Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com

Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 56 (2012) 416 – 425

International Conference on Teaching and Learning in Higher Education (ICTLHE 2012) in

conjunction with RCEE & RHED 2012

Conceptual and Procedural Knowledge in Problem Solving

Johari Surif*, Nor Hasniza Ibrahim, Mahani Mokhtar
Faculty of Education, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia, 81310 UTM Skudai, Johor, Malaysia

Abstract

This descriptive quantitative study aims to measure secondary year 4 students’ problem solving in chemistry. A total of 200
students from four schools in one district were chosen as respondents in this study. Data were obtained through a set of test
which measured “Levels of Conceptual Knowledge and Procedural Knowledge”. The findings showed that the level of
conceptual knowledge and procedural knowledge was weak. The results also indicated that there was a moderate correlation
between problem solving based on conceptual and procedural knowledge. Accordingly, science teaching and learning
strategies were presented to raise the level of conceptual and procedural knowledge among students.

© 2012
© 2012 Published
Published by
by Elsevier
Elsevier Ltd. Selectionand/or
Ltd. Selection and/orpeer-review
peer-review under
under responsibility
responsibility of Centre
of Centre of Engineering
of Engineering Education,
Education,
Universiti Teknologi
Universiti TeknologiMalaysia
Malaysia
Open access under CC BY-NC-ND license.
Keywords: conceptual knowledge; procedural knowledge; problem solving; problem solving in chemistry; science teaching and learning

1. Introduction

By the year 2020, Malaysia is expected to be one of the developed countries similar to America, Japan, United
Kingdom and the like. To be at par with the existing developed countries, Malaysia needs human capital that
have a mastery of science and high technology based on the concept of k-economy. Simultaneously, the sixth
challenge of Vision 2020 states that science education is one of the key elements that should be addressed in the
national education system to order to produce trained and skilled human resources. Furthermore, interest in
science education can be a catalyst in an effort to improve the socio-economic development and living standards
of people in this country. This claim has been recorded in the statement of Higher Education Planning Committee
(1996), “the importance of science and technology in the development of the two resources (human and natural)
cannot be looked down upon. A strong foundation in science is important, not only for research but also for
development”.

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +6-013-722-9759

E-mail address:johari_surif@utm.my

1877-0428 © 2012 Published by Elsevier Ltd. Selection and/or peer-review under responsibility of Centre of Engineering Education, Universiti
Teknologi Malaysia Open access under CC BY-NC-ND license. doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.09.671
 Johari Surif et al. / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 56 (2012) 416 – 425 417

Excellence in Chemistry should begin in school if the country wants to produce quality human resources in
science and technology. Chemistry is a discipline in science which studies macroscopic and microscopic matter,
interaction between materials and production and use of materials (Gilbert and Treagust, 2009). Chemistry as a
subject in schools aims to produce students who have the knowledge and skills in Chemistry. In addition, the
subject can prepare them to enter the field of chemistry and technology at a higher level. Through Chemistry
education, students are guided to develop their intellectual ability to think critically, be creative and innovative.
Furthermore, it is hoped that the students will possess the culture of science and technology and able to create a
caring, dynamic and progressive society. They will be responsible for environment and have admiration for the
creator. Concurrently, application of knowledge and skills which are based on scientific attitudes and values will
enable students to make decisions and solve problems in life more effectively. As a result, they will be able to
explore the treasures of nature, adapt to the environment, make innovative creations, and even manage to
overcome problems and difficulties. Hence, these visions become one of the goals emphasized in the national
curriculum, especially in science education.

2. Problem Solving in Education

Jonassen (2003) defines problem solving as an individual thought process because the previously learned law
can be applied in solving problems in any situations. It is also deemed to be a new type of learning and is the
result of application of knowledge and procedures of the problems (Mc Gregor, 2007). Generally, each individual
requires knowledge and skills to solve problems (Taconis et al., 2000). Halakova and Proksa (2007) stated that
the solution of problems in any subject area is a highly complex human behaviour. This matter is documented in
a large number of studies and articles which have appeared in journals of research and teaching. It has reflected a
new interest regarding how students solve problems. Problem solving has always been a stumbling block for
students who are studying chemistry, and most of the teachers in the field of chemistry are aware of this.

According to Jawhara (1995), problem solving activities can open opportunities for students to learn freely. In
their own ways, students will be encouraged to investigate, seek for the truth, develop ideas, and explore the
problem. Students are also trained not to be afraid to try various ways to solve problems, as well as having the
courage to make decisions, act on the decisions and be responsible for the products of the action. The experiences
gained through problem solving will help our students to become progressive, creative and ambitious. These
features are necessary in order to face the challenges of becoming a developed country based on science and
technology (Lim et al., 1999).

Problem solving is also deemed to be what is done by an individual when faced with a question or situation
where the solution is not available. In seeking a way out from any obstacle, students should think, make decisions
and use specific strategies. Therefore, to achieve this, the activity of thinking and skills to rationalize a solution
plays an important role. It will require students to generate and induce a systematic and logical thinking. This
ability requires students to follow certain steps and logic because it requires a revision to determine the
reasonableness of a settlement. Thus, any successful attempt will encourage a students’ positive attitude towards
problem-solving activities (Curriculum Development Centre, 2006).

According to Reid and Yang (2002), a problem exists when a person feels the gap between where it is and
where it should be but do not know how to cross the gap. This broad definition also covers social issues and what
might be stereotyped exercises by problem-solving trainers. Students’ problem solving abilities is the desired
result after going through the process of continuous education as emphasized in the National Education
Philosophy and Philosophy of Science Education. Troubleshooting is also the highest hierarchy of learning by
Gagne (1997) and problem solving ability reflects the level of student learning. According to Robinson (2003)
418 Johari Surif et al. / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 56 (2012) 416 – 425

the ability to solve problems is being considered as an integral part of each science course. In addition to
strengthening and clarifying the principles taught in each lesson, systematic approach to problem solving enable
students to learn better.

Furthermore, they will have to explain their thoughts and thus promote intellectual development. This ability
enhances students’ opportunities when they are faced with daily lives problems. Although the benefits of problem
solving as an educational tool has long been known, appreciating the skills, techniques and procedures required
for effective problem solving have not been adequately taught specifically. This teaching method is significant in
order to address and solve problems involving new situations.

3. Conceptual knowledge and procedural knowledge in Chemistry Problem Solving

To solve any chemistry problem, students must have conceptual knowledge and procedural knowledge. The
knowledge help students to solve chemical problems such as what they have learned in connection with certain
chemical, chemical substances that they have used and they can run experiments to understand the chemical
concepts involved. In learning chemistry, the understanding of chemical concepts (conceptual) and problem
solving (procedural) is very important. In order to solve any problem correctly, students need both applications of
conceptual and procedural knowledge (Cracolice et al (2008) (Figure 1). Furthermore, knowledge is the
understanding of conceptual ideas and theoretical chemistry, while procedural knowledge is the understanding of
how to apply the concepts learned in any problem-solving situations (Wolfer, 2000). Studies have been
conducted in relation to this problem and the results show that although many students were able to solve
algorithmic problems, they did not understand the chemistry concepts tested (Chiu, 2001).

Scientist begins with a concept

which is part of her/his knowledge
(the concept may be incomplete)

Another situation
Identifies new situation that that does not fit the
does not fit the concept concept

Isolates new New

Isolates concept
problem problem

Hypothesizes Hypothesizes new Designs an improved

solution solution investigation

REFLECTIVE REFLECTIVE
PROCESSING which PROCESSING which
may lead to reading, may lead to reading,
speculation, discussions, speculation, discussions,
observation, meetings observation, meetings

Designs
investigation to
test the hypothesis

Fig. 1. The relationship between knowledge and procedural knowledge

 Johari Surif et al. / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 56 (2012) 416 – 425 419

Most students are weak in conceptual knowledge. According to Cracolice et al, 2008) most students continue
to rely on algorithm problem solving techniques. Lacking in conceptual understanding resulted in the lack of
conceptual usage in solving problems. This claim is shown in a statement that many students can successfully
solve problems (by using an algorithm) as compared to answering interview questions based on the concepts
involved. It shows that students are only able to memorize and remember the formula and the processes involved
without understanding the concepts. This argument is similar to Bunce et al (1990) who studied students with
intellectual abilities to solve problems but did not use it effectively. Furthermore, the problem was represented in
a manner which was inconsistent with described physical reality. Students who were interviewed after answering
these chemistry questions stated that they did not need to use any conceptual knowledge and understanding in
order to solve mathematical problems in chemistry.

Anamuah (1986) conducted a study on high school students in British Columbia whereby they were directed
to use the techniques of critical thinking in calculating the concentration of the base after conducting a titration
experiment. The data showed that 80% of students used the formula, and 20% of students used the concept of
"proportional reasoning" to solve the same problem. Those who used the formula could not show an
understanding of the relationship with the constants contained in the formula they used. Although students who
used the concept of "proportional reasoning" showed the evidence to examine this relationship, the whole
experiment revealed that when students manipulated materials and examined the behaviour of macroscopic, weak
links could be made between conceptual understanding and problem solving in chemistry.

Chemistry is a subject which contains a lot of formulas, rules, principles and issues to be solved. A scientific
formula is a brief summary of science and it is useful in solving scientific problems. Scientific formulas may
exist in the form of a combination of numbers, letters, and symbols. They are difficult to be learned. Hence,
students need to master the conceptual knowledge of chemistry. Students' abilities to recall and select appropriate
formula to solve chemistry problems is an ultimate challenge in their lives as students (Aziz and Tai, 2000; Lee et
al, 2001).

Selection of correct approaches to problem solving is significant to ensure success. The tasks need to be done
systematically and logically. Students should know how to start, where to start, how to analyze and how to find a
solution (Selvaratnam 1983). Students also performed poorly in procedural knowledge as described by Wilson
(1987), who studied the problem-solving approach in the laboratory, (PSL - problem solving laboratory). It was
found that teachers were unconfident and were doubtful to use this technique and preferred to return to traditional
methods. According to Zuraidi (1999), students performed poorly in the process of planning for strategies and
implementing correct strategies. But they did not encounter any difficulty in understanding the problem.
Similarly, a study by Aina (2006) on form four students in Johor Bahru, Johor showed that most of the
participants’ knowledge of the scientific process was unsatisfactory.

The above discussions indicate that students have various weaknesses in the control of conceptual and
procedural knowledge to solve problems in chemistry. Therefore, a study is required to determine the knowledge
of students in solving problems. Thus, this research aims to identify the level of conceptual knowledge and
procedural knowledge and the relationship between conceptual knowledge and procedural knowledge in solving
problems.

4. Methodology

Four schools were selected at random from a population of secondary schools in Johor Bahru. 200 form four
students in the science stream were chosen as samples. The study was conducted on form four students because
420 Johari Surif et al. / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 56 (2012) 416 – 425

these students have passed Lower Secondary Assessment examination and have achieved the required level of
thinking skills. This study used an instrument in the form of a questionnaire consisting of an open test level
conceptual knowledge and procedural knowledge (UTPKPP). There are two parts in this questionnaire; Part A
covers the questions related to the level of conceptual knowledge of students. Here is a sample of the questions.

The figure above shows the ionization of acids in water. What is the level of acidity
in diagram (A) and (B)?
(A):
___________________________________________________________________
Reason:
_______________________________________________________________
(B):
__________________________________________________________________
Reason:
_______________________________________________________________

On the other hand, Part B includes questions related to students' procedural knowledge. All questions are
based on Chapter four on the topic of seven levels of chemical acids and bases. Here is a sample question from
the set of procedural questions.

9 00.1 mol dm-3 aqueous sodium hydroxide (NaOH)

9 0.1m nitric acid (HNO3)
9 A bottle of fenolftalien

You are given the materials above and will carry out the neutralization experiments.
In your experiment, please state:

• independent variables
• dependent variables
• procedures for conducting this experiment
• observations from this experiment

Students needed to answer the questions in order to explain the phenomenon and to plan the experiment.
Then, students were required to explain their conceptual and procedural knowledge. The results obtained were
 Johari Surif et al. / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 56 (2012) 416 – 425 421

analyzed using descriptive statistics and inference. Consequently, frequencies and percentages were used to
obtain information. Part A and B of UTPKPP consist of 6 questions. Full score for each sub-question is 2. Total
full score is 40 and it is multiplied by the percent. As shown in Table 1, the score determines the level of problem
solving based on procedural and conceptual knowledge. The scoring scheme is based on the guideline provided
by the Ministry of Education.

Table 1. Score level of Problem Solving Based on Conceptual Knowledge and Procedural Knowledge

Score (Percentage) Level

80 - 100 Excellent
60 - 79 Good
40 - 59 Moderate
20 - 39 Poor
0 - 19 Very poor

To measure the correlation between A and B, SPSS 19.0 for Windows was used to combine both data in this
section. In addition, Pearson Correlation Test was used to determine the correlation between conceptual
knowledge and procedural knowledge which enabled students to solve problems. The first step was to determine
the hypothesis, the null hypothesis and alternative hypothesis. The next step was to set the level of significance
and value, determine value and critical areas, and finally did the interpretation. The value of Contingency
Coefficients in Table 2 was used to examine the relationship between problem solving based on conceptual and
procedural knowledge (Earnest, 1994).

Table 2. Correlation values and descriptions

Value Description
0.0-0.2 Very weak, negligible
0.2-0.4 Weak, low
0.4-0.7 Moderate
0.7-0.9 Strong, high
0.9-1.0 Very strong, very high

4. Findings and Discussion

The findings of this study focused on students' conceptual knowledge, procedural knowledge and the
relationship between the two levels of knowledge.

4.1. Students’ level of conceptual knowledge

From the analysis of section A in the set of “Test on level of Conceptual and procedural Knowledge" (UTPKPP),
conceptual knowledge level of students was determined by taking into account the average percentage of students
responded correctly to the questions.
422 Johari Surif et al. / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 56 (2012) 416 – 425

Table 3. Overall Level of Students' Conceptual Knowledge

Levels of concept Concepts Percentage of Students Who Percentage Level of

Responded Correctly (%) (%) achievement
Macroscopic Level Function of pH in the acid and base 54
Microscopic Level Concept of strong acid and weak acid 34
Degree of dissociation of ion 34 34.6 Weak
Neutralization process 36.5
Neutralization reaction 14.5

Part B shows the results for the level of students’ problem solving level based on conceptual knowledge. The
questions in part B also tested the students at microscopic level. For questions on the macroscopic level which
were on the concept of function of pH in acid and base, the level achieved by the students was moderate. Half of
the students were able to answer correctly with the percentage of 54% and 59.5%. On the other hand, when the
students were asked to answer questions at the microscopic level involving concepts such as the concept of strong
and weak acids, the degree of dissociation of ion neutralization process and the neutralization process, less than
half of them were able to provide the correct reasons. The data clearly showed that students were weak in solving
problems at the microscopic level. On the average, only 34.6% of students were able to provide the correct
answers. This finding similar to the results obtained from a study by Tan (2006) which showed students weak
performance in the conceptual knowledge.

Conceptual knowledge is the understanding of concepts in the minds of students. Based on a study which
tested conceptual knowledge, students’ performance was weak. Several factors can cause misunderstanding of
concepts such as the existence of alternative framework. According to Johari et al (2011), the existence of various
alternative frameworks among students is a result of failure to master science concepts at three levels of
knowledge namely knowing of terms, mastery of concepts and problem solving. Therefore, various approaches
should be emphasized to reduce the problems in this alternative framework. According to Gilbert et al. (1982)
and Kozma and Russell (2007), the level of mastery of concept can be represented in visual form which is easy to
understand and explain. Thus, students are able to think on their phenomenon. As a result, students are allowed to
overcome alternative framework in their minds more effectively.

4.2. Students’ level of procedural knowledge

Part B tested students’ science process skills. This section also measured how students conducted activities
(experiments) to solve the problems. From the analysis of questions in section B in UTPKPP, procedural
knowledge level of students was determined by taking into account the average percentage of students responded
correctly to the questions.

Table 4. Overall Level of Students’ Procedural Knowledge

Types of skills Procedural knowledge Percentage of students who Percentage Level of

responded correctly (%) (%) achievement
Basic scientific process Classifying 64
skills Making observation 59.5

Integrated scientific Drawing hypothesis 29 31.1 Weak

process skills Controlling the variables 26.5
Planning an investigation 12.5
Collecting data 24
 Johari Surif et al. / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 56 (2012) 416 – 425 423

The level of students’ problem solving in terms of procedural knowledge was weak because less than half of
the students (31.1%) were able to answer the questions correctly. More than half of the students managed to
answer correctly the basic science process skills involving procedural knowledge of welding and were able to
make their own observations with the percentages of 64% and 59.5%. However, less than 30 percent of students
had successfully integrated science process skills such as building hypotheses (29%), determining independent
variables (26.5%), planning procedures (12.5%) and collecting data (24%). This shows that the students were
weak in their mastery of procedural knowledge.

According to Rose et al. (2004), emphasis on students’ mastery of science process skills are not regarded as
an important element in the process of teaching and learning science. Therefore, the teaching of science does not
include the application of students’ science process skills. Therefore, high school students performed poorly in
studies on mastery of science process skills. Mastery of science process skills or procedural knowledge can be
achieved if students are allowed to experience a series where students can have the opportunity to learn about
themselves more effectively. Thus, findings by Entepinar and Geban (1996), show that a method of inquiry-
oriented laboratory has enhanced students’ understanding of scientific concepts. This is because students
themselves involved in building hypotheses, designing experimental procedures, data collection, recording
observations, making interpretation of data obtained and conclusions.

4.3 Relationship between conceptual and procedural knowledge

To describe the relationship between conceptual and procedural knowledge, the data were analyzed by
examining Pearson correlation value (r) as shown in Table 5.

Table 5. Correlation Coefficients between Levels of Conceptual and Procedural Knowledge

Level of conceptual knowledge Level of procedural knowledge Significant

Conceptual 0.687**
0.000
Prosedural 0.687**

** Significant at the 0.05 significance level (two tailed)

The analysis using SPSS 19.0 for windows indicated that there was a moderate relationship (r coefficient
value was 0687) between the levels of conceptual and procedural knowledge. In addition, the significant p value
of 0000 is smaller than the value at the significance level of 0.05. Therefore, the smaller value of p rejected the
Null hypothesis suggested by researchers. This means that there is a significant relationship between conceptual
knowledge and procedural knowledge in solving problems. In solving Chemistry problems, the two types of
knowledge are entirely related, although the relationship between the two is at moderate level. Thus, students
should master both of them in order to enhance understanding and skills in chemistry. According to Lay (2010)
science process skills are closely related to the process used in reading and problem-solving situations in any
inquiry. Students will indirectly have a clear understanding of the concept because they have the opportunity to
apply the theory learned in class.

5. Implications for teaching and learning process

In general, students’ problem solving based on conceptual and procedural knowledge was weak because most
of the students had alternative framework and had poor control of the microscopic level in the integrated science
process skills tested. Therefore, multiple efforts are required to increase the effectiveness of science teaching and
learning process in order to overcome students’ problems. The teaching of Science based on the concept of
424 Johari Surif et al. / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 56 (2012) 416 – 425

change which is generated from the Inquiry approach can overcome the alternative framework as well as increase
students’ scientific skills. This proposition can be shown in Table 6.

Table 6. Proposed science teaching and learning strategies to enhance students' knowledge of conceptual and
procedural

Phase Science Teaching and Learning Activities

Preliminary phase Students are presented with cognitive conflict events to uncover the existence of an
alternative framework to the concepts presented. It aims to explore the conceptual
knowledge of students.

Focus phase Alternative framework is examined through student’s discussion either in groups or
individually.

Challenge Phase Students’ alternative framework is challenged through inquiry activities until the
students become aware of the alternative framework and thus they form another
alternative framework to correct scientific concepts. Through these activities students
are exposed to the process of investigation to develop their procedural knowledge.

Application Phase Scientific concepts that have been built are applied in other phenomena by asking
students to perform a variety of other related experiments. It will ultimately help
increase the conceptual and procedural knowledge of students.

Through the teaching strategies shown in Table 2, it is expected that teachers will have the capacity to deal
with students’ problems, especially in developing conceptual and procedural knowledge effectively. These
findings thus open a new chapter in scientific research to improve the effectiveness of teaching and learning of
Science. Thus, this effort can lead towards strengthening science education and civilization of community.

Acknowledgements

Acknowledgement to the Ministry of Higher Education and Universiti Teknologi Malaysia through Vot.
Research Q.J130000.7131.04J00.

References

Abd Razak. Samad. (2007). Physics problem solving activities among prospective graduate teachers. PhD thesis, Faculty of Education
National University of Malaysia. Bangi.
Aina Fariza Md. Zin (2006). The mastery level of manipulative skills in form four students in the Johor Bahru. Bachelor Thesis. Universiti
Technologi Malaysia.
Anamuah-Mensah, J. (1986). Cognitive strategies used by chemistry students to solve volumetric analysis problems. Journal of Research in
Science Teaching.23 (9) .759-769.
Ashmore, A, D, Frazer, M.J & Casey, R.J (1979). Problem solving and problem solving networks in chemistry. Journal of Chemistry
Education. 56 (6). 377-379.
Aziz Nordin & Moi, S (2000). Student style of remembering formula in science problem solving. Bulletin of Association of Science and
Mathematics Education. 10 (1). 62 to 68.
Bunce, D.M., Gabel, D.L. & Samuel, K.B. (1991). Enhancing chemistry problem-solving using problem categorization achievement. Journal
of Research in Science Teaching. 28, 505-521.
Chiu M. (2005). A national survey of students conceptions in chemistry in Taiwan. Chemical Education, 6 (1).
Curriculum Development Centre (2006). Form 4 chemistry syllabus. Kuala Lumpur: Dewan Bahasa dan Pustaka.
Cracolice, M.S., Deming, J.C. & Ehlert, B. (2008). Concept learning versus problem solving: a cognitive difference. Journal of Chemical
Education. 85 (6), 873-878.
 Johari Surif et al. / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 56 (2012) 416 – 425 425

Entepinar, H. & Geban, O. (1996). Effect of instruction supplied with the investigative laboratory oriented approach and achievement in
science corse. Educational Science Research. 38 (3). 333-340
Freyberg, P. & Osborne, R.J. (1981). The curriculum structure who: teacher or learner?. set research information for teachers 2. Item 6
Gabel, D. L & Bunce, D. M (1994). Research on problem solving: Chemistry. In D. L Gabel (Ed.), Handbook of Research on Science
Teaching and Learning. A project of the National Science Teachers Association. New York: Macmillan.
Gilbert, J. K., Osborne, R. J., & Fensham, P. J. (1982). Children's science and its consequences for teaching. Science Education. 7. 165-171.
Gilbert, J.K. & Treagust, D. (2009). Multiple representations in chemical education. London: Springer.
Halakova, Z. & Proksa, M. (2007). Two kinds of conceptual problems in chemistry teaching. Journal of Chemical Education, 84 (1), 172-174
Hill, G. (1983). Misconception misconceived? Using conceptual change to understand some of the problems pupils have in learning in
science. Proceedings of the International Seminar on Misconceptions in Science and Mathematics. Cornell University. New York.
Jawhara Tak (1995). Problem solving and creative thinking in education. New York: Oxford University Press language.
Higher Education Planning Committee (1996)
Johari Surif, Mohammad Yusof Arshad & Nor Hasniza Ibrahim. (2011). Comparative investigation of Malaysian students in the United
Kingdom. Journal of Education Universiti Teknologi Malaysia. 15, 18-44
Johari Surif, Nor Hasniza Ibrahim & Mohammad Yusof Arshad (2007). The study of conceptual development among students based on
Model Generative-Metacognitive. Master Thesis. Universiti Teknologi Malaysia.
Jonassen. D. (2003). Learning to solve problems: an instructional design guide. San Francisco: Willey and Sons, Inc..
Kozma, R, & Russell, J. (2007). Students Becoming Chemists: Developing representational competence. In Gilbert, J.K. (Ed.). Visualization
in Science Education. Dordrecht: Springer.
Yoon Lay Fah (2010). Science process skills, logical reasoning ability, attitude toward science and locus of control: Relationship to learning
science. Kota Kinabalu: Publisher UMS.
Lee, K-W.L., Tang, W-U., Goh, N-K. & Chia, L-S. (2001). The predicting role of cognitive variables in problem solving in mole concept.
Chemistry Education: Research and Practice in Europe. 2 (3), 285-301
Lim, K. H., Foo, L. K., Nagarajah Lee, Mohd. Jamil M. Noor, & Murshidi Nooriza Kassim (1999). The ability of new teachers in non-routine
the problem solve math. Collections of Research Science Teachers College in Bintulu. 57 to 87.
McGregor, D. (2007). Developing thinking, developing learning. A guide to thinking skills in education. Berkshire, England: Open University
Press
Reid, N. & Yang, M-J. (2002) The solving of problems in chemistry: the more open-ended problems. Research in Science and Technological
Education. 20 (1), 83-96
Robinson, W.R. (2003). Chemistry problem solving: Symbol, macro, micro, and process aspects. Journal of Chemical Education. 80 (9), 978-
979
Rose Amnah, Abdul Rauf Rashid Abd Johar, Lilia Halim & Siti Rahayah. (2004). Fostering science process skills among secondary students
in smart schools. Journal of Technology: Universiti Teknologi Malaysia
Schoenfeld, A. (1985). Mathematical problem solving. New York: Academic Press
Selvaratnam, Mailoo (1983). Student's mistakes in problem solving. Sri Lanka: University of Peradeniya.
Taconis, R., Ferguson-Hessler & Broekkamp, H. (2000). Science teaching problem solving: an overview of experimental work. Journal of
Research in Science Teaching. 38 (4). 442-468.
Tan, C. T. (2006). Understanding and applying the acid-base concept of daily life among form four science students at Johor Bahru. Master's
thesis. Universiti Teknologi Malaysia.
Wolfer, A. J. (2000). Introductory college chemistry students ". Understanding of stoichemistry: connections between conceptual and
computational understanding and instruction. Ph.D. Thesis. Oregon State University..
Zuraidi Abd Karim (1999). The ability level of students on mathematics problem solving and its relation with attitude. Bachelor Thesis.
Universiti Teknologi Malaysia.