The Effects of Thinking Aloud Pair Problem Solving On High School Students' Chemistry Problem-Solving Performance and Verbal Interactions

Research: Science and Education
edited by
Chemical Education Research
Vickie M. Williamson
Texas A&M University
College Station, TX 77823
The Effects of Thinking Aloud Pair Problem Solving

on High School Students Chemistry Problem-Solving
Performance and Verbal Interactions
Kyungmoon Jeon*
Department of Science Education, Gwangju National University of Education, Gwangju, Korea, 500-703;
*kmjeon@gnue.ac.kr
Douglas Huffman
Department of Teaching and Leadership, University of Kansas, Lawrence, KS 66045
Taehee Noh
Department of Chemistry Education, Seoul National University, Seoul, Korea, 151-741
Problem solving has historically received much attention

and concern in introductory chemistry classes (1). Even
though problem-solving ability is a major objective in science courses, numerous studies indicate that even after instruction, many students still have difficulty solving problems
and continue to use novice problem-solving techniques rather
than more advanced problem-solving techniques (2). Problem solving has also been a stumbling block for students enrolled in chemistry courses (3). Studies on problem solving
in chemistry have focused on the identification of problemsolving behaviors (46) and teaching problem-solving strategies (heuristics) identified through expert/novice research.
According to Woods (7), over 60 different problem-solving strategies have been described in the literature; many seem
to describe similar procedures with slightly different terms.
Polyas strategy in the context of mathematics (8), probably
the most well-known, has the following four stages: (i) understanding the problem, (ii) devising a plan, (iii) carrying
out the plan, and (iv) looking back over the process. One
well-known example in chemistry is the four-stage strategy
suggested by Mettes and his colleagues (9):
1. Analysis of the problem
2. Transformation of the problem into a standard problem
3. Execution of routine operations of the standard problem
4. Checking the answer and interpretating the results
Frank and Herron (10) illustrated a three-phase strategy. It

was based on Polyas model (8), but the first two stages were
combined into one called planning the solution. Some suggest that the strategies with too many stages have little effect; partly because it can be too time-consuming and students
tend not to use it. For example, Bunce and Heikkinen (11)
found in their six-stage strategy that students who used the
strategy tended to be less successful.
Development of problem-solving performance requires
coordination and integration of various subskills. Basic knowledge of concepts and facts, knowledge of heuristic methods,
the coordination of skills, and the monitoring of progress towards a problem solution are all involved in effective problem
1558
Journal of Chemical Education
solving (12). One key component of fostering problemsolving ability is providing feedback and guidance to enable
students to implement the desired skill, as well as introducing
the heuristic methods and modeling their use. The instructor or peers can observe the students performance and provide critical feedback and support to enable them to execute
the skill successfully (1215). Many studies that investigated
the effects of problem-solving strategies included peer students monitoring through small group activity or cooperative learning (9, 16, 17).
Thinking aloud pair problem solving (TAPPS), developed
by Arthur Whimbey (18), also helps students monitor their
use of a problem-solving strategy. Pairs of students work
through problems. One student solves a problem aloud while
the other listens, encouraging vocalization and accuracy. TAPPS
can help students observe and understand their own thought
process and those of their fellow students. TAPPS has been
used in science, mathematics, and reading classes in secondary schools and universities for several decades (18, 19). Positive instructional influences have been reported on science
achievement, problem solving, and metacognition (2023). To
understand TAPPS better, however, more research is needed.
Few studies have directly investigated the interaction processes that affect learning while students use TAPPS. In general, the effect of small group instruction is related to verbal
interaction among students (24, 25). Although the TAPPS
method consists primarily of talking aloud and listening, verbal interactions between a paired solver and listener are also
important and have not been extensively studied. Research
that examines the verbal interaction between students using
TAPPS will provide a meaningful contribution to the field.
Using the TAPPS Method in the Classroom
Subjects
Placement into academic high schools in Seoul, Korea
is determined using students performance records; students
are then assigned by lottery to schools within their district
of residence (26). Students are divided into two groups:
declared science majors and declared nonscience majors. Typi-
Vol. 82 No. 10 October 2005
www.JCE.DivCHED.org
cally, students are assigned to one of the several equivalent

class groups on the basis of their overall academic achievement at the previous grade. The sample groups of students
for this study came from a boys academic high school in
Seoul. A total of 85 students, from three declared science
major 11th-grade classes, were selected and randomly assigned
to either a group that used a problem-solving strategy individually (individual group), a group that used a problem-solving strategy with TAPPS (TAPPS group), or a control group.
The difference between the higher performinglower performing students in each pair was constant across all the pairs.
Solvers were asked to read the problem aloud and verbalize
the problem-solving process (e.g., Solve the problem on your
own telling the listener everything you are thinking and doing.). Listeners were asked to encourage solvers to constantly
A gas occupies 1.00 L at 25 C and 1.01 atm. What

volume would the gas occupy at 0 C and 0.705 atm?
Procedures
The chemistry course consisted of two classes that met
for 50 minutes for six days each week. The control, individual,
and TAPPS groups were taught by the same teacher, who was
not a researcher of this study and had 4 years of teaching
experience. Before instruction, chemistry and mathematics
course backgrounds were analyzed to help establish the quasiequivalence of the three groups. Students in the individual
and TAPPS groups were first given two class hours of orientation and practice on problem solving using the four-stage
strategy individually or in TAPPS groups, respectively. Mathematical problems unrelated to chemistry content, a problem-solving strategy chart, and example solutions using the
strategy were used. For the TAPPS group, a TAPPS script
was given (18).
The content covered during the seven-week unit of study
was gases and solutions (27). The four-stage problem solving strategy was applied to algorithmic problems related to
Boyles and Charless gas laws, the ideal gas equation, Grahams
law of diffusion, Daltons law of partial pressure, molarity,
molality, solubility, Henrys law, Raoults law, boiling point
elevation, and melting point depression. Korea has a national
curriculum and the Ministry of Education assigns the amount
of time teachers spend on each topic (e.g., one 50-minute
class period is assigned for Grahams law of diffusion). The
teacher practiced the instructional approaches once before
teaching each sample group. One of the researchers made
classroom observations once a week, and weekly meetings
were held to discuss the instructional progress of each group.
At the end of the instructional phase of the study, an essaytype problem-solving test was given to the students in each
of the three sample groups.
Identify the given and unknown variables.
(P1 =
(T1 =
(V1 =
1.01 atm )
25 C )
1.00 L )
( P 2 = 0.705 atm )
(T2 = 0 C )
(V2 = ? )
Planning
Recall the related concepts or principles.
Translate the problem description into a
mathematical representation.
P1V1
PV
= 2 2 (Boyle-Charles law)
T1
T2
T1 = 273 K + 25 K = 298 K
T2 = 273 K + 0 K = 273 K
Solving
Execute the plan.
1.01 atm 1.00 L
0.705 atm
=
298 K
273 K
= 1.31 L
Reviewing
Check the calculation.
Evaluate the meaning of the answer.
Instructional Approaches
In the first part of each class, the teacher presented chemistry concepts, laws, and principles by conventional methods using a textbook. Then, students in the individual and
TAPPS groups were taught how to solve problems using the
problem-solving strategy, while those in the control group
were taught only by textbook approaches. The four steps of
the strategyunderstanding the problem, planning a solution, solving the problem, and reviewing the solutionare
all included in the example of how to solve a problem using
the strategy shown in Figure 1.
During the last part of each class, students solved problems under the guidance of the teacher. Students in the individual group used the four-stage problem-solving strategy
individually with very little interaction, while those in the
TAPPS group used the four-stage strategy in heterogeneous
pairs determined by previous chemistry achievement level.
www.JCE.DivCHED.org
Understanding
P1 = 1.01 atm
T1 = 298 K
V1 = 1.00 L
P2 = 0.705 atm
T2 = 273 K
V2 = 1.31 L
Figure 1. Example problem solution using the four-stage problem

solving strategy.
1559
talk about what the solvers were doing; listeners were also
instructed not to give the correct answer or attempt to solve
the problem (18, 22, 28). Listeners only pointed out errors
after the solvers had ample opportunities to discover them
on their own initiative (e.g., Demand constant vocalization,
yet do not keep interrupting.). The students exchanged roles
from class period to class period; there was one group of three
A store sells 30-L closed tanks of compressed gases

such as oxygen, hydrogen, LPG, and butane. The tanks
have a gauge indicating the inside pressure, and both
the inside and outside temperatures are the same.
One day last summer when the temperature was
27 C, the storekeeper sold a tank of hydrogen with
16 atm of the gas for 100,000 Won, and a tank of butane with 16 atm of that gas for 125,000 Won.
On a cold day this winter when the temperature
was 3 C, the storekeeper sold a tank of hydrogen with
9 atm of the gas for 125,000 Won.
The storekeeper claimed that the price of hydrogen this winter is lower than last summer. Is this claim
reasonable?
Figure 2. An example of an essay question on the problem-solving
test. Note that the Won is the monetary unit of Korea.
List 1. Scoring Rubric

for the Problem-Solving Test
1. Identifying the Given Variables
Nothing written
Most variables are missing
Identifying the given is almost complete
Identifying the given is complete
Points
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
2. Demonstrating Conceptual Knowledge

Nothing written or no understanding
Partial understanding of chemistry concept
(with some misconception)
Clear understanding of chemistry concept
0.0
1.5
3.0
3. Recalling the Related Law

Nothing written
Law is inappropriate
Law is appropriate
0.0
1.5
3.0
4. Progressing in an Organized Manner

Unorganized progression (haphazard manipulation) 1.0
Incomplete organized progression
2.0
Complete organized progression
3.0
5. Executing a Mathematical Solution
Inappropriate mathematical expression is used
or execution is stopped halfway
Aside from minor mistakes, execution is correct
and complete
1560
1.5
3.0
rather than two students in each class. To control for the timeconsuming nature of using the TAPPS strategy, students in
the TAPPS group were assigned fewer problems to solve than
those in the other two groups.
Description of the Problem-Solving Test
An essay-type problem was developed based on several
previous studies (14, 17, 29, 30) to assess problem-solving
performance. The essay-style question was designed to assess
how well students used the problem-solving strategy, that is,
to measure the characteristics of more expert-like problem
solving. The problem used real-world contexts; it did not explicitly identify unknowns. More information than needed
to solve the problem was provided (Figure 2).
Two draft problems were initially developed and administered to two freshmen in a university. After review by three
experts in chemistry education, the subsequently modified
problems were used in a second pilot study conducted with
11th grade students (n = 49). One problemregarding temperature, pressure, and the number of molecules in a gas
statewas finally selected. The scoring rubric included levels
for identifying the given variables; demonstrating conceptual
knowledge; recalling the related law; progressing in an organized manner; and executing a mathematical solution (List
1). The scoring was designed to match features of more expert-like problem solving. To make comparisons more easily
between the five different characteristics that were scored, each
of the five subscores was equally weighted with a three-point
scale for a total maximum score of 15 points (17). To assess
the interrater reliability of the grading, two of the researchers
practiced using the scoring rubric that was developed in pilot
tests. Any discrepancies of grading were discussed to reach consensus in scores. After intercoder reliability was established
(.93), grading was carried out by one of the coders.
Data Analysis
First, the chemistry and mathematics course backgrounds
of the students were analyzed to establish the quasi-equivalence of the three groups, although students are usually assigned to one of the several equivalent class groups on the
basis of their overall academic achievement at the previous
grade level. The result of the one-way ANOVA indicated that
there were no significant differences among the groups (chemistry, mean square = 33.59, F = .15, p = .862; mathematics,
mean square = 537.68, F = 1.21, p = .302). To determine
whether students in either the individual or TAPPS groups
showed higher problem-solving performance than students
in the control group, scores on the essay problem-solving test
were compared using the nonparametric KruskalWallis test.
The small sample size in this study can lead to concerns over
normality: the KruskalWallis test is viewed as a more appropriate way to analyze such data. In the cases of significant 2 values, post-hoc comparisons between groups were
calculated by Dunns method (31).
Verbal Interactions Using TAPPS

To investigate the verbal interactions, an 11th-grade class
in another boys academic high school in Seoul was selected.
Twelve pairs of students (n = 24) were asked to use the fourstage problem solving strategy with TAPPS. After the orien-
www.JCE.DivCHED.org
tation on the new treatment and practice being audio- and

videotaped, each pair was audio- and videotaped during four,
50-minute class periods. To investigate the relationship between verbal behaviors and problem-solving performance,
previous chemistry achievement scores were obtained and a
problem-solving test was administered.
Pairs of TAPPS students were audio- and videotaped, and
their discussions were transcribed. A coding scheme for verbal
behaviors of solvers and listeners was developed based on the
protocols of this study and the literature on social problem
solving (24, 32, 33). This coding scheme describes 16 categories of behavior exhibited by students in their roles as solvers or listeners (Table 1). Intercoder reliability for verbal
behaviors was .90. Non-verbal behaviors and the interactions
between teacher and students were not included in this analysis.
To study the relationship between verbal behaviors and

problem-solving performance, we calculated Spearmans rankdifference correlation coefficient for the data, controlling for
the effect of previous chemistry achievement. Because this was
an exploratory study with a small sample size (n = 12 pairs),
the significance level value for the correlation analysis was
set to = .10 to increase the statistical power (3335).
Results
Problem-Solving Test
Scores on the essay problem-solving test are included in
Table 2. The total score was composed of five different
subscores, and the maximum possible score was 15 points.
Total mean score of the TAPPS group (11.44) was higher
Table 1. Types of Students Verbal Interactions While Using TAPPS, by Role

Type of Interaction
Requiring agreement
Agreeing
Solvers Action
Type of Interaction
Inviting listener to agree or disagree

with action or idea
Agreeing with statement of another
Agreeing
Disagreeing
Listeners Action
Agreeing with statement
of another
Disagreeing with statement
of another
Disagreeing
Disagreeing with statement of another
Repeating
Simply repeating solvers statement
Asking in return
Asking in return for listeners asking or

pointing out
Clarifying
Restating or paraphrasing solvers meaning
Providing
Correcting
Justifying
Modifying
Giving information or opinion in

response to listeners question
Adjusting listeners misunderstanding
Explaining or giving reasons to defend
the solvers own position
Adjusting the solvers own problemsolving process based on listeners
opinions
Asking
Pointing out
Justifying
Accepting
Questioning or asking for information

Indicating solvers errors
Explaining or giving reasons to defend the
listeners own position
Agreeing or admitting solvers opinion in
response to the listener's asking or pointing out
Table 2. KruskalWallis Results for Analysis of Problem-Solving Test Scores

Tasks for Students on the
Problem-Solving Test
(See List 1 for the grading
rubric.)
Control Group
(n = 28):
Mean (SD);
Mean Rank
Individual Solvers
Group (n = 30)
Mean (SD);
Mean Rank
TAPPS Group
(n = 27)
Mean (SD);
Mean Rank
p-Values
Post-Hoc Comparisons of
the Groups by Tasks
Identifying the given variables
01.93 (1.33)
40.39
02.03 (1.16)
41.58
02.41 (0.84)
47.28
.475
Conceptual knowledge
00.64 (1.19)
31.84
01.25 (1.37)
41.67
02.17 (1.27)
56.06
.000
Control, Individual TAPPS
Recalling the related law
01.23 (1.23)
31.09
01.95 (1.26)
44.02
02.50 (1.02)
54.22
.001
Control Individual, TAPPS
Organized progression
01.07 (1.15)
35.82
01.47 (1.41)
44.00
01.82 (1.04)
49.33
.100
Mathematical execution
01.34 (1.25)
30.55
02.15 (1.16)
45.65
02.56 (0.81)
52.96
.000
Total (15 points possible)
06.21 (5.27)
30.91
08.85 (5.62)
44.35
11.44 (4.57)
54.04
.002
www.JCE.DivCHED.org
1561
than those of the other groups, while mean score of the control group (6.21) was lower than those of the other groups.
The 2 value calculated was statistically significant ( 2
12.35, p .01), and the post-hoc comparisons indicated that
students in both the individual and TAPPS groups performed
better than those in the control group.
Subscores on the essay problem-solving test were also
analyzed to compare specific characteristics of the problemsolving solutions. The KruskalWallis test and post-hoc comparisons showed that students in both the individual and
TAPPS groups performed better than those in the control
group on recalling the related law and mathematical execution,
while students in the TAPPS group performed better than
those in the other groups on conceptual knowledge. Scores
on the essay problem-solving test were higher for the TAPPS
group. Of the 27 students in the TAPPS group, 18 (66.7%)
successfully answered the questions, as compared to 40.0%
and 14.3% for the individual and control groups, respectively.
Verbal Interactions Using TAPPS

Table 3 includes the frequencies of the different types
of verbal interactions for students using TAPPS. Listeners exhibited more verbal interaction (14.0; 61.9%) than solvers
who had to spend more time solving problems (8.58; 38.0%).
Solvers exhibited the behaviors of requiring agreement
(9.6%), providing responses (9.6%), and modifying the
process or response (8.1%) more frequently, and listeners exhibited the behaviors of agreeing (22.5%), asking
(13.6%), and pointing out (19.6%) more frequently.
Data in Table 4 concerning the partial correlations between the top three verbal behaviors and problem-solving
performance indicate that there are four statistically significant relationships. Listeners pointing out verbal behavior
had the greatest relationship with listeners problem-solving
performance (r .619). Listeners agree and solvers
modify behaviors were also positively related with listeners
Table 3. Frequency of Types of Verbal Interactions While Using TAPPS, by Role

Interactions Initiated by
Solvers (n = 12)
Mean Frequency (%)
Interactions Initiated by
Listeners ( n = 12)
Mean Frequency (%)
Requiring agreement
2.170 0(9.6)
Agreeing
5.080 (22.5)
Agreeing
0.500 0(2.2)
Disagreeing
0.580 0(2.6)
Disagreeing
0.080 0(0.4)
Repeating
0.420 0(1.9)
Asking in return
0.580 0(2.6)
Clarifying
0.080 0(0.4)
Providing
2.170 0(9.6)
Asking
3.080 (13.6)
Correcting
0.330 0(1.5)
Pointing out
4.420 (19.6)
Justifying
0.920 0(4.1)
Justifying
0.170 0(0.8)
Modifying
1.830 0(8.1)
Accepting
0.17 00(0.8)
Total
8.580 (38.0)
Total
14.000 (61.9)
Table 4. Correlation between Students Verbal Interactions and Their Problem-Solving Performances
Student Role
Type of Interaction
Correlation Values for Solvers a
Correlation Values for Listeners a
Solver
Requiring agreement
.308b
.288c
Providing
.011b
.124c
Modifying
.063b
.606 c
Agreeing
.035b
.452b
Asking
.081b
.104c
Pointing out
.435b
.619 c
Listener
For solvers, n = 12; for listeners, n = 11 (one of the 12 listeners did not take the problem-solving test.)
p .1
c
p .05
b
1562
www.JCE.DivCHED.org
performance. These data support the results that students

using the TAPPS method showed greater problem-solving
ability than those in the other groups (Table 2). However,
there was a negative correlation between listeners point out
and solvers problem-solving performance (r .435).
Discussion
The results of this study indicate that using a problemsolving strategy can help students problem-solving performance more than conventional problem-solving instruction.
One of the primary differences between the individual and
control groups was that students in the individual group, who
were taught to recall the related concepts or principles at the
planning stage, demonstrated more ability to recall related
laws. The individual group also performed better on mathematical execution than the control group. This may be due
to the reviewing stage of the strategy that emphasizes checking the calculation. Another reasonable explanation might
be that students in the control group tended to show less
writing or stopped halfway through the mathematical execution due to lack of understanding or planning strategies. On
the other hand, the problem-solving strategy did not improve
students conceptual knowledge more than conventional
methods, despite the conceptual nature of the strategy compared to the computational nature of conventional or textbook problem solving. As Pickering (36) reported, solving
algorithmic problems does not necessarily guarantee the understanding of the concepts associated with the algorithms.
There was some evidence that TAPPS may help students
get higher scores on the problem-solving test. First, all of the
mean scores on subcategories of the problem-solving test of
the TAPPS group tended to be higher than those of the individual and control groups, although the differences were
not always significant. Second, scores on the essay problemsolving test were higher in the TAPPS group than in the other
groups. Finally, there was a significant difference between the
TAPPS and the other groups on conceptual knowledge, while
both the individual and TAPPS groups performed significantly better than the control group on recalling the related
law and mathematical execution. These results suggest that
TAPPS was more effective than individual use of the problem-solving strategy at helping students become aware of their
knowledge, process, or skill and those of their fellow students
(18). Compared to previous research, which reported no significant difference in problem-solving performance between
students who had used a problem-solving strategy individually and those in a cooperative group (37), the TAPPS approach seems to be a more effective method.
Another purpose of this study was to explore the relationship between the verbal behaviors in TAPPS and students
problem-solving performance. Verbal interactions between
solver and listener showed some different characteristics and
generally had lower frequencies in comparison with students
engaged in cooperative learning or small group discussion (32,
38). These results might be due to the fact that TAPPS is
based on talking aloud and listening. For example, it is hard
to observe pointing out in any other small group activity,
since students are not usually instructed to point out others
errors without giving an explanation, in contrast to the lis-
www.JCE.DivCHED.org
teners instructions. In previous research regarding problemsolving strategies and cooperative learning (24) providing
formed about 40% of the verbal behaviors. However, providing formed just 9.6% of the verbal behaviors in this study,
because providing means that solvers were giving explanations or answers in response to listeners behavior (e.g., asking). Listeners could not provide anything to solvers, and
solvers problem-solving process without interaction was not
classified as providing. On the other hand, solvers exhibited a higher frequency of requiring agreement and listeners exhibited a higher frequency of agreeing than students
in other small groups. This seems to be an effect of the solvers role in leading the problem-solving process.
As can be seen in Table 4, listeners pointing out behavior showed the greatest correlation with their own problem-solving performance, and listeners agreeing behavior
was also positively correlated to listeners problem-solving performance. When solvers modified their problem-solving processes based on listeners behaviors, listeners also benefited.
One of the reasons why these verbal behaviors may help students learn is that listeners can become more aware of solvers
thinking processes through this interaction. To agree with the
solvers statement, to point out the solvers errors, or to make
solvers modify their process means that listeners actively follow solvers thinking processes and perform their listening
role well. It is fruitful to raise students awareness of the thinking process so they learn how to tackle problems (21, 39).
These results also support the research results (20) that students problem-solving performance can benefit from TAPPS
instruction.
However, there was a negative correlation between listeners pointing out and solvers performance. The power
of pointing out may be the joint attention and subsequent
discussion. Without listeners saying what they mean by
pointing out, the gesture may not be helpful to the solvers.
To have issues pointed out and not to receive concrete explanations or information might impose a cognitive burden
on solvers rather than help them correct faulty reasoning, although pointing out solvers errors helped listeners improve
their own problem-solving performance. The listeners seem
to gain more in the way of multiple perspectives than the
solvers do. This result seems to be similar to previous research
(33) with significant negative correlation between asking for
help and not receiving it and mathematics achievement.
Contrary to previous research regarding verbal behaviors in
cooperative learning groups (24, 33), no significant correlation was found between solvers providing and students
problem-solving performance. This might be explained by
noting that the definition of providing in this study is limited to solvers specific behaviors and differs from those of
giving explanation or giving help in previous studies.
Implications
This study provides some evidence of the effect on students problem-solving performance of using a problem-solving strategy and thinking aloud pair problem solving (TAPPS).
The problem-solving strategy was more effective in developing students problem-solving performance compared to conventional instruction, especially for recalling a related law and
1563
executing a meaningful mathematical expression. TAPPS use

improved students conceptual knowledge, and increased success rates on solving problems. It is therefore recommended
that chemistry instructors increase the use of problem-solving strategies rather than textbook strategies to foster students
problem solving ability.
The most important implication of this study involves
the use of TAPPS as a means of engaging students in the complex cognitive process of solving problems. The verbal interactions between solvers and listeners can help students become
more cognizant of both their own thinking and the thinking
of other students. Chemistry problem solving in the real world
is typically a collaborative process, and it is therefore important for all students to develop the ability to understanding
each others thinking. Chemistry instructors are encouraged
to promote verbal interactions between students as a means
of helping all students improve achievement in chemistry.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
Literature Cited
1. Helgeson, S. L. Research on Problem Solving: Middle School.
In Handbook of Research on Science Teaching and Learning: A
Project of the National Science Teachers Association, Gabel, D.
L., Ed.; MacMillan Publishing Company: New York, 1994;
pp 248268.
2. Maloney, D. P. Research on Problem Solving: Physics. In
Handbook of Research on Science Teaching and Learning: A
Project of the National Science Teachers Association, Gabel, D.
L., Ed.; MacMillan Publishing Company: New York, 1994;
pp 327354.
3. Gabel, D. L.; Bunce, D. M. Research on Problem Solving:
Chemistry. In Handbook of Research on Science Teaching and
Learning: A Project of the National Science Teachers Association,
Gabel, D. L., Ed.; MacMillan Publishing Company: New
York, 1994; pp 301326.
4. Atwater, M. M.; Alick, B. J. Res. Sci. Teach. 1990, 27, 157
172.
5. Camacho, M.; Good, R. J. Res. Sci. Teach. 1989, 26, 251
272.
6. Noh, T.; Jeon, K. J. Kor. Assoc. Res. Sci. Educ. (in Korean) 1997,
17, 7583.
7. Woods, D. R. Problem Solving in Practice. In What Research
Says to the Science Teacher: Problem Solving, Gabel, D. L., Ed.;
Volume 5; National Science Teachers Association: Washington, DC, 1989; pp 97121.
8. Polya, G. How To Solve It: A New Aspect of Mathematical
Method; Princeton University Press: Princeton, NJ, 1945.
9. Mettes, C. T. C. W.; Pilot, A.; Roossink, H. J.; Kramers-Pals,
H. J. Chem. Educ. 1981, 58, 5155.
10. Frank, D. V.; Herron, J. D. The Effect of a Problem-Solving
Teaching Method on Student Problem-Solving Processes. Presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching; French Lick, IN, 1985.
11. Bunce, D. M.; Heikkinen, H. J. Res. Sci. Teach. 1986, 23, 11
20.
12. Keith, R. Correlation between the Consistent Use of a General Problem Solving Strategy and Organization of Physics
1564
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.
38.
39.
Knowledge. Doctoral Dissertation, University of Minnesota,

Minneapolis, MN, 1993.
Collins, A.; Brown, J. S.; Newman, S. E. In Knowing, Learning, and Instruction, Resnick, L. B., Ed.; Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates Publishers: Hillsdale, NJ, 1989; pp 453494.
Asieba, F. O.; Egbugara, O. U. J. Chem. Educ. 1993, 70, 3839.
Taconis, R.; Ferguson-Hessler, M. G. M.; Broekkamp, H. J.
Res. Sci. Teach. 2001, 38, 442468.
Frank, D. V. Implementing Instruction To Improve the Problem Solving Abilities of General Chemistry Students. Doctoral
Dissertation, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN, 1986;
DAI 47, pp 141.
Huffman, D. J. Res. Sci. Teach. 1997, 34, 551570.
Whimbey, A.; Lochhead, J. Problem Solving and Comprehension; Lawrence Erlbaum Associates: Hillsdale, NJ, 1986; pp
116.
Lochhead, J. Sound Thinking with Thinkback 2000. Proceedings of the Technological Education and National Development
Conference, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates, April, 2000.
Carmichael, J. W.; Bauer, J. S.; Robinson, D. J. Coll. Sci. Teach.
1987, 42, 453457.
Hogan, K. J. Res. Sci. Teach. 1999, 36, 10851109.
Pestel, B. C. Sci. Educ. 1993, 77, 8394.
Woods, D. R. J. Coll. Sci. Teach. 1984, 13, 467472.
Jeon, K.; Yeo, K.; Noh, T. J. Kor. Assoc. Res. Sci. Educ. (in
Korean) 2000, 20, 234243.
Nattiv, A. Ele. Sch. J. 1994, 94, 285297.
Kim, J. E. In World Education Encyclopedia, Volume 2, Kurian,
G. T., Ed.; Facts on File Publications: New York, 1988; pp
758771.
Soh, H. S.; Yoon, K. S.; Lee, Y. M.; Heo, S. I.; Kim, Y. W.
High School Chemistry (in Korean); Dusan Corp: Seoul, Korea,
1997; pp 243289.
Hassard, J. Science as Inquiry; Good Year Books: Parsippany,
New Jersey, 2000; pp 3536.
Bascones, J. Eur. J. Sci. Educ. 1985, 7, 253261.
Heller, P.; Hollabaugh, M. Am. J. Phys. 1992, 60, 637644.
Siegel, S.; Castellan, N. J. Nonparametric Statistics, 2nd ed.;
McGraw-Hill: New York, 1988.
Derry, S.; Tookey, K.; Chiffy, A. A Microanalysis of Pair Problem Solving with and without a Computer Tool. Presented at
the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association; New Orleans, LA, 1994.
Webb, N. M. J. Educ. Psy. 1982, 74, 642655.
Swing, S. R.; Peterson, P. L. Am. Educ. Res. J. 1982, 19, 259
274.
Keppel, G.; Wickens, T. D. Design and Analysis: A Researchers
Handbook, 4th ed.; Prentice Hall: Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 2004.
Pickering, M. J. Chem. Educ. 1990, 67, 254255.
Tingle, J. B.; Good, R. J. Res. Sci. Teach. 1990, 27, 671683.
Kempa, R. F.; Ayob, A. Int. J. Sci. Educ. 1991, 13, 341354.
Harmon, M. G. The Role of Strategies and Knowledge in
Problem Solving: A Review of the Literature. Paper presented
at the annual meeting of the National Association for Research
in Science Teaching, Anaheim, CA, 1993. ERIC Document
Reproduction Service No. ED 366640.
www.JCE.DivCHED.org

The Effects of Thinking Aloud Pair Problem Solving On High School Students' Chemistry Problem-Solving Performance and Verbal Interactions

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Titolo originale

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

The Effects of Thinking Aloud Pair Problem Solving On High School Students' Chemistry Problem-Solving Performance and Verbal Interactions

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Research: Science and Education

Chemical Education Research