Fragmented Conceptual Understanding and Quantitative Challenges in Stoichiometry and Chemical Reactions among Grade 12 Students

This study investigated the conceptual understanding of stoichiometry and chemical reactions among Grade 12 senior high school learners and developed a standardized diagnostic questionnaire to identify least mastered competencies. Employing a descriptive research design with an instrument development and survey approach, the study involved seventy four (74) Grade 12 learners from a public senior high school for the main assessment, while pilot testing was conducted with one hundred fifty (150) learners from two other schools to establish the instrument’s reliability and validity. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics and item analysis to determine mastery levels across selected chemistry competencies aligned with the K–12 Most Essential Learning Competencies (MELCs). Results indicated generally low mastery, with a Mean Percentage Score (MPS) of 54.86, classified as not mastered. Learners exhibited the greatest difficulty with quantitatively oriented competencies, including determining molar mass and calculating mass, moles, and number of particles. Other least mastered competencies included identifying types of chemical reactions, writing balanced chemical equations using the Law of Conservation of Mass, and explaining the mole concept. Conversely, learners demonstrated relatively better performance in recognizing chemical reactions in environmental and biological contexts, suggesting stronger familiarity with observable phenomena than with abstract or mathematical concepts. The findings reveal fragmented conceptual understanding and limited integration of quantitative reasoning in senior high school chemistry learning. The validated diagnostic questionnaire provides a practical tool for identifying learners’ conceptual gaps and informing targeted instructional interventions. These results underscore the need for teaching strategies that enhance conceptual clarity, quantitative problem-solving, and real-world application of stoichiometry and chemical reactions.

chemical reactions, conceptual understanding

1. ACS. (2021). Assessment in chemistry education: Conceptual understanding versus computational skills. American Chemical Society. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

2. Amani, M., Akrami, R., & Omidvar, R. (2025). High school students’ alternative conceptions in stoichiometry. International Journal of Science Education, 47(2), 210–225. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

3. Astuti, I. P., Wahyuni, S., & Prasetyo, Z. K. (2025). Diagnostic assessment of misconceptions in stoichiometry: Evidence from secondary school learners. Journal of Chemical Education Research, 12(1), 45–60. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

4. Baigan, M., Delos Santos, J., & Cruz, A. (2025). Improving students’ understanding of balanced chemical equations: Development of instructional materials. Philippine Journal of Science Education, 14(1), 33–49. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

5. Barker, M., & Kind, P. (2004). Learning the mole concept: A conceptual framework for chemistry education. International Journal of Science Education, 26(2), 195–212. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

6. Bayarcal, J., & Tan, R. (2023). Supporting students’ problem-solving skills in chemistry through improved mathematics instruction. Philippine Journal of Science Education, 12(1), 23–36. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

7. BouJaoude, S., El-Hani, C., & Tamir, P. (2000). Students’ understanding of stoichiometry: A cross-cultural study. Journal of Chemical Education, 77(11), 1466–1471. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

8. Chandrasegaran, A., Treagust, D. F., & Mocerino, M. (2009). Students’ conceptual difficulties in stoichiometry: Evidence from a cross-sectional study. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 10(1), 42–50. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

9. Christianto, B., Sari, D., & Rahman, A. (2025). Students’ conceptual understanding of mole-based calculations in chemistry. Asian Journal of Chemistry Education, 14(2), 101–115. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

10. Celikkıran, E. (2020). Representational challenges in stoichiometry learning: Translating between macroscopic, submicroscopic, and symbolic levels. International Journal of Science Education, 42(15), 2630–2645. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

11. Davidowitz, B., Chittleborough, G., & Pienaar, H. (2010). Investigating student understanding of stoichiometry in quantitative chemistry. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 11(4), 240–247. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

12. Development and Validation of SPARC. (2025). Stoichiometric Problem-Solving Assessment for Reasoning and Confidence. International Chemistry Education Association. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

13. Edomwonyi-Otu, L. (2011). Students’ performance in secondary school chemistry: A focus on stoichiometry. International Journal of Science Education, 33(12), 1673–1689. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

14. Furio, C., Calatayud, M. L., & Lopez, S. (2002). Misconceptions in chemical education: Focus on stoichiometry. Journal of Science Teaching, 39(7), 585–600. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

15. Hanson, R. (2016). Understanding the mole concept: Bridging macroscopic and submicroscopic levels. Chemistry Education Review, 18(3), 157–169. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

16. Kind, P. (2004). Enhancing students’ understanding of the mole concept in chemistry. Chemistry Education: Research and Practice, 5(3), 237–249. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

17. Lausin, R., & Kijai, T. (2024). Effects of algorithmic problem solving versus conceptual reasoning on stoichiometry performance. Journal of Science Education Research, 16(1), 51–66. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

18. Lim, J. (2019). Chemistry mastery among senior high school STEM learners in the Philippines. Philippine Science Education Journal, 11(2), 77–92. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

19. Mulford, D. R., & Robinson, W. R. (2002). An inventory for assessing students’ conceptual understanding of chemistry. Journal of Chemical Education, 79(6), 739–744. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

20. Moss, D., & Pabari, M. (2010). Improving conceptual understanding in high school chemistry: Focus on quantitative topics. International Journal of Science Education, 32(10), 1341–1358. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

21. Nabua, D., Roldan, J., Gelani, R., Salic-Hairulla, S., & Alcopra, L. (2025). Profiling learners’ least mastered competencies in senior high school chemistry. Asian Journal of Science Education, 15(1), 85–100. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

22. Nucum, R. (2017). Stoichiometry learning challenges among senior high school students. Journal of Chemical Education, 94(6), 722–730. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

23. Nyachwaya, J. M., Rebello, N., & Towns, M. H. (2014). Students’ reasoning in stoichiometry: An analysis of misconceptions and learning difficulties. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 15(1), 39–52. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

24. Ogundiji, M. (2024). Challenges in teaching chemical reactions: A review of secondary school learners’ performance. Chemistry Education International, 25(1), 15–27. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

25. Olasunkanmi, A. (2024). Secondary students’ difficulties in balancing chemical equations and understanding conservation laws. Journal of Science Education Research, 18(2), 102–118. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

26. Roldan, J., Baigan, M., & Cruz, A. (2025). Diagnostic assessments for stoichiometry in senior high school chemistry. Philippine Journal of Science Education, 14(2), 77–93. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

27. Sayre, J., Nabua, D., Salic-Hairulla, S., Alcopra, L., & Fernandez, R. (2025). Identifying least mastered competencies to inform chemistry instruction. Journal of Chemical Education Research, 13(1), 40–55. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

28. Sanger, M. J. (2005). Algorithmic versus conceptual understanding in chemistry problem solving. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 6(2), 79–87. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

29. Shadreck, M., & Enunuwe, C. (2018). Students’ perceptions of stoichiometry as an abstract concept in chemistry. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 16(7), 1203–1217. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

30. Sheehan, M., & Childs, P. E. (2009). Addressing students’ difficulties in quantitative chemistry. Journal of Science Education, 90(5), 853–867. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

31. Sostarecz, R., & Sostarecz, S. (2012). Misconceptions in chemical stoichiometry among high school students. Journal of Chemical Education Research, 9(3), 120–129. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

32. United Nations. (2015). Sustainable Development Goal 4: Quality education. United Nations. https://sdgs.un.org/goals/goal4 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

33. Wu, H., & Krajcik, J. (2006). Designing learning materials to enhance students’ understanding of stoichiometry. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 43(2), 206–233. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

34. Zumdahl, S. S. (2003). Chemistry (6th ed.). Boston, MA: Houghton Miff [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

• Green Synthesis of Cobalt Oxide/Gold (Coo/Au) Bimetallic Nanoparticles Using Sinapinic Acid: A Comprehensive Study
• Advances in Solar Cell Technologies: A Comprehensive Review of Material Synthesis, Structural Properties, Efficiency and Diverse Applications
• Thermal Decomposition of Co-Fe-Cr-Citrate Complex Via Structural and Spectral Study
• Surface Activity and Thermodynamic Assessment of Surfactants Derived from Oreochromis Niloticus Oil (Nile Tilapia Fish)
• Green Synthesis of Robust Metal-Organic Frameworks: A Sustainable Approach for Advanced Applications