in Science & Technological Education, 20(1), 83–98. https://doi.org/10.1080/02635140220130948
  37. Richey, R. C., & Klein, J. D. (2005). Developmental research methods: Creating knowledge from instructional design and development practice. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 16(2), 23–38. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02961473
  38. Seery, M. (2015). Worked examples for assisting student learning. RSC Education. https://edu.rsc.org/ideas/worked-examples-for-assisting-student-learning/2010173.article
  39. Shadreck, M., & Ochonogor, C. E. (2017). (PDF) Problem solving instruction for overcoming students’ difficulties in stoichiometric problems. Acta Didactica Napocensia, 10(4), 69–78. https://doi.org/10.24193/adn.10.4.8
  40. Stenger, M. (2014). 5 research-based tips for providing students with meaningful feedback. Edutopia. https://www.edutopia.org/blog/tips-providing-students-meaningful-feedback-marianne-stenger
  41. Taber, K. S. (2018). Scaffolding learning: principles for effective teaching and the design of classroom resources. In M. Abend (Ed.), Effective teaching and learning: Perspectives, strategies and implementation (pp. 1-43). New York: Nova Science Publishers.
  42. Torres, D., Pulukuri, S., & Abrams, B. (2023). Step Back, Translate, and Extend: An instructional framework for enhancing knowledge transfer and self-efficacy across chemistry courses. Journal of Chemical Education, 100(12), 4696–4706. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jchemed.3c00964
  43. Tsaparlis, G. (Ed.). (2021). Problems and problem solving in chemistry education: Analysing data, looking for patterns and making deductions. The Royal Society of Chemistry. https://doi.org/10.1039/9781839163586
  44. Valencia, A. V. P., Brigoli, L. A., & Sanchez, J. (2025). (PDF) CHEMBINGO: Development and validation of a game-based activity in chemistry. Cognizance Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies, 5(2), 336–358. https://doi.org/10.47760/cognizance.2025.v05i02.024
  45. Vo, K., Sarkar, M., White, P., & Yuriev, E. (2022). Problem solving in chemistry supported by metacognitive scaffolding: teaching associates’ perspectives and practices. Chemistry Education: Research and Practice, 23(2), 436–451. https://doi.org/10.1039/d1rp00242b
  46. Widyastuti, B. W., & Retnowati, E. (2021). Effects of worked example on experts’ procedural skills in solving geometry problems. Advances in Social Science, Education and Humanities Research. https://doi.org/10.2991/assehr.k.210305.049
  47. Williamson, V. M. (2014). Teaching chemistry conceptually. In I. Devetak & S. A. Glažar (Eds.), Learning with understanding in the chemistry classroom (pp. 193–208). Springer Netherlands. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-4366-3_10
  48. Wittwer, J., & Renkl, A. (2008). Why instructional explanations often do not work: A framework for understanding the effectiveness of instructional explanations. Educational Psychologist, 43(1), 49–64. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520701756420
  49. Yuriev, E., Naidu, S., Schembri, L. S., & Short, J. L. (2017). Scaffolding the development of problem-solving skills in chemistry: Guiding novice students out of dead ends and false starts. Chemistry Education: Research and Practice, 18(3), 486–504. https://doi.org/10.1039/c7rp00009j

Tools


Copyright © 2025  KITE Digital Educational Solutions |  Exclusively distributed by CE-Logic