Metacognition as a Construct for Studying How Students Learn from

Chapter 5

Metacognition as a Construct for Studying How Students Learn from Molecular Visualizations Downloaded by EAST CAROLINA UNIV on January 5, 2018 | http://pubs.acs.org Publication Date (Web): December 26, 2017 | doi: 10.1021/bk-2017-1269.ch005

Resa Kelly* and Jinyan Wang Department of Chemistry, San Jose State University, One Washington Square, San Jose, California 95192-0101, United States *E-mail: [email protected].

In this chapter, we introduce how metacognition or thinking about thinking has been used as a research tool to uncover how students think about and process information that they learn from molecular visualizations. Examples of how metacognitive monitoring exercises were used in previous studies to examine how students understood differences between their understanding and the information portrayed in: animations, animations guided with cartoon tutors, and contrasting animations will be outlined. In addition, in a more recent study, metacognitive tasks have been employed to examine how students make sense of contrasting animations before they engage in collaborative discussion to determine the animation that best fits with evidence. Findings from this work reveal how weak chemistry understanding and lack of confidence may make students more likely to accept another students’ explanations in a collaborative setting without deep reflection, which may be a natural limit of their understanding.

Introduction The goal of this chapter is to investigate how metacognition became a useful tool for exploring what students learn when they view molecular animations, how it further evolved and how we currently use metacognitive activities in our research. Initially, this research began with exploring how students constructed their understanding of molecular level details before and after viewing animations. At that time, we were interested in how students were modifying © 2017 American Chemical Society Daubenmire; Metacognition in Chemistry Education: Connecting Research and Practice ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2017.

Downloaded by EAST CAROLINA UNIV on January 5, 2018 | http://pubs.acs.org Publication Date (Web): December 26, 2017 | doi: 10.1021/bk-2017-1269.ch005

their understanding of sodium chloride dissolution to fit with animations of the same event (1, 2). We were concerned with how students constructed their understanding and we focused on students’ oral, written and drawn explanations of atomic level events that were portrayed in the animations. These studies helped us better understand how students developed their understanding. The results indicated that most students made significant improvements toward including more details from the animations in their explanations after they viewed the animations. However, learning was never perfect and we continued to wonder why students retained wrong information in their explanations when they were shown animations that were seemingly explicit about structural (the artistic representation of atomic and molecular level species) and mechanistic details (how molecules/atoms/ions move and interact with each other). We began to wonder how students perceived that their understanding compared to the details communicated in the animations. Consequently, our theoretical framework shifted from focusing on constructivism, in which we wanted to know how students constructed their understanding from the animations to inquiring about how students’ experiences or perceptions compared to the details portrayed in the animations. This new lens was more consistent with phenomenography in which the objective was to identify and describe variation in experiences or perceptions of a phenomenon. As we continued to explore this phenomeographical framework, a paper by Bussey et al. introduced variation theory, an adaptation of phenomenography that specifically explored how students could experience the same phenomenon, such as visualizations, differently and as a result take away different meaning from viewing the same event (3). This framework seemed the ideal lens through which to deepen our exploration into how and why students connected to or ignored information in the animations. Our aim in using this theory was to understand how an individual filters out some informational features from others to create a meaningful conception.

The Role of Metacognition in Examining Student Learning from Visualizations To examine how students’ understanding of dynamic molecular level chemistry events varied from the information portrayed in animations, the construct of metacognition was used. Metacognition, defined as “knowledge and experiences that assist learners to understand and monitor their cognitive processes (4, 5)” or “thinking about thinking (6)” was examined through monitoring exercises in which students were purposefully asked to share insights into their metacognition. Metacognitive monitoring is a strategy that enables students to observe, reflect on or experience their own cognitive processes (4, 7). In our metacognitive monitoring activity, students were asked to make judgements about their understanding before and after viewing animations. Specifically, they were asked to identify visualization features that matched with or differed from their mental model of the chemistry event. In this way, we were using metacognition as a construct for learning how students perceived their 56 Daubenmire; Metacognition in Chemistry Education: Connecting Research and Practice ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2017.


understanding to differ from the information communicated in the animations. During the interviews, students were further questioned about how they made sense of critical features in the treatment consisting of several animations that varied in the complexity primarily by the number and color of water molecules that were shown in the solvent of aqueous salt solutions. Through metacognitive monitoring activity and analyzing students’ mental models by their hand drawn representation of the molecular events we studied how students made sense of the animation features. We found that when students recognized structural features that differed from their drawn representations, they made changes to their drawings that would resemble novel features from the animations that fit with their previous wrong ideas in a manner that was not entirely correct, but usually an improvement. This type of change was referred to as a transitional state of understanding (8). Additional findings revealed that there were obvious details, such as structural depictions (lattice arrangements, ions in solution) that most students recognized and incorporated into their explanations, but there were also aspects that students paid less attention to, and that they did not change. We concluded that students were entering this transitional phase and they made choices about what to change that reflected the moving, evolving nature of their understanding.

The Role of Metacognition in Examining Student Learning from Cartoon Tutorials At this point in the research journey, we understood that students missed or ignored aspects of visualizations that they might have deemed unnecessary, and we wondered if adding a cartoon tutor or guide to point out the relevance of pertinent features would assist students in better understanding the animations. Thus, cartoon tutors were designed and partnered with the molecular animations in a learning cycle approach consisting of exploration, concept development and application. In order to examine the utility of the cartoon tutor in helping students make sense of molecular animations that explored the nature of weak and strong acids, a metacognitive monitoring activity similar to the one used to explore how students made sense of only animations was used (9). Students were asked to orally describe how features portrayed in the tutorials were new to them, and they were also asked to describe the aspects that were familiar to them (9). The outcome was that students expressed having the greatest gain in understanding the particulate or structural nature of acidic solutions. They reported that the structures in the tutorials differed from how they represented the acid species and this oral confirmation was consistent with observable changes students made to their hand drawn revisions of the atomic level events. Interestingly, another event that was depicted in the tutorials was an electrical conductivity test of strong and weak acids; however, these tests were not perceived as new or different by the students as most of the students had used the testers or watched videos of the testers in lab. Despite this test being mundane to the students, most students revised their drawn representation of the mechanism. We concluded that students did not fully understanding the atomic nature of electrical conduction, yet they recognized 57 Daubenmire; Metacognition in Chemistry Education: Connecting Research and Practice ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2017.


that they were familiar with the macroscopic outcome. Most students knew that acidic solutions would conduct, but not necessarily the reason why. Since they did not understand the nature at the atomic level they were able to glean new information from the tutorials to make improvements, which is consistent with the initial observation that when students recognize a difference they are more inclined to make a change. More importantly, we noted that when a cartoon tutor was used to guide the animations, students were more likely to adapt their pictures to fit exactly with what they saw.

The Role of Metacognition in Examining Student Learning from Contrasting Animations In our more recent research efforts, we wanted to alter the role of the animation as a definitive explanation and wanted to examine how students would respond if they had to decide from a pair of animations which one was best based on its fit with experimental evidence? Consequently, we began examining how students presented with a video of experimental evidence (Figure 1) were able to determine which of two contrasting molecular level animations best represented the atomic level of the experiment (10–12). One animation was more scientifically accurate or correct (depicted the electron transfer and the role of water molecules) and also quite complex or detailed in its portrayal of a redox reaction while the other animation was designed to be inaccurate or wrong (depicted the reaction as a single replacement equation with nitrate ions involved in the movement of the metal ions), but very simplistic in its design with only key species depicted. In the study, metacognitive monitoring was used to examine how students made sense of the animations in comparison to their own comprehension of the reaction event presented in the video. Students were first asked to construct atomic level pictures of the redox reaction event they saw in a video, then they constructed a handwritten list of the key features they tried to communicate through their atomic level drawings. After the students viewed each animation they also produced a list of the key features represented in each animation, and they compared the lists to their own list made before they viewed the animations. The lists were compared to examine how students noticed variation between their understanding and what they saw in the animations. Deep reflection or metacognitive monitoring revealed that students noticed mechanistic differences between the animations and their understanding, but they struggled to understand why the mechanism occurred (10). It was also observed that students sometimes ignored the mechanistic details that differed between the animations and assumed that because the wrong animation was more simplistic in its depiction that it must be a simplified version of the complex animation. Some students felt that the simplistic animation was consistent with balancing equations, while the complex animation was meant to give a more detailed and realistic account of how the reaction happens (10). Lastly, the metacognitive monitoring activity motivated several students to be more aware of the limitation of their own pictures and explanations as many recognized that their pictures were challenging to understand (10). 58 Daubenmire; Metacognition in Chemistry Education: Connecting Research and Practice ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2017.


Figure 1. A screenshot of the video that shows the experimental evidence of a redox reaction between aqueous silver nitrate and solid copper. A copper wire was placed into pure water (left test tube), aqueous silver nitrate (middle test tube), and aqueous copper (II) nitrate (right test tube), individually. The color and the conductivity of the liquid in each test tube were evaluated before and 8 min after putting in the copper wire.

Current Use of Metacognitive Monitoring Activities Our research journey continues to explore how students learn from contrasting animations that are provided as possible atomic level explanations of a macroscopic event. The purpose of this recent study was to consider how students engage in critiquing their understanding of four contrasting animations through comparison to other students. In this section, we present two cases in which two pairs of students were asked to first construct molecular level pictures of a redox reaction involving the mixing of aqueous silver nitrate and copper wire before they were presented with four contrasting animations of the same event. The students were asked to select one animation that best represented the reaction from the video. Next, they were asked to redraw their atomic level understanding, and then they were invited to share their animation selection with their partner. Figure 2 illustrates the whole process of the interview session. This section explores the nature of their understanding when they reviewed the animations independently, followed by how they shared their understanding in pairs to reach consensus.

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


Figure 2. A graphic illustration of the interview session.

Research Question The following question was explored. How do students metacognitively reflect on their molecular level understanding of the redox reaction between aqueous silver nitrate and solid copper before viewing animations, during the animation viewing process and when they collaboratively work in groups to reach consensus on the animation that best fits with experimental evidence? Participants and Data Collection In the spring of 2016, twelve students were interviewed in pairs over the course of two months. First, each pair of students was interviewed individually to examine their particulate level understanding of a video of a redox reaction (Figure 1) between aqueous silver nitrate and solid copper before and after they viewed four contrasting animations of the same reaction. The students consisted of five females and seven males of diverse ethnicity (five were Hispanic, four were Asian, two were Caucasian and one was of mixed ethnicity). They were all in their first semester of General Chemistry, and they were interviewed late in the semester after they had already been introduced to redox chemistry and had completed a lab on the topic. The students ranged in age from seventeen to twenty years of age and eight of the students were majoring in engineering related fields. Many students (9 of 12) reported that they had viewed molecular animations before, 60 Daubenmire; Metacognition in Chemistry Education: Connecting Research and Practice ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2017.


but not very often, while only three students indicated that they had never used molecular animations. All of the students self-reported that they had experience with YouTube videos and spent considerable time on computers. The groups were formed based on students’ availability to complete the IRB approved study. The setup worked as follows: while one student was interviewed, the other student waited in a location outside of hearing distance of the office setting where the interviews took place. After each student, completed the consent form, viewed the contrasting animations individually and selected an animation that they felt best fit with the experimental evidence, the two students that made up a group were brought together and asked to describe to each other the animation they selected as being a best fit with the experimental evidence. They were also asked to discuss the animations and together decided which animation was the best fit with the evidence. In one case, the students both chose the same animation and the collaboration served to help them solidify their reasoning. In most groups, the students chose different animations and they were asked to reach consensus on the animation that best fit with the experimental evidence. After the pairs discussed and reached consensus, a short debriefing session was held to inform the students about the right and wrong features in each animation and also to answer students’ questions (Figure 2).

Comparing Understanding to Another Student After students had the opportunity to first communicate their understanding of the molecular level of the redox reaction between aqueous silver nitrate and solid copper through molecular level drawings, each student then individually viewed a set of four animations, one at a time, that consisted of two animations (animations 1 and 3) that represented the redox mechanism similarly and correctly; however, animation 1 was most accurate as it was an adaptation of animation 3. Both showed hydrated, but separate ions of silver and nitrate ions in the solution with only the hydrated silver ions being attracted to the copper surface. Both animations also showed that electron clouds form over the neutral atoms, and that copper ions (blue in color) were extracted by water molecules. Even though both animations were designed as accurate animations, animation 1 was made after animation 3 and was meant to repair a few structural issues noticed in animation 3, thus animation 1 was the best animation of the group. In animation 1, the copper surface was designed to be less even with a divot that attracted silver ions, while in animation 3 the surface was even (Figure 3). In addition, in animation 1 a copper ion that formed at the surface was extracted, which differs from animation 3, in which a copper ion located in the center of the lattice was extracted by water molecules, which would be less likely due to the stability of its location. Lastly, the color scheme of animation 1 was meant to show that the core copper atoms were blue and did not change color. Animation 3 shows that the copper atoms were yellow and when they were removed as ions they were blue in color. There was concern that students would misinterpret this to mean that a new element was created due to the change in color. 61 Daubenmire; Metacognition in Chemistry Education: Connecting Research and Practice ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2017.


Figure 3. Still images from animation 1 (left) and animation 3 (right).

Animations 2 and 4 were purposefully made to be scientifically inaccurate animations. Animation 2 was used in our previous study and it was designed to resemble the look of a single replacement reaction showing two silver nitrate molecules hitting the copper surface, breaking apart to leave the silver atoms on the surface while the two nitrate groups next extracted a copper atom into solution. This resembles the look of a single replacement reaction equation in which the reactants are silver nitrate and copper, while the products are silver and copper (II) nitrate (Figure 4).

Figure 4. A still image from scientifically inaccurate animation 2 wrongly showing the nitrate ions extracting a copper ion from the copper surface.

Animation 4 was designed to resemble how students in a previous study (11) wrongly represented the reaction as having silver and nitrate species all adhering to the copper surface (Figure 5).



Figure 5. A still image from scientifically inaccurate animation 4 showing silver and nitrate all adhering to the copper surface. After students sequentially viewed animations 1 through 4, the four animations were reduced to all fit on the computer screen simultaneously so that the students could easily navigate and compare and contrast the animations to each other (Figure 6).

Figure 6. A screenshot of the four contrasting animations that were shown to students during the study. In the top left corner is the most accurate animation that was revised from animation 3 (animation 1). In the top right corner is an incorrect animation modeled after a single replacement reaction (animation 2). In the lower left corner is the original, scientifically accurate animation (animation 3) and in the lower right corner is an inaccurate animation modeled to show all ions adhering to the surface (animation 4). 63 Daubenmire; Metacognition in Chemistry Education: Connecting Research and Practice ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2017.


Results and Discussion After students individually viewed the animations, the majority of the students (7 of 12) selected animation 1, the most accurate animation (that was a revised form of animation 3), as the animation that fit best with experimental evidence and a few students (2 of 12) chose animation 3 (Table 1). Only three students chose animation 2, modeled after the single replacement equation, as the best animation and no students selected animation 4, designed from student input that showed all ions adhering to the copper surface. Even though most students selected animations 1 and 3, many students expressed uncertainty with their selection. After the students came together in groups to discuss the animations, students who initially selected animation 2 (S5, S6 and S12) were able to convince their groups to choose animation 2, even though all of their partners chose the best animation.

Table 1. Summary of individual and group animation selection Individuals

Animation choice

Pairs

Animation choice

S1

1

1. S1 and S2

1

S2

1

2. S3 and S4

3

S3

3

3. S5 and S10

2

S4

1

4. S6 and S7

2

S5

2

5. S8 and S9

3

S6

2

6. S11 and S12

2

S7

1

S8

3

S9

1

S10

1

S11

1

S12

2

In some cases, consensus was not reached, for example students S8 and S9 disagreed on whether animation 1 or animation 3 was the best animation. They appeared to reach consensus with S8 dominating the discussion to explain that animation 1 was not stoichiometrically accurate and S9 listened and quietly agreed. However, at one point S9 indicated that he retained a preference for animation 1. Students S3 and S4 were more vocal about their lack of consensus, and they also debated between the scientifically accurate animations (Table 1). In summary, approximately half of the groups chose one of the scientifically accurate animations (animation 1 or 3) while the other groups chose the incorrect animation 2, modeled after the single replacement reaction (Table 1). 64 Daubenmire; Metacognition in Chemistry Education: Connecting Research and Practice ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2017.


The Role of Metacognition During the study, the interview consisted of four metacognitive tasks: 1) a drawing activity in which students constructed molecular level pictures of their understanding of the atomic level of the reaction video before they viewed the contrasting animations. They also described their drawings; 2) A few semi-structured interview questions that asked students to reflect on how challenging the drawing task was and which pictures they were most and least confident about. Follow up questions were asked that were unique to each interview situation in order to delve more deeply into students’ understanding; 3) Reflection during animation viewing. While viewing the animations students were asked to reflect on what they liked and disliked about the animations and ultimately to select and describe the animation they felt was the best fit with the video of the experiment, and; 4) Oral communication of metacognition through collaborative task. Students were asked to reflect on their understanding to provide an overview of how and why they chose the animation that best fit with experimental evidence video and they were asked to think about the ideas proposed to mutually select the animation that best fit with the evidence. The metacognitive tasks revealed how students connected to their prior knowledge and to the experimental evidence in order to select the animation that was in their opinion the best representation. It also revealed if students were uncertain of their understanding and how this affected the animation they selected and their group interaction. To more richly demonstrate these metacognitive tasks, data from two of the six pairs of students will be presented in detail. These pairs were chosen because they both selected the wrong animation over the scientifically accurate animation and because we wish to explore the nature of student thinking through the treatment to better understand how students reason throughout these tasks. In addition, how one pair of students discussed and reflected on their understanding of the scientifically accurate choices is also examined. Pair 4: S6 and S7 Prior to coming together as a group, students S6 and S7, both male students, each constructed molecular level pictures of the redox reaction portrayed in a video that they each viewed at the beginning of their individual sessions (Figures 5 and 6). S6 found drawing the atomic level of the redox reaction to be very challenging. He reasoned about possible products that could account for the black material that formed on the wire in the video, but he struggled in his effort to recall what he had learned in previous chemistry classes that might account for the identity of the substance. For his “before they react” picture (Figure 7), S6 drew a macroscopic representation of the wire. He indicated that the silver nitrate was attracted to the wire and moving toward it and eventually it would form the rust or “brown grey-greenish” substance. He shared that the big red dots in solution were “atoms” of silver nitrate and the smaller dots were electrons associated with silver nitrate. He drew dots on the wire and indicated that those were electrons from silver nitrate that were attracted to the wire, but then later he indicated that they were electrons 65 Daubenmire; Metacognition in Chemistry Education: Connecting Research and Practice ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2017.


going from the copper wire to the silver nitrates. He stated that the conductivity test measured reactivity and showed that silver nitrate was very reactive.

Figure 7. S6’s “before the reaction” representation. For his depiction of “during the reaction” (Figure 8), S6 drew a black wire macroscopically and next to it placed red dots with smaller red dots around them to represent that the electrons left the wire and they went with the silver nitrate and that’s what was causing the change of color and the added substance. He explained that the electrons were more attracted to the silver nitrate so they left the copper wire. He indicated that the silver nitrate and electrons made up the solution. He thought that the copper atoms in the wire would lose their valance electrons and the nitrate ions, because they have oxygen, would cause the wire to rust and form the black substance. When pressed to explain what made up the rust, S6 guessed it would be copper oxide or a molecule that consisted of copper and oxygen and he was not sure whether electrons would be floating about the copper oxide molecules. S6 disclosed that he was not sure what it would look like at this level with the valence electrons. He knew about neutralization and balanced equations, but he could not picture how to connect these concepts to form a picture of the reaction.

Figure 8. S6’s “during the reaction” representation. For his “after-reaction” pictures, S6 did not think the conductivity tester gave much useful information, it conducted before and it continued to do so. He drew a mixture of dots that represented silver nitrate and the blue dots were leftover copper. He noticed that in the video a test tube placed next to the test tube in which the reaction occurred was made of copper nitrate and it was blue. He reasoned 66 Daubenmire; Metacognition in Chemistry Education: Connecting Research and Practice ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2017.


that the blue color produced by the reaction was due to the remaining copper in the wire or the rust, copper-oxygen molecule. As he thought more about what he was saying and noticed the blue color of the copper(II) nitrate solution, S6 decided that the copper oxide (rust) would react even more with the silver nitrate to form copper nitrate. He described this as a series of two reactions, first the silver nitrate would react with copper to form “copper-oxygen” and then the “copper-oxygen” would react with the silver nitrate to form copper nitrate. For the wire, he shared that the black substance was the copper that reacted with silver nitrate to form copper-oxygen or copper oxide (he used both names in his description) while the red was unreacted copper (Figure 9).

Figure 9. S6’s “after-reaction” representations of the solution (left) and the solid metal products (right). When S6 was asked if he found the task of drawing the molecular level of the reaction challenging he responded: S6: Yeah, I have never really thought about the chemical reaction like at that small of scale and thinking about it like that and trying to use what I have learned before it just, it kind of made it more difficult. I am trying to use something that I am not even sure is right so maybe I am adding more steps or I am making it more complicated or maybe it was simple, but I was doing too much. S6 felt most confident about his portrayal of the blue colored product solution claiming that it made sense that it turned blue because there was some copper nitrate in it and he noted the connection to the video of experimental evidence, specifically that the color was similar to the copper (II) nitrate solution that served as a control in the video. He felt that this “solidified” his belief that copper nitrate and silver nitrate were left in the solution. S7 was also challenged by the drawing task. For his before picture (Figure 10), S7 represented the copper atoms in the wire with the solution “free floating” around the wire. He represented the solution as a mix of water (blue dots) and silver nitrate (purple dots). He thought the silver nitrate solution conducted because silver was a metal which made the solution conduct.



Figure 10. S7’s drawn representation before the reaction occurs. For his during reaction picture (Figure 11), S7 indicated that the copper atoms started to separate and release from the tightly packed portion of the solid, because of the silver nitrates. He indicated that the silver nitrates reacted with the copper atoms and they joined together as pairs which caused the black look to the wire. He shared that the copper along with the wire caused it to rust, but he was not sure if the black substance was rust. He thought that the water around the wire was not doing anything to the wire in the time that the reaction took place, but if left longer it might begin to rust. When asked what rust was, S7 said, “I guess when water breaks down the internal molecules or atoms of the metal.” He compared rusting to erosion, but did not expand on this analogy.

Figure 11. S7’s “during the reaction” representation. For the after pictures (Figure 12), S7 described the blue colored solution’s make up as being due to the copper reacting with the silver nitrate. S7 shared, “It made the water turn blue, I don’t know why it did that.” S7 further explained that when the silver nitrate reacted with the copper, it caused the copper to break down and form that black substance around it. The water got traces of the reaction as well, but then he was confused by this idea because he did not think this would cause the blue color. S7 indicated that he wished he could smell the solution, as he thought this might give him an idea of what was in solution. He decided that it 68 Daubenmire; Metacognition in Chemistry Education: Connecting Research and Practice ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2017.


must be copper and silver nitrate joining and forming new substances, one product was the black substance on the wire and the other was causing the blue solution. He drew the blue solution as a mixture of water molecues (blue dots) and copper-silver nitrate molecules (orange and purple pair). For the wire, he maintained that the black substance was due to the copper and silver nitrate reacting together (orange and purple pair).

Figure 12. S7’s “after reaction” representation of the solution (left) and the solid metal products (right). S7 found the molecular level drawing task to be challenging. He reflected on his understanding and indicated that he did not feel confident about his understanding of chemistry. S7: I don’t think that I know as much chemistry as I should probably, because I didn’t know what a lot of these reactions made. So that hurt me and then, it was hard. I didn’t know what the black substance was and I didn’t know how atoms looked in their natural state, I guess and how they look when they react so I think that my lack of knowledge there hurt me. Since I didn’t know how it looked I couldn’t draw it as good as I could have or should have. He felt most confident about his drawn representation of the aqueous silver nitrate solution and the copper wire before they reacted because it was more simplistic than the reaction, for which he expressed confusion. He felt least confident about his representation of the final products. He did not know what the substance was that formed on the wire and he did not know how the chemicals reacted to form the blue colored solution. When S6 and S7 were independently asked to choose an animation that best represented the experimental evidence from the video. S7 chose animation 1 (the most accurate, revised animation), but his reasoning for his selection was connected to the length of the animation and the colors of the atom species and had little to do with the actual reaction events or the mechanism. S7: The colors make sense to me, because it showed how, what’s that called the silver nitrate and the water, how they were together because you start it up it showed them joining with the copper and kind of sticking and then it also showed how the water kind of pulled off some copper and formed the blue color. That was helpful. It shows the water being blue 69 Daubenmire; Metacognition in Chemistry Education: Connecting Research and Practice ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2017.


and the copper is kind of like glowing or something. It just stands out and then how the separate like kind of yellowish color sort of serves as the black substance we saw in the final reaction. It probably felt like it was the longest one so I had time to really see everything. S7 thought that the fourth animation, which incorrectly showed the silver and nitrate ions layering onto the surface best matched how he initially pictured it, but now that he had options. He felt that the first animation made the most sense to him in how the reaction would progress. S6 chose animation 2, the inaccurate animation that resembled the single replacement equation, for its fit with his understanding and he referred to this match throughout his description. He found it confusing that two animations (1 and 3) showed water molecules more involved with the reaction. In this case, we see that he recognized the variation between his understanding and the animation, but he did not understand why the animation depicted the reaction in this way and he could not conceive it possible for water molecules to be involved in the reaction. S6: So, I liked animation 2. The main reason I liked it was because I felt like it showed the entire reaction, and it mainly focused on the silver nitrate and it turning into copper nitrate and leaving the silver on the copper wire. …I liked it the most because it showed everything and for the other ones animation 4, I remember, is like animation 2, but there was one part of it, I think the initial part of it leaving the silver or the silver nitrate going to the wire but not taking the copper…. Animation 2, the silver and the nitrate are connected (plays animation 2) so that’s why I liked it more. Animation 3 you see that it is just the silver and then the nitrate by themselves interacting with the copper so that’s why I didn’t like it and then it pulls out a copper with the water, which it doesn’t show the water initially which kind of I feel like is confusing. Animation 1 (plays it) I feel like there is a lot going on in the start and it shows like the silver is connected with the water, which, because of how I think the reaction goes, it kind of leaves the nitrate out and I feel like the nitrate and the silver are bonded and it (the nitrate) plays a bigger role in the reaction. But I like how animation 1, it does show that initial, like the silver does go to the copper wire and then it comes back out with the copper. In a sense, it’s like animation 2 shows the complete reaction. It’s just how you see it.

Collaboration and Reaching Consensus When the students were asked to defend their animation selection to each other, S6 explained why he chose animation 2, while S7 explained the limitations of his own reasoning and then indicated that he accepted S6’s choice. There was very little discussion of the evidence. S6 proposed why he chose animation 2 and although S7 reviewed each animation, he seemed to accept S6’s explanation and he did not challenge S6 further. 70 Daubenmire; Metacognition in Chemistry Education: Connecting Research and Practice ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2017.


S6: It (animation 1) shows the complete reaction from start, the silver reacting with the copper wire and then it comes out and, or then they trade, the silver goes to the copper and the copper leaves so I like that, but for me, I prefer animation 2 because at the end the liquid is blue and you’ve got copper nitrate (points to a picture that has a solution of copper(II) nitrate from the video) which was blue from the start. At the end of animation 2 you see that there is copper nitrate floating around for me it like clicked. Because I see the entire reaction I see the silver nitrate going to the copper wire and then the silver is left on the copper wire, it leaves with copper turning it to copper nitrate and then that’s what gives it that blue color because copper nitrate is blue. S7: I see what you are saying. I think back to how that one changes too (points to test tube of copper II nitrate) like I was all just focused on this thing (points to the middle test tube with the reaction occurring in it). You are right how the copper turned blue and that one. I can see that. Here, I want to rewatch this thing (replays animation 2). I guess that is less confusing than that one (animation 1) because that one has a lot going on. Let me watch animation 1 again. S6: That’s also, one thing about seeing animation 1 now, you see the copper reacts with the water. It doesn’t really show why or it doesn’t really provide like how. In animation 2, you see the copper with two nitrates and it’s copper nitrate, but in the first one you just see copper with the water. S7: yeah, I like yours, that makes more sense too. To probe the students a bit more the researcher asked the students what they would do if another student picked a different animation. They responded: S6: I would have to hear what they said about it first. If they knew more about chemistry and how things react I would probably think that they are right, because I don’t know as much. But then I don’t know, animation 2 is pretty good. S7: So, for me, I see like 2 and 4 are like similar in that they have the same idea of the nitrates and the silver reacting, and 1 and 3 with water and the silver and the copper reacting. So, 4, I would say you don’t need like that full reaction, okay, that’s fine. 1 and 3, I mean, it goes back to the copper nitrate is blue so with animation 2 and 4 or at least with 2, you see that there is copper nitrate in the liquid so that helps build the proof that there is copper nitrate because it is blue. With one, you still have to think, well that copper is going to react with the nitrate and it does, but right there it is just like floating with the water. I would say that you can assume, but it is not guaranteed so like, like you can assume 71 Daubenmire; Metacognition in Chemistry Education: Connecting Research and Practice ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2017.

that eventually it will react with the nitrate because they are all floating around. R: So, the nitrate has to be involved in your opinion? S7: Yeah, it’s the blue color. It’s the key to the puzzle.


S6 and S7 selected animation 2, the wrong animation that looked like a single replacement equation, as the animation that best represented the experiment. To summarize, S6 convinced S7 that water molecules could not be involved in the reaction, but nitrate ions had to be involved in the reaction based on the control solution of copper (II) nitrate being blue in color.

Pair 6: S11 and S12 Prior to coming together as a group, students S11 and S12 each constructed molecular level pictures of the redox reaction portrayed in the video of the experiment that they watched at the beginning of their individual sessions. Student S11 was a male student who admitted that he did not feel comfortable with his understanding of the atomic level because he mostly remembered formulas and learning how to work problems for test preparation. Prior to seeing the animations, he was certain that silver and nitrate dissociated, but he drew a mix of some silver nitrate formulas inside circles and some free silver and nitrate ions inside circles (Figure 13).

Figure 13. S11’s “before the reaction” representation. Upon reacting, S11 explained that silver replaced the copper in the center of the wire, while copper oxide formed on the surface of the copper and copper nitrate formed in solution. He recalled from the activity series of metals that silver reacted less than copper and concluded that copper switched with it. In addition, when S11 was asked about the role of water, he indicated that it probably broke apart, but he was not sure. He drew an oxygen ion that formed from a water molecule that broke apart then reacted with copper to form copper oxide in solution and also on the wire. He also believed that copper nitrate formed in solution and this specie caused the solution to be blue (Figure 14). 72 Daubenmire; Metacognition in Chemistry Education: Connecting Research and Practice ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2017.


Figure 14. S11’s “during reaction” representation of the redox reaction between aqueous silver nitrate and solid copper (top) and “after reaction” representations of the solution (bottom left) and the solid metal products (bottom right). After viewing the animations, S11 indicated that animation 1(the best animation revised from animation 3) did not make sense because the copper did not react with the nitrate and it did not replace it. He thought that the nitrate would replace the copper and the copper would be removed before the silver would go onto the wire. After viewing animation 2 that resembled a single replacement mechanism, S11 expressed that this animation made more sense to him because of how the copper nitrate formed, but he did not feel that the animation showed enough copper being removed and he recognized that water was not involved in the reaction. He noticed that none of the animations showed copper oxide being formed. S11 decided that animation 1 (the most accurate animation) was the best animation because, in his words, “the only thing it doesn’t show is the copper oxide.” He noticed that it did not show the single replacement reaction, but he liked the colors that were used in the animation better. He then stated that he thought animation 2 was probably more accurate because it showed the two nitrates bonding with the copper. When S11 was invited to make revisions, his pictures changed very little, he still believed there was a mixture of un-dissociated and dissociated silver nitrate. He thought that copper oxide formed to produce the aggregate on the wire and that copper nitrate formed to turn the solution blue. The only change that he made from viewing the animations was that water broke apart. He stated that even though the water did not break apart in the animation, it made him realize that it should dissociate because it became soluble and mostly because it was there whenever anything happened to the reaction. Student S12 was a female who felt that chemistry was her weakest subject. Prior to seeing the animations, she thought that silver nitrate adhered to the copper surface, but she admitted that the task of drawing her molecular level understanding was difficult. “In class, I learned like how to write a reaction, but I never thought about what was happening at the atomic level and how the 73 Daubenmire; Metacognition in Chemistry Education: Connecting Research and Practice ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2017.


elements would interact.” For her molecular level depictions before the reaction took place, S12 noticed that the aqueous silver nitrate solution conducted, and she drew free ions of silver and nitrate floating in the space surrounding the solution. She represented copper as a cluster of atoms, with open circles, initially labeling it as charged Cu+, but then deciding that ions meant they were free so she scribbled out the positive charge and stated that the copper was made of atoms (Figure 15).

Figure 15. S12’s “before reaction” representation. S12 recognized that the reaction was a single replacement reaction in which “the copper would switch with the silver” and she thought that either silver nitrate or copper nitrate would be on the surface of the copper wire. As S12 drew an atomic level view of the copper, she first placed a black circle on the surface and labeled it Ag, but when she was pressed as to whether she thought it was silver or silver nitrate, she decided it was silver nitrate (Figure 16). She reasoned that it could not be “straight up silver, because the nitrate is in solution.” She thought that free copper ions would end up in the solution and represented it with dots, but she also recognized that silver and nitrate ions would be present, but she was unsure why.

Figure 16. S12’s “during the reaction” representation. For the product solution, S12 recognized that the blue color of the solution was due to the copper ions because copper ions are blue, and she continued to represent dots for the silver and nitrate ions to show their presence. For the wire, she continued to represent the black substance on the wire as silver nitrate, and reasoned that it reacted with the copper and ended up on the surface; however, she was not confident of this and again indicated that chemistry was not her strongest subject (Figure 17). 74 Daubenmire; Metacognition in Chemistry Education: Connecting Research and Practice ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2017.


Figure 17. S12’s “after reaction” representation of the the solution(left) and the solid metal products(right). S12 thought that both animation 1(the most accurate animation, revised from animation 3) and animation 2 (the wrong animation based on the single replacement equation) were possible solutions. She liked animation 1 because the copper ions went away and the silver replaced it, but she liked animation 2 because the copper would bind with the nitrate and since the solution was turning blue, it meant that copper went into solution and silver attached to the wire. When she was asked why she liked animation 2, S12 responded: I think it was the most simplistic, I guess, because it only has the copper, the silver and the nitrate…it makes the most sense and it is less confusing…. The silver kind of attached to the copper wire and the nitrate released, took the copper and then released into solution. S12 found that the accurate animations were confusing because they showed the involvement of water molecules and while she knew that water molecules were in the solution she did not think they should be involved in the reaction. In general, S12 found it helpful to view the animations because it gave her “more solid ideas” of what was happening. “Before I wasn’t sure at all and it helped to visualize the reaction.”

Collaboration and Reaching Consensus When S11 and S12 were brought together to discuss their animation selection after they viewed the animations individually, S11 shared that he picked the first animation because it showed the copper leaving and silver ion becoming a metal. When the students were asked to describe their understanding to each other the following conversation ensued: S11: …I said that the stuff covering the wire was copper oxide, but I wasn’t sure and so that’s what made it black and the silver nitrate or the nitrate became free floating and eventually bonded with the copper to create copper nitrate. 75 Daubenmire; Metacognition in Chemistry Education: Connecting Research and Practice ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2017.

S12: I was also not sure, but I put the copper wire. The stuff on the wire had silver in it, so silver nitrate maybe and the copper ions being released into the solution. S11: And then for the last two for in the solution I put that there was copper and nitrate and free floating hydrogen ions as well as water. S12: Ah yeah, I just had the copper wire and then the silver nitrate attached to the wire and then in the solution was some free-floating copper ions as well as silver and nitrate ions. Downloaded by EAST CAROLINA UNIV on January 5, 2018 | http://pubs.acs.org Publication Date (Web): December 26, 2017 | doi: 10.1021/bk-2017-1269.ch005

S11: and for the wire I put copper oxide When asked to explain the animation that they chose and why, S11 and S12 discussed as follows: S11: So, I thought it would either be 1 or 2 (referring to animations) and 2 is more correct I think because it has two nitrates whereas this one it only shows one nitrate bonding so it doesn’t show everything, but this one shows the water interacting with the reaction more and so I like that, but I think with the experiment, animation 1 is more accurate because the copper is plus 2 I think, so it needs two nitrates. S12: I chose the second one, because I was also deciding between this and the first one, I didn’t really like factor water into the reaction, which is kind of dumb, but I completely forgot about it, also I wasn’t sure what to make of the glowing in the copper wire and the free water molecules so I thought number 2 seemed the most accurate because it was the most simplistic, also because it did show the copper leaving and the nitrate attaching to it and leaving the silver on the wire. S11: Yeah. I agree with that one. S11 and S12 shared that they chose animation 2, the wrong animation that resembled the single replacement reaction, because it showed the copper ions leaving the wire and going into the solution and it also had two nitrates attached to the copper as it left, leaving silver on the surface of the wire like in the experiment. They indicated that the formation of copper (II) nitrate was critical to their decision. S11 continued to believe that copper oxide formed on the wire. “the black stuff has to be copper oxide, but I still don’t know.” S12 shared that she thought the accumulation that formed was silver nitrate. When they were pressed to decide, what had formed on the wire, neither was certain. S11 stated, either silver nitrate or copper oxide. When asked what was making the solution blue in color, S12 stated that it was blue due to free copper ions, but then clarified that they don’t have to be free copper ions because she recalled that in lab there was “copper something” and it was blue. “Maybe there weren’t any free ions, but it was still blue or maybe not all of them are free.” At the conclusion of the 76 Daubenmire; Metacognition in Chemistry Education: Connecting Research and Practice ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2017.


collaborative session, both students agreed that animations 1 and 2 had their merits. Animation 1 showed how the silver was independent of the nitrate, but animation 2 with the silver and nitrate also seemed correct. S11 stated that when the ions react they would form new molecules and then break apart so animation 2 made more sense. In general, both agreed that animation 2 fit with the reaction equation better. S11 and 12 did not seem motivated to change their understanding. They reached consensus because they were asked to do so, but neither was particularly satisfied with how the animations represented the reaction event. Apart from noticing that the way they envisioned the atomic level did not match, the students were not inclined to address why they were wrong nor did they work to challenge each other. Deliberation over Accurate Animations In the case of pair 2, consisting of students S3 and S4, both chose from the accurate animations that were presented in the study as their choices for animations that best fit with the experimental evidence. S3 selected animation 3 while S4 selected animation 1. Of interest here was that the manner in which these animations contrasted as judged and constructed by the designers. They were not deliberated upon at all by the students. Instead, the students focused on two focal points that were not designed to be in conflict with each other: the solid accumulation on the wire and the nature of the aqueous solutions. S4: Okay, so what I thought happened was… this was after a lot of deliberation and a lot of doubt, is that I know we got this layer that formed copper, which I initially thought was like some silver oxide. It reacted with the copper or at least latched onto the copper through the water. That’s also why some of the copper was dilute into the water, which is why they have the same solution (addressing the copper(II) nitrate solution in the video). So, I figured that this is the same solution, the copper nitrate and then then the residue on the coil is possibly an oxide of one of the metals which I said was probably silver. Following S4’s reasoning, S3 shared that he agreed with S4, only he thought that the residue on the copper was silver and that some of the copper dissociated from the wire and mixed with the nitrates and formed the copper nitrate solution in the test tube. Interestingly, S3’s ideas about the residue on the wire differed from S4’s but the students did not discuss this, they focused on their agreement regarding the copper(II) nitrate solution and the connection to the evidence. S3 then disclosed that he was confused by two of the animations, animations 3 and 4, because of the role of water. He noticed that in animation 4 the molecules were not dissociated and water played no role, while in animation 3 the water played a role in “getting the copper”. S4 shared that water was acting like a messenger. S3: Yeah, so I thought because they are already dissociated because the silver nitrate gets dissociated in the solution, that’s what’s happening. So, 77 Daubenmire; Metacognition in Chemistry Education: Connecting Research and Practice ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2017.


the silver nitrate is already dissociated in the third one and then the silver gets attached to the copper, and the water molecules get the copper. S4 noted that S3’s observation made sense and then he asked S3, “The thing about the fourth one is that the nitrate bonds to the copper. Do you think that is happening or do you think it stays separate?” S3 responded that he did not believe that the nitrate was bonding to the copper. When the students were asked to share the features, they agreed on, the students reported that they both believed that the solution ended up being blue and that the solution was copper nitrate. They also both agreed that the residue was silver. However, S3 and S4 did not agree on how the silver was drawn toward the copper wire. S3 believed that the water molecules should not be attached to the silver and he thought this was depicted in animation 3, but that animation 1 showed that the water molecules were not attached. Interestingly, the designers did not design the animations to contrast over this detail. He also felt that electrons must be involved in the reaction, but he could not figure out how electrons were involved from the animations. S4 did not disagree with S3 over the role of water depicted in the animations, but he contended that animation 1 was better because the ion was attracted to the copper through the water. When they were asked to reach consensus, S4 admitted that he was very tentative about his animation choice and he was tempted to yield to S3’s selection. S3 reassured S4 that he was also unsure. S4 then responded, I feel like it’s very likely that the silver attracts to copper on its own, but also, I will kind of account for the residue, it appears to be some sort of oxide with a metal, which kind of makes sense because water’s oxygen could have bonded its oxygen with the silver molecules on it, but I’m also not very sure, I guess we would have to test the substance and see if there is any change in the water count. S3 continued to focus on the solubility of silver nitrate, he asked S4 if he believed that silver nitrate was soluble and dissociated. S4 responded yes. With this affirmation, S3 then stated: I believe the silver nitrate in the solution gets dissociated into silver and the nitrate and then copper is introduced. The silver gets attracted to the copper and some of the copper particles or molecules gets in the solution. The water molecules attached themselves to the copper and bring it to the solution and then, because there are nitrates and copper in the solution, it gives the color blue and it conducts electricity. Upon hearing S4’s explanation, S3 agreed and both students came to consensus that animation 3 was the best animation. From this collaborative session, we gain a sense of how students reflect on their own thinking. Both students admitted that they were not confident, but we notice that S4 was inclined to accept S3’s animation choice even though he continued to have misgivings about the makeup of the solid product that 78 Daubenmire; Metacognition in Chemistry Education: Connecting Research and Practice ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2017.


accumulated on the wire. Interestingly, he conveyed his dissonance to S3, but S3 did not offer a response, instead S3 shifted the focus to the feature he was uncertain about, that of the solution. S4 gave feedback and supported the dissociated model. This helped S3 reach resolution. Even though S4 agreed with S3, his uncertainty about the solid product was unresolved. He stated, “I will yield to his (S3’s) understanding.” During the debriefing S4 inquired about the appearance of the silver and wanted to know why it appeared black. This validates that he was still trying to rectify the physical appearance of the solid with the mechanism proposed by the animation in spite of his oral agreement that animation 3 was the best animation.

Conclusions Metacognitive tasks serve a useful tool in qualitative studies as they reveal not only a richer description of student understanding, but they also help us understand the nature of alternative conceptions that lead students to select the wrong animation and sometimes the best animation. For example, some students felt very strongly that water should not be involved in the redox reaction because water does not react. In addition, some students applied prior knowledge of rusting to account for the formation of the black substance on the wire. Since the accumulation was dark and did not resemble silver, some assumed it was an oxide of some kind. The metacognitive task reveals the challenging nature of the task and the struggle students have to apply past experiences, in this case of rust, to account for what is happening submicroscopically. In addition to generating insight into how students go about choosing the animation that best represents the evidence, the collaborative task allows us to see how students use their understanding to persuade others. In the three cases, presented in this chapter, we see that one student tends to be more willing to accept the explanations of the other. For example, S7 was willing to accept S6’s explanation for choosing animation 2, most likely because his reason for selecting animation 1 was not based on chemistry evidence, but on the length of the animation and the aesthetic color. S6 connected more to the evidence and to the balanced equations and even though he chose the wrong animation, he had stronger chemical reasons for doing so, which helped him persuade S7 to change. In the case of students S11 and S12, we see that even though S11 chose animation 1, he was not entirely certain that this was the best animation. S11 and S12 seemed to settle on animation 2 but both were still uncertain, which may mean that they were confused by what they saw. Finally, S4 conformed to accept the animation that S3 chose, in part, because the animations were similar in the representation of the silver accumulation, which was the one feature that S4 continued to doubt and he felt compelled to trust S3. S3, in turn, received support from S4 and once S4 agreed with him, there was no further discussion. Confusion may entice students to further investigate the particulate nature of redox reactions, ultimately resulting in them gaining a better understanding. Metacognitive tasks done individually or through collaboration with other students, offer opportunities for insight into how students reason and take in 79 Daubenmire; Metacognition in Chemistry Education: Connecting Research and Practice ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2017.


information from video sources. When students are asked to express their understanding in order to select an animation they benefit from articulating what they do not understand or what they lack confidence in understanding and they also benefit in recognizing their strengths. When they share their thoughts with others, they learn that they are not alone in questioning what they think about. The challenge is to get them to deeply discuss and question these aspects of chemistry and to not simply accept what the other student believes out of insecurity. It takes courage and perseverance to share metacognition, but doing so may help students develop their understanding of science and what it means to understand.

References 1.

Kelly, R. M.; Jones, L. L. Exploring how different features of animations of sodium chloride dissolution affect students’ explanations. J. Sci. Educ. Tech. 2007, 16, 413–429. 2. Kelly, R. M.; Jones, L. L. Investigating students’ ability to transfer ideas learned from molecular animations of the dissolution process. J. Chem. Educ. 2008, 85, 303–309. 3. Bussey, T. J.; Orgill, M.; Crippen, K. J. Variation theory: a theory of learning and a useful theoretical framework for chemical education research. Chem. Educ. Res. Pract. 2013, 14, 9–22. 4. Flavell, J. H. In The Nature of Intelligence; Resnick, L. B., Ed.; Lawrence Erlbaum Associates: Hillsdale, NJ, 1976; pp 231−235. 5. Schraw, G.; Crippen, K. J.; Hartley, K. Promoting self-regulation in science education: Metacognition as part of a broader perspective on learning. Res. Sci. Educ. 2006, 36, 111–139. 6. Rickey, D.; Stacy, A. M. The role of metacognition in learning chemistry. J. Chem. Educ. 2000, 77, 915–920. 7. Mathabathe, K. C.; Potgieter Metacognitive monitoring and learning gain in foundation chemistry. Chem. Educ. Res. Pract. 2014, 15, 94–104. 8. Kelly, R. M. Using variation theory with metacognitive monitoring to develop insights into how students learn from molecular visualizations. J. Chem. Educ. 2014, 91, 1152–1161. 9. Kelly, R. M.; Akaygun, S. Insights into how students learn the difference between a weak acid and a strong acid from cartoon tutorials employing visualizations. J. Chem. Educ. 2016, 93, 1010–1019. 10. Kelly, R. M.; Akaygun, S. Learning from contrasting molecular animations with a metacognitive monitoring activity. Educ. Quim. 2017, 28, 181–194. 11. Kelly, R. M.; Akaygun, S.; Hansen, S. J. R.; Villalta-Cerdas, A. The effect that comparing molecular animations of varying accuracy has on students’ submicroscopic explanations. Chem. Educ. Res. Pract. 2017, 18, 582–600. 12. Kelly, R. M.; Hansen, S. J. R. Exploring the design and use of molecular animations that conflict for understanding chemical reactions. Quim. Nova 2017, 40, 476–481.


Metacognition as a Construct for Studying How Students Learn from

Recommend Documents