Studies in Science Education

ISSN: 0305-7267 (Print) 1940-8412 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rsse20

Stoichiometric Calculations: Known Problems and

Proposed Solutions at a Chemsitry-Mathematics
Interface

Werner Dierks

To cite this article: Werner Dierks (1981) Stoichiometric Calculations: Known Problems and
Proposed Solutions at a Chemsitry-Mathematics Interface, Studies in Science Education, 8:1,
93-105, DOI: 10.1080/03057268108559888

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03057268108559888

Published online: 26 Mar 2008.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 12

View related articles

Citing articles: 3 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rsse20

Download by: [University of Cambridge] Date: 04 June 2016, At: 18:35

 Studies in Science Education, 8 (1981), 93-105 93

Research Notes

STOICHIOMETRIC CALCULATIONS: KNOWN PROBLEMS AND

PROPOSED SOLUTIONS AT A CHEMISTRY-MATHEMATICS INTERFACE
Downloaded by [University of Cambridge] at 18:35 04 June 2016

WERNER DIERKS
Institute for Science Education (IPN) at the University of Kiel, F.R. Germany

1. Preliminary remarks
Journals which deal with the problems of teaching chemistry at the secondary
school level have contained articles about stoichiometric computation to a much
greater extent in the past twenty years than previously. The reasons for this
increase will not be discussed here. Instead, attention will be directed to the learn­
ing problems which have been identified, though the problematic nature of 'amount
of substance' and 'mol' will be mentioned only in passing, this issue having been
dealt with elsewhere (Dierks, 1981a).
In what follows, the articles cited, from both German and English sources, are
treated as representative of some 50 others which have been examined.

2. Familiar problems
In several research reports the following difficulties which pupils experience with
stoichiometric calculations have been identified.
Rossa(1962,p.24):
1 '. . . setting up formulae or equations . . .'
2 '. . . using the concept of valence . . .'
3 '. . . the meaning of subscripts . . .'
4 '. . . setting up a proportion . . .'
Heist, Kühnl (1963, p. 399):
5 '. . . the cause is not mainly due to mathematical inability (proportion and
percentage calculations) but, above all, to the insufficiently developed ability to
connect chemical and mathematical information meaningfully and to use stoichio­
metric fundamental concepts correctly'.
Hankinson, Hudson, Sangar (1977, p. 368):
6 '. . . not paying sufficient attention to units'.
7 '. . . not setting up a clear strategy for solving problems'.
 94 Werner Dierks

8 (1) '. . . difficulties with ionic equations and molarities'.

Similar points are made by Johnstone, Morrison and Sharp (1971) and Duncan
and Johnstone (1973), whilst further indications of difficulties can be found in
accounts offering suggestions for the improvement of teaching about stoichiometric
calculations and the algorithm of solutions steps e.g. Reiche (1964, pp. 91-2):
9 '. . . the awareness of similarities and differences between chemical and
mathematical formulae is not clear enough'.
10 The student finds, while experimenting, that, on the one hand, pure sub­
stances are not always being used and that, on the other hand, theoretical results
Downloaded by [University of Cambridge] at 18:35 04 June 2016

are rarely achieved because the reactions are not brought to completion . . . The
same basic problems which occur when experimenting also arise in the actual
practice of production'.
Osterwald (1975, p. 453):
11 '. . . finding equation-like relationships between given and sought quantities'.
Wegner(1978,p.240):
12 (3) 'The students do not master chemical sign language sufficiently'.
13 'Laws on which chemical calculations are based are not used consciously and
thus are not recognized'.
14 'Work with the introduced quantities "amount of substance" and "molar
mass" is not done with understanding, but only very formally'.
Gower, Daniels and Lloyd (1977, p. 663) also provide a list of problems whose
solution caused difficulties to students.

3. Suggested solutions to sub-problems

The discussion of proposed solutions which follows will be conducted, on the
one hand, with a view to time-tested and consistent scientific communication prac­
tices, and, on the other hand, with a view to the findings of psychological evalua­
tions of instruction such as can be found e.g. in Shayer (1970).

3.1 Suggestions for the formulation of the mathematical term.

Reiche (1964, p. 91) points out 'that one expects students — without a satisfy­
ing explanation — to use mathematical laws in a manner which contradicts their
previous experiences in mathematical instruction'. The difficulties 4, 6 and 11 men­
tioned in section 2 above are part of this problem.

3.1.1 The mathematical prerequisites

Arndt (1973, p. 263), in the interests of the students, justifiably requires 'con­
scious adaptation to the mode of representation with which the students are familiar
from their previous mathematics and physics instruction' (see also Wegner, 1978,
p. 248). Nevertheless, the subsequent example shows, despite the good intentions,
the instructional dilemma. Arndt proceeds from the requirement that 'The students
must be made aware that the variables x, m1 and m2 stand for quantities, i.e. for
 Stoichiometric Calculations 95

numerical values and units' (1973, p. 263). But a function chart of mass values con­
tains numbers; the associated function equation is provided for masses; it is said of
the definition and value sphere '. . . that every mass m\ must belong as an element
to the set of rational numbers R (Arndt, 1973, p. 265). Leitz (1979, p. 464) says
more accurately that the numerical values (m 1 ) of the masses belong to the set of
non-negative rational numbers. An adaptation with respect to mathematics instruc­
tion seems to be possible only when words from the mathematical vocabulary are
used in such a way that they refer to numbers. Other consequences will be men­
tioned in section 5. According to this, is calculation with quantities non-mathe-
matical and not to be recommended?
Downloaded by [University of Cambridge] at 18:35 04 June 2016

3.12 Using quantities when calculating

The need to use quantity calculus in the natural sciences and science education is
asserted with increasing frequency and is substantiated by references to success in
instruction (Guggenheim 1958; Copley 1960; Dürselen 1967; Plewinski, Engel
1976; Merkel 1977;Balkwill 1978;Wegner 1978;Weninger 1979a). Mathematicians
have long since proved that quantity calculus in mathematically uncontestable
(Quade 1961; Whitney 1968;Griesel 1969, 1978). Operating with quantities (first
used by Lodge, 1888) is briefly described by I.U.P.A.C. (1979, section 5).

What are quantities?

'A physical quantity (is) used to "express" a physical property . . .' (Forbes,
1978, p.269; see also Dürselen, 1967, p. 532; Weninger, 1979a, p. 23, 24). A
property of things is, for example, occupying a certain amount of space. The quan­
tity used to express this physical property is called volume. The volume value can
be determined by measuring.
Weninger (1980b) has the following to say about the principle of measuring. One
can, for example, measure neither the mass of the prototype kilogram nor the mass
of a thing A separately. The basic unit of mass is determined by convention and
called '1 kilogram'. The relationship of the mass of the thing A to the mass of the
prototype kilogram can be determined, for example:

This determination of a relationship is called measuring (see also Brown, 1933,

p. 308; McGlashan, 1971, p. 1). The relationship value can be characterized briefly
by(m (A))
Generally, another term is used:
m (A) = 5.m (prototype kilogram)
or m (A) = 5 kg
 96 Werner Dierks

Within this framework, it becomes clear that chemists work on the basis of measure­
ment-theoretical considerations when they speak of relative atomic mass but that
in so doing they are far removed from daily language usage and that defence of the
use of the measuring unit and work with 'absolute' atomic
masses have no rational basis.

How is the functional connection between quantities (see also Weninger 1964/65)
derived and described in a mathematically unobjectionable way?
It remains to be asked whether such a strict adherence to mathematical modes of
speaking and formalisms really facilitates an introduction to quantity calculus as
Downloaded by [University of Cambridge] at 18:35 04 June 2016

Arndt (1973) and Leitz (1979) suggest. An example may illustrate from another
angle the problem of arriving at a proportional approach.
The following question arose when teaching a group of thirty-two pupils, aged
fifteen, at the Gymnasium. Is there a law connecting the measured values of mass
and of volume of pieces of copper, whereby the value of piece 5 can be predicted?

piece of copper 1 2 3 4 5

volume of piece 0.5 cm 3 2.0 cm3 3.0 cm3 4.7 cm3 1.8 cm3

mass of piece 4.45 g 17.8 g 26.7 g 41.8 g

The most frequent answers provided by the pupils were those which were linked
to the idea of 'the more — the more' and not those which resulted from a functional
link between volume and mass, i.e. a mathematical consideration of the problem. A
proportional approach was not formulated at all. Interim levels of thought develop­
ment and formalization were: the volume of piece 2 is equal to four times the
volume of piece 1. The mass of piece 2 is also equal to four times the mass of piece
1.

V (piece 2) = 4 . V (piece 1) m (piece 2) = 4 .m (piece 1)

If this is always true, the masss of piece 5 can be computed by multiplying the
mass of piece 1 by a factor. This is the factor which is to be used also to compute
the volume of piece 5 from the volume of piece 1.
m (piece 5)= k. m (piece 1) V (piece 5)= k. V (piece 1)
The suggestion of the teacher not to compute k right away but to substitute — as is
customary in mathematics instruction - the derived quotient fork,led to comments
from the pupils that one need only transform the acquired equation slightly in
order to obtain the sought function for m and V (written for the pair of values m
(piece 5), V (piece 5)). Jöricke (1976, p. 428) in a similarly careful manner falls
back on the function concept.
 Stoichiometric Calculations 97

Three things are shown by this example.

(1) If, in place of expressions which contain the sign 'corresponds to', one has
formulated equations, formal skills from mathematics instruction are mobilized
Downloaded by [University of Cambridge] at 18:35 04 June 2016

immediately.
(2) If it is easier, beginners mastering the procedure with fewer mistakes, to first
formulate equations in which products directly describe that which has been recog­
nized rather than to formulate a proportion right away.
(3) The procedure of substitution intuitively preferred here when solving
equations with several unknowns has particular significance for quantity calculus:
one term is replaced by another with identical meaning.
If one wants to comply with other suggestions from the pupils and try to set up
a function immediately in a mathematically acceptable form it is helpful to fall
back on what was said on measurement. The formal expressions then look like this:

(See also Leitz, 1979, p. 463).

3.1.3 The language of calculus

If pupils themselves measure, for example, the volume and mass values of the
copper pieces they usually give the results in the following words: '26.7 g copper',
'Piece 3 weighs 26.7 g' and in German language 'Das Kupfer ist 26.7 g schwer'. If
these statements are to be formalized usually only 26.7 g is taken down.
Why is it that the customary means of expression hinders the formulation of an
equation such as is required for quantity calculus?
The word 'heavy' (indirectly also the word 'weighs') indicates that the thing
regarded has a property. The property 'being heavy' is called mass by the physicist.
The transition from one kind of word (adjective) to another (substantive) indicates
the transition of the thing under observation: from things to properties of things
(see also Weninger 1977, p. 43). Properties or quantities are the object of the quan­
tity calculus, not the things themselves. When one says '26.7 g copper', however,
one means the particular piece of copper. Such a statement does not belong in a
term of quantity calculus (Weninger 1977, p. 23;Merkel 1978, p. 190).
 98 Werner Dierks

If one tries to formulate a statement in which the property or the quantity and
not a thing itself is the subject of the statement, i.e. in which in this case 'mass' is
the subject of the sentence, one gets 'The mass of the piece of copper 3 is 26.7g',
and the formalization follows freely:
m (piece of copper 3) = 26.7 g
This term contains the unabbreviated information about the property or quantity
in question, about that which the quantity has and about the quantity value, and
makes continued formal work in calculus possible. For details see: Dierks, Weninger
Downloaded by [University of Cambridge] at 18:35 04 June 2016

(1981).
It must be assumed that many pupils' errors in stoichiometric calculus as known
today can be traced back to their own inability to transpose statements into the
language of calculus and that tasks which are formulated in a way that does not
take this into account, contribute from the beginning to errors. Further studies will
be necessary to determine what influence the compatibility of manner of speech
and of symbolization has on the assignment of the mole concept to stage III B.

3.2 Suggestions for formulating the chemical term

This section will deal with the problems 1,3,9 and 12 mentioned in section 2.
The cause of some of these difficulties can be the ambiguity of the symbols used in
chemical terms. Weninger (1971) examines this otherwise seldom mentioned
problem. Weninger, Pierow (1973) provide a report about classroom experiments
which take up these suggestions.
Berzelius says the following about the sense in which he used chemical symbols:
'I must emphasize here that the purpose of the new signs is not to label laboratory
vessels. Instead, they are meant to simplify expression of chemical proportions . . .
we will be able to express with the aid of these signs the numerical result of an
analysis as simply and easily as in mechanics by means of algebraic formulas'
(quoted after Löffler 1979, p. 33, footnote 7). One consequence of Berzelius'
comment can be ascertained on the basis of a comment by Shayer (1970): 'For
example, one has only grasped the concept FeC13 as a chemist when one has not
only pushed around four atomic symbols on a page, but also grasped that it is what
relates the fact that 5.6 g of iron combine with 10.6 g chlorine to the fact that
280 g of iron needs 530 g of chlorine to form that compound' (p. 183).
Independent of this interpretation of chemical symbols, the view that by atomic
symbols atoms of a certain type are meant and that the formulae provide infor­
mation about the number of these atoms and - where necessary - about their
configuration in groups of atoms (Paoloni, 1979, p. 368) developed ever since the
comments of Ampere.
Weninger (1971) suggests facing a basic evil of communication by using atomic
symbols unequivocally, namely, only as meaning 'atom of a certain kind'. Resort to
using chemical symbols exclusively in the discontinuum orientation can be found
 Stoichiometric Calculations 99

not only in the work of Weninger, though he is particularly consistent in his publi­
cations of 1977, 1979a, b and 1980b as concerns their use. Heby (1971) describes
the approach to the change in orientation: The law of the conservation of mass
relates . . . to the macrosphere . . . In our course an extension of the statement of
the law to include the atomic sphere is aimed at: the number of atoms in the initial
substances is equal to the number of the same atoms in the reaction products'
(p. 370).
The customary and initial use of chemical symbols to characterize substances
seems to hamper the process of comprehension on the part of the learner. The
Downloaded by [University of Cambridge] at 18:35 04 June 2016

proven difficulties in the previously mentioned classroom studies can at least in part
be interpreted under this aspect. This is discussed by Weninger (1977, 1979a) as
well as related problems of chemical symbols.

3.3 The linkage of statements of chemical and mathematical terms

In this section discussion will centre on suggestions which are meant to resolve
difficulties 4, 5, 7, 10, 13 and 14. When Heist, Kühnl (1963, p. 399) points out
'. . . the insufficiently developed skill to connect chemical and mathematical facts
with one another meaningfully . . .' it must be kept in mind that this is a complex
of skills, as shown in section 3.1. Moreover, where in physics instruction dealings
with continuum quantities and their values are practised, chemistry instruction also
requires dealing with statements about the discontinuum (section 3.2.) due to the
peculiarity of the chemical term.

3.3.1 The discontinuum quantities 'number' and 'amount of substance'

'There are three natural methods of measuring out or specifying a quantity of
material: mass, volume, and number' (Cohen 1961, p. 555). 'If one considers the
particle number N as a quantity which need not be traced back to another quantity,
one can define the amount of substance via the number (of particles):
n (X) .N(X)' (Merkel, 1978, p. 189; see also IUPAC 1979, p.5). IUPAC
(1979) refers to both quantities: '(2.3.05) number of molecules or other entities
N' and ' (2.3.06) amount of substance n' (p. 10) and allows their use in quantity
calculus with no restrictions. To some extent chemical terms consist of number
statements. Statements about numbers are familiar to the learners. Their application
should cause no difficulties. Now that many difficulties have been clearly identified
when the quantity 'amount of substance' and the molar quantities are to be intro­
duced and used (Dierks, 1981a) it is time to examine more closely whether these
difficulties can be eliminated in instruction when work is done with the quantity
'number'. (Weninger, 1979a; Dierks, 1980; 1981b; Dierks, Weninger, 1981).

3.3.2 Approaches to the solution of stoichiometric problems

'The mathematical core of the chemical equation is the comparison of mass'
 100 Werner Dierks

(Reiche, 1964, p. 91). This statement follows the one by Berzelius and tends more
to the continuum viewpoint than to the discontinuum viewpoint.
'A more encompassing interpretation sees a scheme in the reaction equation - a
scheme which includes the turn-over of particle numbers in the form of a balance'
(Löffler 1979, p. 24; see also Heby 1971, p. 369, 370). If one complies with this
viewpoint, uses atomic symbols as suggested by Weninger only as meaning 'atoms of
one kind' and uses the statement about numbers, the result is the following approach
to solving a problem, the difficulties of which are pointed out by Duncan and
Johnstone (1973).
'Given that 2 SO2 + O2 → 2 SO3. What mass of SO2 would react with 32 g of
Downloaded by [University of Cambridge] at 18:35 04 June 2016

O 2 ?'(p.213).
In order for 32 g of O2 to react, more than one molecule of O2 must react. The
given elementary reaction must, then, take place more than once. Let's say b-times.
2 SO2 + 1 O2 → 2 SO3 N (reaction) = b
or
2 b SO2 + b O2 → 2 b SO3
The mass information formulated in the problem about properties (mass values) of
actually existing portions of substance can be formalized with the aid of symbols
from the standpoint of discontinuum.
The mass of b O2 is 32 g. The mass of 2 b SO2 is sought.
m (b O2) = 32 g. m (2b SO2) = ?
Use is made of the statement which provides the basic equation of molecular
mechanics (Weninger 1980b, section 8.3.) and which can be grasped by learners as a
result of daily experience.
m (a elementary entities) = a.m (1 elementary entity)
b.m (1 O 2 ) = 32 g 2 b.m (1 SO2) = ?
Just as, generally, the mass of one mol of elementary entities or the molar mass can
be provided to be able to find the answer to the question asked, in this case the
masses of the molecules can be provided.
m (1 O2) = 32 u m (1 SO2) = 64 u
To compute b, the substitution procedure is used.
b.32 u = 32 g
The terms of this equation mean the number of reactions or the
number of O2 molecules.
The connection between atomic and macroscopic unit of mass has been
established during the introduction of atomic masses.
b =L
 Stoichiometric Calculations 101

Now the solution can be computed, namely, what mass 2 b SO2 molecules have.
2 b.m (1 SO2) = 2.L.64 u = = 128 g

The written effort seems to be enormous for mastering such an easy task. How­
ever, the data provided by Duncan and Johnstone (1973, p. 213) for evaluation of
the test show that the task seems easy only to those who have had practice.
The suggested path to the solution, which is also demonstrated elsewhere
(Weninger, 1979a; Dierks, 1980; 1981b; Dierks, Weninger, 1981) for other types of
stoichiometric problems offers a series of advantages as compared to traditional
Downloaded by [University of Cambridge] at 18:35 04 June 2016

approaches:
— it makes consistent use of the discontinuum model;
— it builds on only one interpretation of chemical symbols;
— it uses the familiar quantity 'number';
— it proceeds directly and understandably from the chemical term;
— it describes the actually existing portion of substance to which the data in the
problem refer;
— it acquires the necessary information for interpreting the calculation terms by
use of subscripts;
— it does without proportion equations;
— it rejects the use of molar quantities.
The information contained in subscripts makes dealing with calculation terms
easier when only little practice can be achieved. Those with practice can also — as is
customary in mathematics instruction — combine terms and thus arrive at the cus­
tomary approaches to calculation.
Perhaps it is now apparent how many cognitive steps are necessary to get from
the statement of the chemical term to the formulation of the mathematical term,
especially proportions, provided that in the course of instruction something is to be
understood, not just learned by rote.
Plewinski, Engel (1976) describe an almost equally consistent approach. They
place the quantity 'extent of reaction' at the core of observation as, for instance,
did Garst (1974). They, Merkel (1978) and Balkwill (1978) also use quantity
calculus and the quantity 'amount of substance' when solving problems. When
access to stoichiometric calculation is provided with the aid of the quantity
'number', it is always possible after sufficient consolidation of abilities to make a
transition to the quantity 'amount of substance' as described in 3.3.1.

4. Consequences for the curriculum

If one assumes that the idea that substances are discontinuous does not neces­
sarily result from the stoichiometric fundamental laws (Morrison 1976, p. 723;
Allsop 1977, p. 286; Löffler 1979, p. 28), one can also avoid the misconceptions
described by Novick, Menis (1976, p. 721) which subsequently have other effects
during stoichiometric calculation. The question 'How many atoms are in certain
 102 Werner Dierks

portions of these substances?' can provide access to stoichiometric calculations (as,

for instance, in the Schools Council Integrated Science Project; see Allsop 1977,
p. 286).
This road is taken in the IPN course 'Matter and its Conversion' (1979) (Weninger,
Dierks 1974; Pfundt 1976; Dierks 1981c) and keeps in mind that it seems to be
easier for pupils first to grasp the meaning of molecular symbols and afterwards
that of symbols of the type FeC13.
Downloaded by [University of Cambridge] at 18:35 04 June 2016

5. Remarks of a mathematics teacher

The effects of the diverging condition in science instruction have been discussed
in section 3.1.2. Some other conditions remain to be mentioned.
— Numerical values of continuum quantities are not exact numbers in the mathe­
matical sense, but can only be used within the framework of accuracy of
measurement. Some simple rules how to use them are given, for example, by
Carman (1969, 1971) and are of special importance when calculators are used.
— Graphs of functions describe the assignment of numbers. A scientific meaning
must be provided when interpreting the function if the interpretation goes
beyond a mathematical statement (see the last example in section 3.1.2.).
— When drawing graphs it should be considered that the numbers cannot be pro­
vided accurately. The working group 'Mathematics in the Chemistry Classroom'
of the international conference in Bielefeld 1978 has discussed this problem and
has proposed solutions (Dierks 1979).
— If graphs are drawn, they must be seen to compare closely with the numbers
used, so that the symbols and correlation statements really reflect what is meant.
As a counterexample, seefigure9 in Henson, Stumbles (1979).
— When quantities are coupled in diagrams for structuring a solution strategy
(Head 1968; Merkel 1978, p. 242; Balkwill 1978, p. 238) these diagrams prove
more useful when they contain the connecting statements as quantity equations
(Balkwill, 1978).
— The writing of operator chains (Floer 1979; Davis, Moore 1980; see also Head
1968) most usually can only be applied to working with quantities when the
underlying equations are already known.

6. Closing remark
Only those suggestions for solutions which deal with the essence of the problem
were included in the compilation of suggested solutions for familiar problems with
stoichiometric calculation. Suggestions for the creation of a better learning moti­
vation by changing the learning situation are not underestimated with respect to
their importance, but they can only cure symptoms as long as no insights can be
offered.
 Stoichiometric Calculations 103

REFERENCES
ALLSOP, R. T. (1977). The place and importance of the mole in school chemistry courses.
Physics Education 12,285-288.
ARNDT, B. (1973). Zur quantitativen Betrachtung von Stoffen und chemischen Reaktionen.
Chemie in der Schule 20, 258-265 (in German).
BALKWILL, F. J. (1978). Quantity Calculus. School Science Review, 60, 39-45 and 231-239.
BROWN, F. E. (1933). Molecular and Atomic Weights. Journal of Chemical Education 10,
308, 309.
CARMAN, R. A. (1969). Number and Units for Physics. Wiley: New York, London, Sydney,
Toronto.
CARMAN, R. A. (1972). Zahlen und Einheiten der Physik. de Gruyter: Berlin, New York
(in German).
Downloaded by [University of Cambridge] at 18:35 04 June 2016

COHEN, I. (1961). Moles and Equivalents: Quantities of Matter. Journal of Chemical Educa-
tion 38, 555, 556.
COPLEY, G. N. (1960). Quantity calculus. School Science Review, 41, 331-333.
DAVIES, W. G., MOORE, J. W. (1980). Adapting SI Units in Introductory Chemistry. Journal
of Chemical Education 56, 303-306.
DIERKS, W. (1979). Report of group D: 'Mathematics in the chemistry classroom'. In:
STEINER, H. G., Cooperation between science teachers and mathematics teachers.
Materialien und Studien Band 16. Institut für Didaktik der Mathematik der Univer­
sity Bielefeld: Bielefeld.
DIERKS, W. (1980). The Mole: The Seventh Veil of SI. (Engl. publ. by ICSU/CTS).
DIERKS, W. (1981a). Teaching the mole. 20 years of discussion - and the future? European
Journal of Science Education 3 (in press).
DIERKS, W. (1981b). Das Verwenden der Anzahl beim stöchiometrischen Rechen mit Grössen-
wertgleichungen und bei der Symbolisierung quantitativer Reaktionen. Der mathe-
matische und naturwissenschaftliche Unterricht, 34 (in press), (in German).
DIERKS, W. (1981c). The IPN Course 'Matter and its Conversion'. Journal of Chemical Educa-
tion, (in press).
DIERKS, W., WENINGER, J. (1981). Mathematics in the Chemistry Classroom (unpublished
paper).
DÜRSELEN, W. (1967). Kann man mit dem Mol rechnen oder nicht? Chemie in der Schule,
14, 532-540 (in German).
DUNCAN, I. M. and JOHNSTONE, A. H. (1973). The mole concept Education in Chemistry,
10,213,214.
FLOER, J. (1979). Beispiele für die Analyse von Sachsituationen mit Hilfe von Bruchoperatoren.
Der mathematische und naturwissenschaftliche Unterricht 32, 6-14, (in German).
FORBES, R. G. (1978). Amount of Substance: An Alternative Proposal. Physics Education 13,
269-272.
GARST, J. F. (1974). The Extent of Reaction as a Unifying Basis for Stoichiometry in Elemen­
tary Chemistry. Journal of Chemical Education 51, 194-196.
GOWER, D. M., DANIELS, D. J. and LLOYD, G. (1977). The mole concept. School Science
Review 58, 658-676.
GRIESEL, H. (1969). Algebra und Analysis der Grossensysteme. Mathematisch-Physikalische
Semesterberichte 16, 56-93 and 189-224 (in German).
GRIESEL, H. (1978). Vektorsystem über einem Grössensystem. Mathematisch Physikalische
Semesterberichte, 25, 211-235 (in German).
GUGGENHEIM, E. A. (1958). Notations in Physics and Chemistry. Journal of Chemical Educa-
tion 35, 606, 607.
HANKINSON, G. M., HUDSON, M. J. and SANGAR, S. C. (1977). What difficulties do A-level
pupils have solving problems which involve the mole concept? School Science Review 59,
367, 368.
HEAD, J. O. (1968). Teaching the mole concept in schools. School Science Revue 49, 496-498.
HEBY, R. (1971). Zur Einführung in die chemische Zeichensprache in Klasse 7. Chemie in der
Schule 18, 366-375 and 402-419 (in German).
 104 Werner Dierks

HEIST, G. and KÜHNL, R. (1963). Eine Leistungsanalyse zum stöchiometrischen Rechnen in

der achten Klasse. Chemie in der Schule 10, 393-400 (in German).
HENSON, R. and STUMBLES, A. (1979). Modern mathematics and the mole. Education in
Chemistry 16, 10, 11.
HOPPE, R. (1980). Zur Formelsprache der Chemiker. Angewandte Chemie 92, 106-121 (in
German).
IPN-LEHRGANG (1979). Stoffe und Stoffumbildungen. Klett-Verlag: Stuttgart (in German).
IUPAC (1979). Manual of Symbols and Terminology for Physicochemical Quantities and Units.
3rd Edn. Pergamon Press: Oxford, New York, Ontario, Potts Point, Paris, Kronberg.
JENSEN, W. B. (1977). Chemical Symbolism and the Solid State. Journal of Chemical Educa-
tion 54, 277-279.
JORICKE, Ch. (1976). Hinweise zur Nutzung mathematischer Sachverhalte imChemieunterricht.
Downloaded by [University of Cambridge] at 18:35 04 June 2016

Chemie in der Schule 23, 423-428 (in German).

JOHNSTONE, A. H., MORRISON, T. I. and SHARP, D. W. A. (1971). Topic difficulties in
Chemistry. Education in Chemistry 8, 212, 213, 218.
LEITZ, J. (1979). Proportionalitäten und Funktionen im Chemieunterricht Chemie in der
Schule 26, 460-469 (in German).
LODGE, A. (1888). The multiplication and division of concrete quantities. Nature 38, 281-283.
LÖFFLER, G. (1979). Die Formelsprache im Chemieanfansunterricht. Der Chemieunterricht
10, 5-34 (in German).
McGLASHAN, M. L. (1971). Physicochemical Quantities and Units. The Royal Institute of
Chemistry: London.
McGLASHAN, M. L. (1977b). Amount of Substance and the mole. Physics Education 12,276-
278.
MERKEL, E. (1977). Die Anwendung von Grössen und Einheiten in Physik, Chemie und Physi-
kalischer Chemie nach dem Internationalen Einheitensystem (SI). Praxis der Naturwis-
senschaften, Chemie 26, 294-301; 328-334.(1978); 27; 4547; 188-195; 202-211; 239-
249.
MORRISON, G. S. (1976). Cannizzaro's Atom-Free Stoichiometry. Journal of Chemical Educa-
tion 53, 723.
NOVICK, S. and MENIS, J. (1976). A Study of Student Perceptions of the Mole Concept.
Journal of Chemical Education 53, 720-722.
OSTERWALD, R. (1975). Variante zur Einführung in das Stoffgebiet 'Chemisches Rechnen',
Klasse 7. Chemie in der Schule 22, 453-455 (in German).
PAOLONI, L. (1979). Towards a Culture-based Approach to Chemical Education in Secondary
Schools: The Role of Chemical Formulae in The Teaching of Chemistry. European
Journal of Science Education 1, 365-377.
PFUNDT, H. (1976). Stoffe und Stoffumbildungen. Zu einem IPN-Lehrgang, insbesondere zu
dessen erstem Teil. Der mathematische und naturwissenschaftliche Unterricht 29, 231-
236 (in German).
PLEWINSKY, B. and ENGEL, M. (1976). Zur Didaktik der Stöchiometric Der Chemieunter-
richt 7, 94-91 (in German).
QUADE, W. (1961). Über die algebraische Struktur der Grössenkalküls der Physik. Abhand-
lungen der Braunschweiger Wissenschaftlichen Gesellschaft XIII, 24-65 (in German).
REICHE, H. (1964). Warum Schwierigkeiten beim stöchiometrischen Rechnen? Chemie in der
Schule 11, 90-95 (in German).
ROSSA, E. (1962). Ergebnisse einer Leistungsanalyse in den neunten Klassen. Chemie in der
Schule 9, 16-26 (in German).
SHAYER, M. (1970). How to assess science courses. Education in Chemistry 7, 182-184, 186.
WEGNER, G. (1978). Zum chemischen Rechnen mit Grössengleichungen in Klasse 7. Chemie in
der Schule 25, 239-246 (in German).
WENINGER, J. (1964/5). Ein allgemein anwendbares Verfahren zur Ermittlung von Natur-
gesetzen aus Messwerten für Physik und Chemie. Der mathematische und naturwissen-
schaftliche Unterricht 17, 209-216 (in German).
WENINGER, J. (1971). Eindeutige Symbole im Chemieunterricht. Der Chemieunterricht 2,
99-118 (in German).
 Theses and Dissertations 105

WENINGER, J. (1977). Stoffportion, Teilchenaggregat und Menge. Mitteilung aus dem Institut
fur die Pädagogik dei Naturwissenschaften an der Universität Kiel. Der Chemieunterricht
8, 4-52 (in German).
WENINGER, J. (1979a). Stoffportion, Monadenaggregat, Monadenmenge und Anzahl. Der
Chemieunterricht 10, 5-37 (in German).
WENINGER, J. (1979b). Grandsätzliches zu den sogenannten Reaktionsgleichungen. Natur-
wissenschaften im Unterricht (Physik/Chemie) 27, 207-219 (in German).
WENINGER, J. (1980a). Anzahl contra Stoffmenge. Der mathematische und naturwissen-
schaftliche Unterricht 33 (in German).
WENINGER, J. (1980b). Beiträge zur Klärung des Grössenkalküls und des Rechnens in der
Chemie (in press), (in German).
Downloaded by [University of Cambridge] at 18:35 04 June 2016

WENINGER, J. and DIERKS, W. (1974). Zum IPN-Lehrgang 'Stoffe und Stoffumbildungen'.

Chemiker-Zeitung 98, 407411 (in German).
WENINGER, J. and PIEROW, K. I. (1973). Erfahrungen mit eindeutigen Symbolen im Chemie­
unterricht Der Chemieunterricht 4, 56-64 (in German).
WENZL, E. (1967). Zu den Begriffen Grammatom und Mol. Chemie in der Schule 14, 232-246
(in German).
WHITNEY, H. (1968). The Mathematics of Physical Quantities. The American Mathematical
Monthly 75, 115-138; 227-256.