ACS Combinatorial Science

Downloaded by EAST CAROLINA UNIV on January 15, 2018 | http://pubs.acs.org Publication Date (Web): December 26, 2017 | doi: 10.1021/bk-2017-1269.ch003

Chapter 3

A Cognitive Perspective on Chemistry Instruction: Building Students’ Chemistry Knowledge through Advancing Fundamental Literacy and Metacognitive Skills Megan K. Littrell-Baez* and Donna Caccamise University of Colorado, Boulder Institute of Cognitive Science, 594 UCB, Boulder, Colorado 80309, United States *E-mail: [email protected].

This chapter focuses on scaffolded metacognitive activities that promote successful knowledge-building and comprehension in chemistry, with an emphasis on fundamental literacy. Theoretical perspectives and evidence-based strategies are presented to explain how metacognitive instruction should be implemented to best support learning along with the development of fundamental literacy and metacognitive knowledge.

Metacognition involves key processes that students must develop in order to become better and more efficient learners. To be successful in chemistry, as well as other science domains, students need to develop a capacity to evaluate and govern their own learning and thought processes as they encounter new information from a variety of sources (e.g., text, class presentations, hands-on projects, and visual representations). These metacognitive processes are deemed crucial for learning, knowledge transfer, and mastery of chemistry (1, 2), and are correlated with higher academic performance and better problem-solving skills (3). They also help students to build domain knowledge, which is positively correlated with higher performance on academic measures in the fields of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM; (4, 5)). In this chapter, we present a view of chemistry instruction and student knowledge-building through a cognitive science lens. Our focus is on how © 2017 American Chemical Society Daubenmire; Metacognition in Chemistry Education: Connecting Research and Practice ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2017.


instruction that combines literacy skills and knowledge of how to engage in metacognition helps students to build the cognitive knowledge structures that serve as a foundation for learning. Three types of literacy are important for science education, particularly in chemistry: (a) scientific literacy; (b) visual Literacy; and (c) fundamental literacy. Scientific literacy refers to an understanding of practices and procedures involved in carrying out science and may differ depending on the domain, e.g., chemistry vs. biology (6). Visual literacy refers to one’s ability to interpret, generate, and draw external representations of physical and molecular models (7, 8). There is no question that scientific and visual literacy are important for understanding chemistry and making contributions to the discipline. However, in this chapter, we focus on a type of literacy that is also important but often overlooked in STEM education – fundamental literacy. Fundamental literacy represents students’ abilities to read and deeply comprehend informational texts in a way that enables them to build knowledge within a discipline (9). This is critical for success in chemistry as well as other scientific disciplines because it is key to students’ learning and ability to retain information from text, as well as for integrating information from other class activities into a developing core knowledge. As Okanlawon explains, Chemistry students who may be skilled readers of narrative texts often encounter difficulty in reading scientific and mathematical texts. This is because narrative texts deal with a broad theme and convey information in a story form which is easier for readers to understand, while scientific texts are densely loaded with important information and minutely detailed logical arguments which render them difficult to understand. In such texts, if one part of an argument is skipped or misunderstood, the remaining parts become incomprehensible ((10), p. 215).

The Role of Metacognitive Processes in Comprehension In addition to developing literacy skills for scientific texts, students must also be able to engage in metacognitive processes in order to recognize and repair gaps in understanding. These processes are critical to both skilled reading and for integrating knowledge from other sources such as lab exercises. Metacognitive proficiency in conjunction with fundamental literacy is at the cornerstone of how scientists develop, communicate about, and advance scientific theories and procedures (9). In other words, it is necessary that students develop fundamental literacy skills in order to build their domain knowledge and also to comprehend and communicate successfully in scientific fields. The authors of this chapter have created theory and evidence-based approaches for the instruction of fundamental literacy skills that include metacognitive components in order to help students learn from science texts (11–15). This chapter focuses on the metacognitive activities that support comprehension and knowledge-building. We highlight theoretical perspectives on how and why metacognitive instruction can be implemented to support learning in chemistry, and provide a model for scaffolded instruction that incorporates both fundamental literacy and development of 32 Daubenmire; Metacognition in Chemistry Education: Connecting Research and Practice ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2017.

metacognitive knowledge to improve students’ success and comprehension in chemistry.


Metacognitive Skills and Knowledge Metacognition has often been described in terms of two major categories, metacognitive skills (MS) and metacognitive knowledge (MK). Figure 1 illustrates these divisions with detail on how each category is subdivided. MS represent one’s procedural knowledge for carrying out metacognitive tasks. As shown in Figure 1, MS are broken down into procedures involved in monitoring learning (reflecting on or checking understanding) and self-regulation of learning (e.g. planning, organizing information, and re-reading; (16–18)).

Figure 1. Model of the Components of Metacognition. Let us consider the case of a hypothetical student, Peyton, who is taking a college introductory chemistry class. Peyton is reading the textbook in preparation for the next class lecture. After reading a few paragraphs, Peyton stops to think about what the information in the text means and whether it makes sense. Peyton is feeling a bit lost and does not really understand how the concepts are connected or how they relate to the problems in the class homework assignment. This is metacognitive thinking that average to poor readers and learners do not employ. Peyton is demonstrating a metacognitive skill—monitoring. This skill alerts Peyton to notice gaps in her understanding, but does not provide clues to what to do to improve understanding. Assessing one’s comprehension of the material and understanding when it is good or faulty is the first step in the metacognitive practices that good readers and learners employ on the road to building knowledge (19). However, most students lack the insight to adequately engage in this sort of meta thinking that is critical to the learning process, let alone possess the metacognitive knowledge to recognize what to do to fix the problem with their understanding (20, 21). Although studies have shown that well-developed metacognitive skills (e.g., accurate monitoring and use of self-regulation activities) are often associated 33 Daubenmire; Metacognition in Chemistry Education: Connecting Research and Practice ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2017.


with better learning outcomes (22, 23), many students with strong metacognitive skills do not put these skills into practice in an effective way (24–28). We have observed this in students who struggle with reading comprehension, and we would argue that it more broadly impedes students’ recognition of important learning strategies when needed. Essentially, students demonstrate a lack of metacognitive knowledge (MK). MK is comprised of declarative and conditional knowledge about metacognition. Declarative knowledge involves explicit understanding of what metacognition is and how it may be useful for learning, including knowledge of the resources and skills needed to complete learning tasks such as reading a text chapter, studying for an exam, or completing a homework assignment. Conditional knowledge represents an understanding of how, when, and why metacognitive skills can be used to improve understanding and learning (16). Thus, a successful instructional model should be scaffolded to develop metacognitive skills needed to monitor and self-regulate learning, as well as explicit instruction that allows for development of the metacognitive knowledge necessary to know when and how to utilize these skills to improve learning.

Theoretical Perspectives on Metacognition and Literacy A leading theoretical perspective on comprehension and learning, the Construction-Integration (CI) model of cognition and supporting research suggests why this type of instruction benefits students (29). Specifically, the CI model indicates that in order to achieve deep, long-lasting learning and build domain knowledge, students must construct a textbase from the information presented to them (e.g., idea units in a textbook, lecture, or problem) and integrate the textbase with background knowledge to build a situation model of the topic. According to Kintsch and Kintsch, a situation model is “a mental model of the situation described by the text…[that] requires the integration of information provided by the text with relevant prior knowledge and goals of the comprehender” ((30), p. 73). Development of a strong situation model helps students to understand better the theories and concepts that they are learning about in class because it gives them a cognitive structure for organizing and connecting information. This skill is a critical component for students to develop domain knowledge as they iteratively build upon their understanding of the topic with each incoming piece of new information from text and classroom activities. Only when a learner has processed information deeply enough to create a situation model is their knowledge in a state that is durable and re-usable. Consider another student example: Jace is working on a homework assignment for an introductory college chemistry class, involving solving a series of problems. The problem prompt leads Jace to activate the stored situation model for that unit, which provides a framework for solving the problem, using known problem-solving approaches and background knowledge about related concepts and theories. This problem-solving task might be quite challenging if he has not developed a strong situation model for the content and types of problems in that unit. Being new to college and chemistry at this level, it is quite likely that Jace’s situation model is still incomplete and perhaps includes 34 Daubenmire; Metacognition in Chemistry Education: Connecting Research and Practice ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2017.

misconceptions. Although he may have the metacognitive skills to alleviate the challenge of learning from the course materials to build and improve a situation model, Jace may not know how to use those skills appropriately. Thus, students like Jace need to learn how to engage metacognitive strategies to check their understanding at this deeper level.


The Situation Model Approach: Utilizing Effective Monitoring Cues In order for students to self-regulate their learning, they must be able to adequately monitor their understanding and identify gaps or weak points. Unfortunately, studies have demonstrated that most students often misjudge the depth of their learning or engage in poor regulation of learning (21, 31). This applies to learning broadly, but also to metacomprehension—students tend to misjudge their understanding of the content they are reading about in their textbooks (32, 33). Rawson, Dunlosky, and Thiede (34) suggest that poor monitoring results from the use of shallow retrieval cues that fail to provide accurate feedback about the quality of the student’s knowledge of the topic. In other words, as a student is considering the level of their understanding, they rely on information that is not diagnostic of actual learning, such as the length of the text or interruptions they experienced while reading. However, the accuracy of monitoring improves when students use cues that give them feedback about their situation model (35–39). Strategies that tap into these types of situation model-level cues include, but are not limited to, summarizing the text after a delay, generating concept maps to connect ideas, making inferences or connections that go beyond what is stated in the text, and taking breaks while reading to self-explain the meaning of the text and how ideas are connected across sections of text - within a chapter or unit (40). These strategies give the reader insight into how well they know the topics in the text and how well they are able to connect ideas across sections of text and between text explanations and visual materials such as models or graphs. However, to build metacognitive knowledge, it is important that chemistry instructors explicitly point out this notion to their students. In other words, explain to them why the strategy should help them comprehend the material. Instructional interventions should encourage students to rely on monitoring cues that give them an accurate picture of their level of knowledge and provide recommendations for self-regulation to be carried out when knowledge gaps are identified. Research also indicates that successful comprehension is best supported by engaging in metacognitive activities not just during reading, but also before and after reading (19, 41, 42). Activities conducted before reading may include considering the goals or objectives for learning and previewing the chapter headings and subheadings as well as figures, diagrams, and tables to get a sense of what one expects to learn from the chapter. After reading, students may find it helpful to engage again in self-explanation of what they have learned, summarizing and connecting this information with the overall learning objectives 35 Daubenmire; Metacognition in Chemistry Education: Connecting Research and Practice ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2017.

for the assignment. A more detailed example of this type of instruction is provided at the end of the chapter under “Guidelines for Chemistry Instructors.”


A Model for Metacognitive Instruction in Chemistry Metacognitive instructional interventions in chemistry have primarily focused on teaching general study skills and learning strategies and providing prompts to remind students to monitor learning (43, 44). Other researchers have taken a different approach by engaging students in metacognitive activities before and after a learning activity such as an exam or lab assignment (45, 46). While these approaches have demonstrated success in improving student learning outcomes, evidence also indicates that general instructional approaches may only benefit students who are already performing well or have some prior metacognitive knowledge (47, 48). These students already have an awareness that they must monitor their performance and enact some behavior to improve learning as necessary. For those low-performing students who may struggle with metacognition, though, simply prompting them to engage in metacognitive study strategies may not be enough. In fact, several studies in STEM classrooms have demonstrated poor metacognitive monitoring in low-performing students compared to high-performing students (35, 49–53). Low-achieving students grossly overestimate performance when engaging in metacognitive monitoring, whereas high-achieving students slightly underestimate performance (49–53). For example, Pazicni and Bauer (52) found that chemistry students in the lowest quartile greatly overestimated their ranking, whereas students in the highest quartile underestimated their ranking. This pattern was consistent across four exams throughout the semester, suggesting that students did not learn to monitor performance from simply observing the discrepancy between their monitoring and their performance. Although students are provided with guidelines and prompts to engage in metacognitive processes in existing interventions such as these, they do not necessarily build metacognitive knowledge to help students know how to implement the strategies they are learning. For instance, students may know that reading their textbook and thinking critically about the material are important for learning at the college level. However, they may not have a sense of how to carry out these tasks. This is particularly the case when we consider students’ reading comprehension in chemistry and other science fields. Many college students have difficulty with learning from their textbooks, even if they have good standardized reading scores and GPAs (41). Metacognitive interventions need to include information on how to read and comprehend the text in a way that connects new information with students’ background knowledge in order to build an in-depth situation model. To address this, we suggest explicitly teaching students evidence-based strategies to actively engage with their textbook and employ metacognitive skills to monitor and self-regulate their learning. It is important to scaffold this instruction to help students build metacognitive knowledge that may allow them to apply metacognition to a variety of contexts. The guidelines below present an evidence-based instructional model to help students build 36 Daubenmire; Metacognition in Chemistry Education: Connecting Research and Practice ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2017.

metacognitive knowledge and skills that they may employ before, during, and after reading their textbook (Text examples from reference (54)).


Guidelines for Chemistry Instructors Before the text is assigned, give students the key objectives that they should learn for that chapter or unit. Emphasize that they should pay attention to these objectives as they complete their reading assignment (and any associated problems or questions for homework). To ensure that your students do this, you may want to ask them to think about and write down how the reading connects to the objectives. To scaffold students’ learning, model metacognitive behaviors in a brief class demonstration to show what this might look like before, during, and after reading their text. Note that this does not necessarily need to occur for each lecture or unit. Here is an example script: Before Reading [Address the students] “I am a student today. As I sit down to read the text chapter assigned for next class, I am going to do some extra thinking about how I am going to study, what I need to learn, and how well I am learning as I go along. This practice is called metacognition and it helps me to understand what I know and don’t know so that I can stay on track in class. I would normally do most of this thinking silently, but I am going to think out loud today so that you can follow along.” [Speaking to self with the class as the audience] “I really need to know what this chapter is about and what my instructor wants me to learn. How should I figure that out?” [Flip through notebook.] “Okay, I have a note here that says in this unit, we are going to learn about ionic and covalent bonding next week.” [Open the text.] “I’m going to look ahead in the text to see where it talks about these topics. I’ll start with reading the chapter headings to see what topics will be covered.” [Show students on overhead or projector screen.] “Okay, in Chapter 4, section 4.1, I see, ‘Ionic Bonding.’ It looks like there are some subsections, too. These should help me focus on what I’m going to read about.” [Read subheading names aloud.] “The Formation of Ionic Compounds; Electronic Structures of Cations; Electronic Structures of Anions… Okay, I think I’ll go back to the beginning and see what the section objectives are. It says ‘By the end of this section, you will be able to: (a) explain the formation of cations, anions, and ionic compounds; (b) predict the charge of common metallic and nonmetallic elements, and write their electron configurations.’” “Now I think I will look at the diagrams and tables in the text.” [Go through these and think aloud about how they connect to the learning objectives.] “I will come back to these while I am reading.” During Reading Next, show students what they might do during reading. This is important because many metacognitive interventions focus solely on activities conducted 37 Daubenmire; Metacognition in Chemistry Education: Connecting Research and Practice ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2017.


before and/or after a task (e.g., metacognitive wrappers). When students are reading their text, however, they need frequently to monitor their comprehension to make sure they are encoding the information and connecting it to their background knowledge in a manner that creates lasting learning (i.e., developing a situation model). [Addressing students] “Metacognition is also important while you are reading. There are a few techniques you can use to keep track of what you are learning and to better connect ideas.” “Read a short section of text (i.e., a section with a subheading or number breakdown like section 4.2 of chapter 4). Take a few minutes to do the following tasks, without looking back at your text or notes:” • •

•

“Self-explanation: Describe to yourself what you just read. What did it mean? What details do you remember?” “Connect Ideas: How is this section related to the previous section (e.g., compare/contrast ideas; think about how concepts build on each other)? How does the information you learned address the unit learning objectives? What else might you need to know to meet that objective?” “Re-read the section to check your understanding or to think about it more deeply if you struggled to answer the questions above.”

“What should you do if you are still confused? [Open up to student suggestions for self-regulation.] Maybe you could bring specific questions to class or when meeting with your instructor.” There are a few approaches to modeling what students should do while they are reading their textbook. This is only one example. If time permits, however, you could also read a section of the text aloud and stop a few times to think out loud as you go, similar to the “Before Reading” example. After Reading [Address the students.] “After you finish reading the chapter, you can use metacognition to reinforce your learning and again check your comprehension. These are a few strategies:” •

•

•

“Summarize, self-explain, and connect ideas: go back to the learning objectives. For each, summarize what you know and explain what it means to you. For example, for the learning objective ‘explain the formation of cations, anions, and ionic compounds,’ what do you know about the formation of each? What is still unclear? Write down any questions that you have to discuss with your instructor.” “Create a concept map: another way to connect ideas is to draw a map, connecting concepts from the chapter. You can also connect these concepts to what you learned in previous chapters.” [Show an example to the class.] “Practice testing yourself: If there are practice questions or problems in the chapter, go through these to test your understanding. Then check your 38

Daubenmire; Metacognition in Chemistry Education: Connecting Research and Practice ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2017.

answers to confirm. When possible, try not to look back through your text as you complete these. This will give you a better idea of how you might perform on a test in class.”


In summary, this chapter has introduced an often overlooked set of learning processes including metacognition and fundamental literacy. Research indicates that with a little scaffolding of evidence-based practices by instructors and teaching assistants struggling students, who are not activating these processes in STEM classrooms, can be provided with better opportunities for success.

References Rickey, D.; Stacy, A. M. The role of metacognition in learning chemistry. J. Chem. Educ. 2000, 77 (7), 915–920. 2. Tsai, C. C. A review and discussion of epistemological commitments, metacognition, and critical thinking with suggestions on their enhancement in Internet-assisted chemistry classrooms. J. Chem. Educ. 2001, 78 (7), 970. 3. McCormick, C. B. Metacognition and learning. Handbook of Psychology: Vol. VII, Educational Psychology 2003, 2, 79–102. 4. Hailikari, T.; Nevgi, A.; Komulainen, E. Academic self-beliefs and prior knowledge as predictors of student achievement in Mathematics: a structural model. Educ. Psych. 2008, 28, 59–71. 5. Seery, M. K. The role of prior knowledge and student aptitude in undergraduate performance in chemistry: a correlation-prediction study. Chem. Educ. Res. Pract. 2009, 10, 227–232. 6. DeBoer, G. E. Scientific literacy: Another look at its historical and contemporary meanings and its relationship to science education reform. J. Res. Sci. Teach. 2000, 37, 582–601. 7. Braden, R. A.; Hortin, J. A. Identifying the theoretical foundations of visual literacy. J. Visual/Verbal Languaging 1982, 2, 37–42. 8. Ametller, J.; Pintó, R. Students’ reading of innovative images of energy at secondary school level. Int. J. Science Educ. 2002, 24, 285–312. 9. Norris, S. P.; Phillips, LM. How literacy in its fundamental sense is central to scientific literacy. Sci. Educ. 2003, 87, 224–240. 10. Okanlawon, A. E. Using appropriate strategies to improve students’ comprehension of Chemistry texts: A guide for Chemistry teachers. African Res. Rev. 2011, 5. 11. Caccamise, D.; Friend, A.; Groneman, C.; Littrell-Baez, M. K.; Kintsch, E. Teaching Struggling Middle School Readers to Comprehend Informational Text; Paper presented at the 11th International Conference of the Learning Sciences, Boulder, CO, 2014. 12. Caccamise, D.; Friend, A.; Littrell-Baez, M. K.; Kintsch, E. Constructivist theory as a framework for instruction and assessment of reading comprehension. In Comprehension Instruction: Research-Based Best Practices, 3rd ed.; Parris, S. R.; Headley, K., Eds.; Guilford: New York, 2015; pp 88−102 1.

39 Daubenmire; Metacognition in Chemistry Education: Connecting Research and Practice ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2017.


13. Caccamise, D.; Friend, A.; Kintsch, E.; Littrell-Baez, M. K.; Groneman, C. BRAVO: Boulder Reading Intervention; Ecology; ICS no. 2012-02; Boulder, CO: University of Colorado, 2013. 14. Caccamise, D.; Littrell-Baez, M. K.; Okochi, C. A Secondary Reading Comprehension Curriculum: How FOI Impacts Student Performance; Paper presented at the Twenty-Second Annual Meeting of Society for the Scientific Study of Reading, Porto, Portugal, 2016. 15. Littrell-Baez, M. K.; Friend, A.; Caccamise, D.; Okochi, C. Using retrieval practice and metacognitive skills to improve content learning. J. Adol. Adult Lit. 2015, 58, 680–687. 16. Veenman, M. V. Alternative assessment of strategy use with self-report instruments: a discussion. Metacognition and Learning 2011, 6, 205–211. 17. Flavell, J. H. Metacognitive aspects of problem solving. The Nature of Intelligence 1976, 12, 231–235. 18. Nelson. T. O.; Narens, L. Metamemory: A theoretical framework and some new findings. In The Psychology of Learning and Motivation; Bower, G. H., Ed.; Academic Press: New York, 1990; Vol. 26, pp 125–173. 19. Caccamise, D.; Snyder, L. Comprehension instruction in the 21st century. Persp. on Lang. and Lit.y (Special issue) 2009, 35, 23–26. 20. Dunlosky, J.; Lipko, A. R. Metacomprehension: a brief history and how to improve its accuracy. Current Dir. Psych. Sci. 2007, 16 (4), 228–32. 21. Dunning, D.; Heath, C.; Suls, J. M. Flawed self-assessment implications for health, education, and the workplace. Psych. Sci. Public Interest 2004, 5, 69–106. 22. Azevedo, R. Using hypermedia as a metacognitive tool for enhancing student learning? The role of self-regulated learning. Educ. Psychol. 2005, 40, 199–209. 23. Graesser, A. C.; McNamara, D. S.; VanLehn, K. Scaffolding deep comprehension strategies through Point & Query, AutoTutor, and iSTART. Educ. Psychol. 2005, 40, 225–34. 24. Azevedo, R.; Cromley, J. G. Does training on self-regulated learning facilitate students’ learning with hypermedia? J. Educ. Psych. 2004, 96, 523. 25. Azevedo, R.; Guthrie, J. T.; Seibert, D. The role of self-regulated learning in fostering students’ conceptual understanding of complex systems with hypermedia. J. Educ. Computing Res. 2004, 30, 87–111. 26. Azevedo, R.; Hadwin, A. F. Scaffolding self-regulated learning and metacognition–Implications for the design of computer-based scaffolds. Instructional Sci. 2005, 33, 367–379. 27. Bannert, M.; Hildebrand, M.; Mengelkamp, C. Effects of a metacognitive support device in learning environments. Computers Human Beh. 2009, 25, 829–835. 28. Girash, J. Metacognition and instruction. In Applying the Science of Learning in Education: Infusing Psychological Science into the Curriculum; Benassi, V. A.; Overson, C. E; Hakala, C. M., Eds.; 2014; pp 152−168. 29. Kintsch, W. Comprehension: A Paradigm for Cognition; Cambridge University Press: New York, 1998. 40 Daubenmire; Metacognition in Chemistry Education: Connecting Research and Practice ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2017.


30. Kintsch, W.; Kintsch, E. Comprehension. In Children’s Reading Comprehension and Assessment; Paris, S. G.; Stahl, D. S., Eds.; Erlbaum: Mahwah, NJ, 2005; pp 71−92. 31. Dunning, D. The Dunning-Kruger effect: On being ignorant of one’s own ignorance; Advances Exper. Soc. Psych. Elsevier: San Diego, CA, 2011; Vol. 44, pp 247−296. 32. Rawson, K. A.; Dunlosky, J. Improving students’ self-evaluation of learning for key concepts in textbook materials. European J. Cog. Psych. 2007, 19, 559–569. 33. Theide, K. W.; Griffin, T. D.; Wiley, J.; Redford, J. S. Metacognitive monitoring during and after reading. In Handbook of Metacognition in Education; 2009; pp 85−106. 34. Rawson, K. A.; Dunlosky, J.; Thiede, K. W. The rereading effect: Metacomprehension accuracy improves across reading trials. Mem. Cog. 2000, 28, 1004–1010. 35. Anderson, M.; Thiede, K. W. Why do delayed summaries improve metacomprehension accuracy? Acta Psychol. 2008, 128, 110–118. 36. Dunlosky, J.; Rawson, K. A. Why does rereading improve metacomprehension accuracy? Evaluating the levels-of-disruption hypothesis for the rereading effect. Discourse Processes 2005, 40, 37–55. 37. Thiede, K. W.; Anderson, M. Summarizing can improve metacomprehension accuracy. Contemporary Educ. Psych. 2003, 28, 129–160. 38. Thiede, K. W.; Anderson, M.; Therriault, D. Accuracy of metacognitive monitoring affects learning of texts. J. Educ. Psych. 2003, 95, 66. 39. Thiede, K. W.; Dunlosky, J.; Griffin, T. D.; Wiley, J. Understanding the delayed-keyword effect on metacomprehension accuracy. JEP: LMC 2005, 31, 1267. 40. Wiley, J., Griffin, T. D.; Thiede, K. W. Improving metacomprehension with the situation-model approach. In Improving Reading Comprehension through Metacognitive Reading Strategies Instruction; Mokhtari, K., Ed.; Rowman & Littlefield: Lanham, MD, 2017; pp 93−110. 41. Isakson, R. L. & Isakson, M. B. Preparing college students to learn more from academic texts through metacognitive awareness of reading strategies. In Improving Reading Comprehension through Metacognitive Reading Strategies Instruction; Mokhtari, K., Ed.; Rowman & Littlefield: Lanham, MD, 2017; pp 155−176. 42. Pressley, M. Metacognition and self-regulated comprehension. What Research Has to Say about Reading Instruction 2002, 3, 291–309. 43. Cook, E.; Kennedy, E.; McGuire, S. Y. Effect of teaching metacognitive learning strategies on performance in general chemistry courses. J. Chem. Educ. 2013, 90, 961–967. 44. Zhao, N.; Wardeska, J. G.; McGuire, S. Y.; Cook, E. Metacognition: An Effective Tool to Promote Success in College Science Learning. J. College Sci. Teach. 2014, 43. 45. Lovett, M. C. Make exams worth more than the grade: Using exam wrappers to promote metacognition. In Using Reflection and Metacognition to Improve Student Learning: Across the Disciplines, Across the Academy; Kaplan, M.; 41 Daubenmire; Metacognition in Chemistry Education: Connecting Research and Practice ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2017.

46.

47.


48.

49.

50.

51.

52. 53.

54.

Silver, N.; La Vague-Manty, D.; Meizlish, D., Eds.; Stylus: Sterling, VA, 2013; pp 18−52. Tien, L. T.; Teichert, M. A.; Rickey, D. Effectiveness of a MORE laboratory module in prompting students to revise their molecular-level ideas about solutions. J. Chem. Educ. 2007, 84, 175–181. Thiede, K. W.; Griffin, T. D.; Wiley, J.; Anderson, M. C. Poor metacomprehension accuracy as a result of inappropriate cue use. Discourse Processes 2010, 47, 331–362. Zohar, A.; Barzilai, S. A review of research on metacognition in science education: current and future directions. Studies Sci. Educ. 2013, 49, 121–169. Galloway, R. K.; Bates, S. P.; Parker, J.; Usoskina, E. The effect of research-based instruction in introductory physics on a common cognitive bias. American Institute of Physics (AIP) Conference Proceedings 1513 2013, 138–141. Hodges, B.; Regehr, G.; Martin, D. Difficulties in recognizing one’s own incompetence: novice physicians who are unskilled and unaware of it. Academic Medicine 2001, 76, S87–S89. Karatjas, A. G. Comparing college students’ self-assessment of knowledge in organic chemistry to their actual performance. J. Chem. Educ. 2013, 90, 1096–1099. Pazicni, S.; Bauer, C. F. Characterizing illusions of competence in introductory chemistry students. Chem. Educ. Res. Pract. 2014, 15, 24–34. Ziegler, B.; Montplaisir, L. Student perceived and determined knowledge of biology concepts in an upper-level biology course. CBE-Life Sci. Educ. 2014, 13, 322–330. Flowers, P.; Theopold, K.; Langley, R.; Neth, E.; Robinson, W. R. Chemistry: Atoms First; OpenStax College, Rice University, 2016.

42 Daubenmire; Metacognition in Chemistry Education: Connecting Research and Practice ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2017.

ACS Combinatorial Science

Recommend Documents