本研究目的，探討主修科學之生手在解配位化合物之立體化學問題時，所使用的解題策略、解題行為以及解題過程中可能面臨的問題和困難。研究可分為兩個方向，先探討空間能力與立體化學解題成就之相關性，再以「放聲思考／晤談」的方式做為解題研究的方法，以口語分析的資料可反應出解題者的內在處理歷程。
參與研究的學生共有45人，分別接受空間能力試題及立體化學 試題的測驗。而其中有七位學生(二位高中生、三位大一學生及兩位大二學生)，以放聲思考的方式進行「立體化學試題」解題，所有的過程都加以錄影、錄音。經由原案分析後，探討高、低成就組在立體化學解題表現、解題行為及解題過程的差異。 經由教授審定的命題包含有幾何異構物、光學異構物、反射操作及反轉操作的判定、旋轉操作的繪製，合計10個問題。
研究結果顯示，學生的空間能力與立體化學的解題表現呈現正相關(相關係數.647)。平均而言，學生在解題成就最高的是在題型六，旋轉操作的判定。原因可能是在過去學習的經驗，較常使用旋轉操作。最差的是類型五，反轉操作的判定。解題行為方面，高成就組解題推理的過程較明確，而解題的時間較短；然而低成就組有較多的迷思概念、經常提出問題、不清楚題意的情形以及重作的情形。解題策略方面，高成就組解題者多使用向前做的推理策略及考慮簡單的情形，而低成就組的解題者使用較差的推理策略、嘗試錯誤、方法-目的分析或是隨機進展等策略。高成就組對立體結構有較好的敏感度，較能正確的察覺立體空間的變化；而低成就解題者經常錯誤的辨識立體結構，無法正確的透視其原子間相對的位置。在空間的心像操作也發生錯誤的情形，對立體結構有較低的敏感度。

The purpose of this study was to unravel problem-solving strategies, problem-solving activities and the difficulties for novice science major students in the process of solving stereochemistry of coordination compounds problems. The study was divided into two parts, the first part aimed to explore the correlation between spatial perception ability and stereochemistry problem solving ability; the second part was to analyze the science majors' inner process through the protocol analysis collected from thinking-aloud and interview Methods.
The 45 subjects in this study took paper and pencil tests on ability of spatial perception and solving stereochemistry problem, and seven of the students (two high-school, three freshmen science major and two sophomores) solved the stereochemistry problems with thinking-aloud method and were videotaped. After the analysis of the problem-solving process, the researcher discussed the differences of behaviors, activities, and process in solving stereochemistry problems between high proficiency and low proficiency students. The ten problems which were validated by expertise professors were concentrated on geometric isomers, optical isomers, reflection operator, reversion operator and rotation operator.
The findings suggested that the correlation between spatial perception ability and stereochemistry problem solving ability is quite well with r=.647. On average, the best performance of students was in rotation operator. It was due to their past learning experience. The more successful students had the better reasoning strategy. They were more sensitive to the stereo structures, and realized the change of the structure more correctly. The less successful students used worse reasoning strategy and less effective trial-and-error strategy. The latter had wrong recognition on stereo structures, regarding optical isomer as geometric isomer; they also had bad visualizing spatial relationship among atoms

Atkinson, R. C., & Shiffrin, R. M. (1968). Human memory: A proposed system and its control processes. In K. Spence & J. Spence(Eds.),
The psychology of learning and motivation, 2. New York: Academic Press.
Barke, H. D. (1993). Chemical education and spatial ability. Journal of Chemical Education. 70, 968-971.
Bodner, G. M., & McMillen, T. L. B. (1986). Cognitive restructuring as an early stage in problem solving, Journal of research in Science Teaching, 23(8), 727-737.
Camacho, M. (1986). Analysis of the performance of experts and novices while solving chemical equilbrium problems. Dissertation Abstracts International, 44, 2979A, (University Microfilms NO.8624624).
Camacho, M., & Good, P. (1989). Problem solving and chemical equilibrium：successful versus unsuccessful performance. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 26(3), 251-272. Chi, M. T. H., Feltovich, P. L., & Glaser, R. (1981). Categorization and
representation of physics problems by experts and novices.Cognitive Science, 5, 121-152.
Dembo, M. H. (1994). Applying educational psychology (5th ed.). New York : Longman.
Dhillon, A. S. (1998). Individual differences within problem-solving strategies used in Physics. Science Education. 82(3), 379-405.
Ericsson, K. A., & Simon, H. A. (1984). Protocol analysis：Verbal reports as data. Cambridge, MA：MIT Press.
Gagne, E. D. (1985). The Cognitive psychology of school learning.
Boston and Toronto: Little, Brown and Company.
Gonzales, N. A. (1998). A Blueprint for Problem Posing. School Science and Mathematics, 98(8), 448-453.
Hayes, J. R. (1981). The complete problem solver. Phiadelphia: Frankin Institute Press.
Hayes, J. R. (1985). Three problems in teaching general skills. In S. F.
Chipman, J. W. Seagal & R. Glaser(Eds.), Thinking and learning skills: Volume 2, Research and open questions. Hillsdale, NJ:
Erlbaum.
Holyoak, Keith J. (1990). Problem Solving. In D. N. Osherson & E.Smith(Eds),. Thinking: An invitation to Cognitive Science.
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 117146.
Larkin, J.H. & Rainard, B.(1984). A research methodology for studying how people think. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 21(3),235-254.
Maarten, W. S., Yvonne F. B. and Jacobijn A. C. (1994). The think aloud method : a practical guide to modeling cognitive processes. San Diego: Academic press.
Mayer, R. E. (1992). Thinking, problem solving, cognition. New York : W.H. Freeman.
McMurry, J. (1992). McMurry: Organic Chemistry. 3'rd. California: Wadsworth.
Miessler, G. L. & Tarr, D. A. (1991). Inorganic Chemistry. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Newell, A., & Simon, H.A (1972). Human problem solving. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:Prentice-Hall.
Seddon, G. M., & Moore, R. G. (1986). An unexpected effect in the use of models for teaching the visualization of rotation in molecular structures. European Journal of Science Education, 8(1), 76-86.
Seddon, G. M., & Adeola. A.,EL Farra., A. O. K., and Oyediji, S. I. (1984). The responsiveness of students to pictorial depths cues and the understanding of diagrams of three-dimensional structures. British
Educational Research Journal, 21, 25-38.
Seddon, G. M., Eniaiyeju, P. A., & Jusoh, I.(1984). The visualization of rotation in diagrams of three-dimensional structures. American Educational Research Journal, 21, 25-38.
Seddon, G. M., & Tariq, R. H. (1984). The transferability of two pictorial scientific tasks between different spatial dimensions. British Journalof Educational Psychology, 54, 276-283.
Shuell, T. J.(1990). Phases of Meaningful Learning. Review of Educational Research, 60, 531-547.
Solso, R. L. (1991). Cognitive psychology(3rd. Ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Tuckey, H. P., & Selvaratnam, M. (1993). Studies involving three-dimensional visualisation skills in chemistry. Study in science research, 21, 99-121.
Tuckey, Selvaratnam & Bradley (1991). Identification and rectification of student difficulties concerning three-dimensional structures, rotation, and reflection. Journal of Chemical Education, 68(6), 460-464.