Abstract
Problem-solving has been recognized as a critical skill that students lack in the current education system, due to the use of algorithmic questions in tests that can be simply memorized and solved without conceptual understanding. Research on student problem-solving is needed to gain deeper insight into how students are approaching problems and where they lack proficiency so that instruction can help students gain a conceptual understanding of chemistry. The MAtCH (methods, analogies, theory, context, how) model was recently developed from analyzing expert explanations of their research and could be a valuable model to identify key components of student problem-solving. Using phenomenography, this project will address the current gap in the literature of applying the MAtCH model to student responses. Twenty-two undergraduate students from first-year general chemistry and general physics classes were recorded using a think-aloud protocol as they worked through the following open-ended problems: 1) How many toilets do you need at a music festival? 2) How far does a car travel before one atom layer is worn off the tires? 3)What is the mass of the Earth’s atmosphere? The original definitions of MAtCH were adapted to better fit student problem-solving, and then the newly defined model was used as an analytical framework to code the student transcripts. Applying the MAtCH model within student problem-solving has revealed a reliance on the method component, namely, using formulas and performing simple plug-and-chug calculations, over deeper analysis of the question or evaluation of their work. More important than the order of the components, the biggest differences in promoted versus impeded problem-solving are how students incorporate multiple components of MAtCH and apply them as they work through the problems. The results of this study will further discuss in detail the revisions made to apply MAtCH definitions to student transcripts and give insight into the elements that promote and impede student problem-solving under the MAtCH model.
Highlights
Educators in chemistry have noticed that their students lack a conceptual understanding of chemistry topics (Bodner, 2015)
“. . .I would start with one toilet for every 20 people . . . ”—participant 8 “We have volume and we want mass so we need to multiply by density.”—participant 1 “I’m trying to remember off the base of what my parents did . . . I think we replaced them two, 3 years.”—participant 15 “Lets, see the height of the atmosphere, or I’m gonna draw diagrams
The initial coding was conducted to adapt the MAtCH definitions for problem-solving tasks
Summary
Educators in chemistry have noticed that their students lack a conceptual understanding of chemistry topics (Bodner, 2015). The MAtCH (methods, analogies, theory, context, and how) model has emerged as a promising problem-solving model to analyze student responses. This article will discuss how the MAtCH model definitions can be revised and used in the context of student problem-solving and how MAtCH model analyses can determine characteristics of promoted or impeded problemsolving. The MAtCH model contains the multiple components of methods, analogy, theory, context, and how (Jeffery et al, 2018) Each of these terms is an important component for identifying expertise. This paper will reevaluate the suitability of using MAtCH as a framework for interpreting student approaches to solving open-ended problems with the scope of identifying expert characteristics that support problemsolving success. MAtCH will serve as an analytical framework while still framing the study’s intent under a phenomenographic paradigm
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
