Besides that, they establish sound planning and organization skills in ... As recommended by American Chemical Society (2012), key topics in learning ... teaching molecular geometry can assist students to learn this topic more independently ... indispensable elements in developing metacognition in learner: (1) knowledge ...
Conceptual and Theoretical Framework for Learning Molecular Geometry using Metacognitive Strategies Cheong Boon Yau and Rose Amnah Abdul Rauf Department of Mathematical and Science Education, Faculty of Education, Universiti Malaya Jalan Universiti, 50603 Kuala Lumpur, Wilayah Persekutuan Kuala Lumpur Abstract. Academically successful students definitely possess extensive knowledge base and well-planned strategies to self-assess their knowledge, as well as enrich and adapt their cognitive structures through an active acquisition of knowledge and learning process. However, students tend to lack the spatial intelligence to understand molecular geometry at the submicroscopic level, perceive irrelevance of chemistry learning to real-life situations and lack conceptual understanding on electron group geometry and molecular geometry, resulting in learning through rote memorization. Mastery of knowledge related to molecular geometry is significant as it serves as the “core” to properties of covalent compounds, which then serves as the foundation to other general chemistry knowledge. This paper shed light on the role of metacognition in learning chemistry, a pathway to foster a group of self-directed learners and creative problem solvers. The problems faced by students in learning chemistry, especially in molecular structures and molecular geometry such as the as the gaps were first identified by reviewing some past studies carried out by chemistry education researchers. The conceptual and theoretical framework are proposed in this study for implementation of metacognitive strategies as a form of scaffolding approach in learning molecular geometry. The metacognition is conceptualised as “meta-level thinking” to oversee the “object-level thinking”, provided with an example illustrating the problem-solving related to molecular geometry and the arguments from the cognitive perspective. Vygotsky‟s sociocultural theory as the precursor to foster metacognition constitutes the theoretical framework to underpin this conceptual framework proposed to emphasize the role of teachers in scaffolding students to develop metacognition in learning. This piece of work is significant to serve as the reference for chemistry education practitioners in developing curriculums and pedagogies, as well as instructional strategies to scaffold the students towards independent self-monitoring and planning learners in chemistry. Keywords. Metacognition, Scaffolding, Molecular Geometry
INTRODUCTION What are the attributes of students who can academically perform? Academically successful students definitely have constructed the extensive knowledge base. Nonetheless, they are wellequipped with strategies to self-assess their knowledge and enrich their knowledge base through active acquisition and learning process. Along the process of learning, monitoring process enables them to identify when they do not understand and they perform effectual modus operandi to improve their understanding at the right time. Besides that, they establish sound planning and organization skills in completing the project or solving the problems in the timely fashion. All the characteristics mentioned describe the characteristics of students which possess high metacognitive skills and knowledge. Fostering sound development of metacognition becomes one of the significant approaches to scaffold the academic learning of students, especially in chemistry education, to equip students with selfdirected learning capabilities supplemented with critical thinking and creative problem solving strategies (Dike et al.,2017 ; Amutha et al., 2016; Locatelli & Arrorio, 2013) . However, incorporating metacognitive ability within students is not an easy task, which is contemplated by many science education practitioners. This paper is intended to propose the conceptual and theoretical framework of metacognition in learning as well as solving problems related to molecular geometry. This paper is significant because it will explore the role of metacognition in learning molecular geometry and how metacognition can be fostered through the framework proposed in this paper. This paper will examine all the relevant researches and make recommendations for future research.
PROBLEM STATEMENT Chemistry is the branch of physical science dealing with the study of matter as well as its interactions in terms of structure, properties, composition and change at macroscopic, submicroscopic and symbolic levels (Chittleborough, 2014; Gilbert, 2010). In other words, the gist of learning
1
chemistry is all the phenomena and perception in this macroscopic world or surrounding can be reasoned by understanding their interactions at molecular and atomic level (American Chemical Society, 2012). As recommended by American Chemical Society (2012), key topics in learning chemistry can be divided into four main categories: conservation of matter and energy, behavior and properties of matter, particulate nature of matter and equilibrium and driving force. Molecular geometry based on Valence Shell Electron Pair Repulsion (VSEPR) model is one of the subtopics in chemical bonding which is essential in understanding the properties and nature of covalent molecules and organic chemistry. Mastery of this conceptual knowledge requires the student to be equipped with high submicroscopic level imagination skills on spatial intellectual capacity such as spatial visualization and orientation besides knowing trends of electronegativity in Periodic Table of Element (Gilbert, 2010; Makarious, 2017; Ogawa et al., 2009). In other words, students need to visualize threedimensional (3D) molecular models from two-dimensional (2D) chemical formulae and imagine what a molecule will look like from different perspective, which proves that this chemistry knowledge shows the degree of abstraction (Dike, 2017). Nonetheless, chemistry is a conundrum, rite of challenging passage for students. Students lack mental manipulation skills to understand molecular geometry at the submicroscopic level as molecules should be visualized in three-dimensional (3D) structure. The lack of spatial intelligence by students makes them less likely to visualize the molecular models from different facets (Broman et al., 2011). Most of the molecular structures are represented in two-dimensional (2D) figure in most of the lectures and drawing. The lack of spatial intelligence might be due to inappropriate learning methods adopted by students in school during the learning of chemistry (Saiedipour & Safari, 2014). Many students resort to rote learning, i.e. memorizing facts and formula rather than building firm conceptual networks and developing systematic and comprehensive problem-solving skills in learning chemistry (Cook et al., 2013). Also, there is lack of connectivity between learning chemistry and everyday life application, i.e. lack of relevance in learning (Butle et al., 2006). The atom, molecular structure, as well as interactions among them are seemingly abstract to our students (Levy et al., 2010). Most of the students deal with the matter at the macroscopic level in the surrounding, however, they could not relate them to the microscopic level of matter which is chemical bonding as this concept is abstract in nature. Metacognition, as developed from the Piagetian developmental framework, is defined as the awareness and understanding, as well as able to self-monitor and regulate one's own thought process (Thomas & Barksdale-ladd, 2000). Metacognition in learning chemistry, the central science of various scientific disciplines, is given exceptional attention as it refers to knowledge about when and how to deploy strategies during problem-solving processes in real life situations (White et al., 2009). A number of researches shown that metacognitive knowledge is required to scaffold students to learn chemistry in a more effective and efficient manner (Dike et al., 2017; Amutha & Sudha, 2016; Locatelli & Arorio, 2013; Haidar & Naqabi, 2008). The implementation of metacognitive strategy in teaching molecular geometry can assist students to learn this topic more independently and cultivate creative and critical thinking skills. Students who exposed to metacognitive strategies in learning are able to perform better academically in chemistry subject than those without metacognitive knowledge (Cook et al., 2003). Metacognitive knowledge aid students in refining their scientific knowledge and ideas which leads to the development of problem-solving skills (Ricky & Stacy, 2000). Students equipped with metacognitive strategies academically performed in learning chemistry than the low metacognitive aware student. This form of support works effectively when cognitive, metacognitive and affective components interact with each other to assure the success in chemistry learning are recognized (Amutha & Sudha, 2016). Students in Nigeria who used think-aloud metacognitive strategies in learning chemistry showed better academic result than conventional learning (Dike et al., 2017). On the other hand, students who are equipped with metacognitive skills and awareness are expected to exhibit academic self-efficacy, perceiving one as a capable learner to organize and execute the course of actions necessitated to manage prospective circumstances. (Hermita & Thamrin, 2015). The purpose of this paper intends to propose conceptual and theoretical frameworks for chemistry educators to foster metacognition in students in the learning of chemistry, specifically molecular geometry. The development of the conceptual and theoretical frameworks begins with delineation on metacognition proposed by various researchers, followed by integration of theory and practice into our frameworks. This paper shows the standpoint that chemistry educators need to understand the different cognitive processes reside in the students‟ minds, as well as scaffolding students in fostering metacognition through systematically designed teaching strategies, aligning with espousing of constructivism.
2
METACOGNITION Metacognition is simply “thinking about thinking”, “cognition about cognition” which shows the more sophisticated level of thinking as denoted by John Flavell, a notable American developmental psychologist (Flavell, 1976). In other words, it can be explained as what we know about our cognitive processes like conceptual understanding, thinking, problem solving and knowledge transfer. Even though the definition of metacognition looks simple and intuitive, however different researchers and science education practitioner work with different operational definitions of metacognition prior to their different theoretical facets. Brown (1987) argued that two major components constitute metacognition, namely metacognitive knowledge and regulation. Jacob and Paris (1987) claimed that metacognitive knowledge consists of declarative, procedural and conditional knowledge. Even though different researchers advocate different working definitions of metacognition, yet they stated two indispensable elements in developing metacognition in learner: (1) knowledge about cognition and (2) control over cognition (self-regulation). Knowledge about cognition comprises of declarative, procedural and conditional knowledge; control over cognition involves planning, monitoring and evaluating. It can be understood as self-understanding components in learning science. Students first identify what they know and what they do not know about the content knowledge and appropriate selection of learning strategies to enhance the understanding of scientific knowledge. Meanwhile, selfregulated learning refers to managing and improving one‟s cognition. This expertise involves planning, monitoring and evaluating which take place in sequential and recursive form, as well as reflective thinking on how to move forward with the current condition.
META-LEVEL AND OBJECT LEVEL THINKING Nelson (1996) differentiated cognition and metacognition using the term “meta-level” and “object-level” thinking as shown in Figure 1. Object-level thinking of students refers to cognitive functions dealing with external objects such as performing mathematical equations and recalling facts. In other words, object-level thinking requires students to deal with metacognitive knowledge, which consists of declarative, procedural and conditional knowledge. Meanwhile, meta-level thinking can be viewed as a „process‟ involved in constructing metacognitive knowledge. Hence, at meta-level thinking students are required to decide on the use of learning strategies and managing techniques to optimize their learning conditions and boost their academic performance, which involves the executive processes in the regulation of cognitive processes such as planning, monitoring and evaluating. According to Nelson (1996), students need to monitor for evaluating their learning conditions and use controlling to adjust the learning strategies, to bring them from where they are (present state of learning conditions) to where they supposed to be (intended state of learning conditions).
FIGURE 1.Graphic for Meta Level and Object Level Thinking (Adapted from Nelson, 1996) Nonetheless, no two learners possess the same way of thinking. It means that the different learning conditions of learners will result in different types of monitoring and controlling processes. As learning “metacognitively” requires students to plan a course of actions in order to accomplish the learning goals, this would be one of the challenges for science educators to infuse metacognitive strategies during the teaching and learning process. Thus, we argued that different ways of cognitive processes reside in people‟s minds need to be unveiled and depicted in order to know how students internalize and externalize during learning process. The findings of this study will provide the information to science educators to design the appropriate lessons to foster metacognitive strategies in the students.
3
COMPLEXITY OF MOLECULAR GEOMETRY In chemistry, molecular geometry is the three-dimensional representation or shape that a covalent molecule occupies in a space. Individual determine the shapes of molecules based on electron pairs (or electron groups) contributed by lone pair electrons or bonding pair electrons from surrounding atoms that surrounds the central atom. It can be predicted by Valence Shell Electron Pair Repulsion (VSEPR) Theory. Figure 2 shows the tables of various molecular geometries of covalent molecules based on VSEPR Theory.
FIGURE 2. Molecular shapes based on VSEPR Theory. Makarious (2017) listed the several steps that require learners or students to produce valid structure of covalent molecules prior to determination of molecular geometry based on VSEPR Theory as shown in Table 3. Table 3 Steps in producing valid structure of covalent molecules (Adapted from Makarious, 2017) Step Explanation Step 1 Identify the central atom which is the least electronegative one Step 2 Distribute the terminal atoms around the central one, as far apart from each other as possible in three dimensional spaces. Step 3 Calculate the total number of valence electrons. Step 4
Create single covalent bonds between the central atom and the terminal ones
Step 5
Distribute valence electrons to satisfy the octet rule for terminal atoms.
Step 6
Revise bond order and create double or triple bonds between the central atom and the terminal ones to satisfy the octet rule for terminal atoms. Assign any leftover electrons to the central atom where in most cases the octet rule could be violated for elements on the third period or below in the periodic table.
Step 7 Step 8
Calculate the formal charges for each atom and revise the structure accordingly to reduce the formal charge of each atom to fall between -1, 0, +1.
Step 9
Explain why specific molecules violate the octet rule.
Step 10
Position the most electronegative atom in a way that minimizes electrons‟ cloud repulsion (axial or equatorial).
Students would be required to draw the Lewis structure / dot-cross diagram / electron dot diagrams of the structure. After producing a valid structure of covalent molecules, students are required to determine the shape of molecules based on VSEPR Theory. In this study, researcher introduces the notions of electron group geometry and molecular geometry in aiding students to build mental representations and develop spatial intelligence to predict the shapes of molecules as shown in Table 4. Students are required to retrieve, organise and combine information to generalise the task or problems regarding the molecular geometry:
4
Table 4 Steps in determining the molecular geometry based on VSEPR Theory Step Step 1 Step 2
Explanation Determine the number of bonding pair and lone pair electrons, sum them up to obtain number of electron groups Derive the electron group geometry from number of electron groups
Step 3
Determine the hybridisation from electron group geometry
Step 4
The number of lone pair electrons indicate the molecular geometry
Step 5
Draw the actual representation of molecular shapes from Lewis structure / dot-cross diagram / electron dot diagrams
Students need to apply the concepts of formal charges and existence of any resonance structures to structure the molecular geometry as additional steps after producing the valid structure of covalent molecules as shown in Figure 5. Then, students need to validate the structure (dominant structure) by understanding electronegativities, bond angles, formal charges, axial and equatorial positions of atoms and bond steric energy. The ultimate step of structuring the molecular geometry of covalent molecules is predicting their polarities.
FIGURE 5. The resonance structure and formal charge of carbonate ion, CO 32-. Makarious (2017) emphasised the use of model to assist students to develop sophisticated level of three-dimensional mental representations of nano-scaled covelent molecules and high order thinking to predict the polarity of covalent molecules with high validity. The utilisation of model is vital as it visualises the entities and causal-effect relationship of a phenomenon take place in nature due to physical properties of covalent molecules (Gilbert, 2005). In particular, "this process of simplification and representation within the scope of human senses with the aid of models becomes of greater importance as, later in a sequence of inquiries, explanations for exemplar phenomenon are sought at the sub-micro level" (Gilbert, 2005, p.11). The spatial thinking and intelligence of students in learning molecular geometry could be developed using molecular visualisation model, i.e. model aids students to externally visualise the too complex phenomenon which is hardly to visualise internally (Hegarty, 2010). For example, students who have difficulties in visualising the phosphorus pentachloride, PCl5 with the bond plane angles of 120o and perpendicular angle of 90o could be improved with the usage of model or computer simulation programme as shown in Figure 6.
FIGURE 6. Molecular geometry of phosphorus pentachloride, PCl5. At the secondary school level, the use of periodic table to study the relative properties and periodicity of the elements based on the valence electrons is the extension of the utilisation of models in teaching molecular structures. Students must first determine the type of element and its electronegativity before deciding the types of bonds exist and structuring the geometrical shapes of molecules. In upper secondary chemistry, students are required to learn the concept of intermolecular forces such as permanent dipole-dipole interaction, permanent dipole-induced dipole interaction, instantaneous dipoles and hydrogen bonding that exists between molecules, as well as applying this knowledge to explain the physical properties of covalent substances at the bulk scale.
5
TOWARDS A CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK A conceptual framework is “the systems of concepts, assumptions, expectations, beliefs, and theories that support and inform your research" (Maxwell, 2005). According to Maxwell (2005), it depicts how a researcher “conceptualize” the research from his theoretical perspective and in the literature based on the context of research. It is a conceptual representation of research built for informing purpose based on systematic descriptive and critical review of relevant works of literature and it is not readymade (Maxwell, 2005). The conceptual framework for metacognitive strategies in learning molecular geometry is developed based on the assumption as delineated. This development of conceptual framework serves as the foundation of the construction for the theoretical framework for implementation of metacognitive strategies in learning molecular geometry. The conceptual framework begins with the review of the literature to pinpoint the problems faced by students in learning chemistry (either general, chemical bonding or molecular geometry), followed by the articulation of metacognition as an intervention for students in learning molecular geometry. Many researchers, educators, and students are inquiring to know why learning molecular geometry is crucial in chemistry. Molecular geometry is inseparable with the precedential learning of molecular structure (Uyulgan & Akkuzu, 2016). According to Levy Nahum and co-researchers (2010), learning molecular structure, the key to understanding molecular geometry serves as the foundation to explore other areas in chemistry such as the structure of matter, phase change, chemical reactions, thermodynamics and chemical reactivity. Learning molecular geometry involves the extensive network of prior knowledge such as types of chemical bonding, the valency of atoms and drawing Lewis dot diagrams. Based on the Lewis dot diagrams, students will predict the molecular geometry (shapes of molecules, bond angles, bond length and etc.) based on VSEPR theory. Based on the molecular geometry predicted, students can predict the polarity of molecules based on the attractive and repulsive forces due to electronegative differences, hybridizations and lastly intermolecular forces such as van der Waals forces (given the molecules are comparable in molecular size and similar surface area). In other words, knowledge of molecular geometry can be designated as a „core‟ to understand the nature of covalent molecules, requiring numerous fundamental chemistry knowledge before studying this and expecting students to extend the learning to in-depth understanding of molecular interactions at submicroscopic level, as well as using the knowledge to construct explanation for properties and interactions of substances in daily life (Cooper et al., 2012). The development of conceptual framework begins by first identified the problems or difficulty faced by students in learning chemistry as the knowledge gaps for future study. The problems in learning chemistry, chemical bonding or molecular geometry are summarised in Table 7. TABLE 7 Problems faced by students in learning chemistry, chemical bonding and molecular geometry Year Author Content 1995 Copolo & Learning molecular geometry involves mental manipulation of molecular Hounshell structures. Molecules should be perceived as three-dimensional structure. 2003 Robinson Students tend to misinterpret the microscopic properties of matter based on their macroscopic experience. 2006 Butle et al. Students perceived learning molecular geometry is not meaningful due to lack of relevance in daily life. 2008 Chittleborough & Understanding molecular structure and chemical bonding usually Treagust associated with the submicroscopic level of matter which is abstract in nature. 2009
Dhindha & Treagust
2013
Wang and Borrow
2015
Burrows & Mooring
Students have alternative conceptions on bond polarity of molecular structures, molecular shape, lattices, the polarity of molecules, intermolecular forces, and the octet rule. Performed diagnostic test and found that students have problems in understanding Valence Shell Electron Pair Repulsion (VSEPR Theory) Students have misconceptions on electronegativity, bond polarity, and covalent bonding.
However, why students tend to face difficulties in learning molecular geometry? The first problem identified faced by students in learning molecular geometry is the lack of mental manipulation skills to understand molecular geometry at submicroscopic level. Molecules should be visualized in three-dimensional (3D) structure. In learning chemistry, students construct their mental models through macroscopic experience, interpretation, and explanations (Abdul Halim et al., 2013). Spatial
6
intelligence is one of the meta-visual capability which includes three complementary skills: spatial visualization, spatial orientation, and spatial relation (Gilbert, 2010). Students are lack of spatial intelligence to visualize the molecular models from different facets (Broman et al., 2011). Most of the molecular structures are represented in two-dimensional (2D) figure in most lecture and drawing. The lack of spatial intelligence might be due to inappropriate learning styles adopted by students in school during the learning of chemistry as supported by research carried out by Saiedipour and Safari (2014). Many students tend to practice rote learning, i.e. memorizing facts and formula rather than building concepts and developing sound problem-solving skills in learning chemistry (Cook et al., 2013). Also, there is lack of connectivity between learning chemistry and everyday life application, i.e. lack of relevance in learning (Butle et al., 2006). The atom, molecular structure, as well as interactions among them are seemingly abstract to our students (Tan & Treagust, 1999; Levy et al., 2007). Most of the students deal with the matter at the macroscopic level in the surrounding, however, they could not relate them to the microscopic level of matter which is chemical bonding as this concept is abstract in nature (Chittleborough & Treagust, 2008). Some researchers articulated the role of metacognition in helping students to increase their understanding and effectiveness of learning chemistry concept (Ricky & Stacy, 2000). Table 8 shows some related researches on metacognition in chemistry and science education.
Year
TABLE 8 Research on metacognition in chemistry and chemical bonding Author Content
2000
Ricky et al.
2003
Cook et al.
2008
Haidar and Naqabi
2013 2016
Locatelli and Arrorio Amutha and Sudha
2017
Dike et al.
Metacognitive knowledge aid students in refining their scientific knowledge and ideas which leads to the development of problem-solving skills Students can be successful if they are taught how to shift their efforts from low-level to higher-order thinking. Emiratii high school students‟ understandings of stoichiometry and the influence of metacognition on their understanding Metacognition in Teaching Geometrical isomerism Students equipped with metacognitive strategies academically performed in learning chemistry than the low metacognitive aware student. Students in Nigeria who used think-aloud metacognitive strategies in learning chemistry showed better academic result
Secondary school students who adopted metacognitive strategies such as think-aloud and selfassessment could significantly improve their learning and academic performance in chemistry as compared to conventional learning method (Dike et al., 2017). They argued that teacher should be well-trained effectively utilize the metacognitive teaching strategies in teaching chemistry to assist students to learn chemistry better. Metacognitive skills serve as effective support for students which help them to recognize cognitive, metacognitive and affective components in learning chemistry. Student can better manage their cognitive skills and ability to identify their weaknesses which allows corrections to be made by constructing new knowledge (Amutha and Sudha, 2016). Besides that, students who are able to perform self-monitoring and self-regulation will learn chemistry more effectively. Students who equipped with sound metacognitive knowledge and skills (regulation) could foster the better understanding of chemistry as they continuously reorganize and refine their knowledge (Ricky & Stacy, 2000). Haidar and Naqbi (2008) emphasized the five metacognitive strategies awareness of cognition, planning, monitoring and self‐checking, self‐appraisal and engagement in task in learning chemistry. Planning was the most crucial used approach to evaluate student‟s success in showing how much they could understand the chemistry knowledge. They argued that students need to be taught metacognitive knowledge and skills in order to learn chemistry effectively (Haidar & Naqbi, 2008). Learning and problem-solving pertaining to molecular geometry requires students' cognition develop to reach formal operation stage, i.e. abstract thinking. However, most of the students in secondary level are still at the concrete operational stage. Abstract thinking and meta-visual capability are important in both learning and problem-solving in molecular geometry (Gilbert, 2010). Based on the literature reviewed, the first research gap identified is students have difficulties in understanding molecular geometry in macroscopic, submicroscopic and symbolic level; while second research gap is lack of mental manipulation skills in learning chemistry; and lastly lack of relevance to daily life in learning chemistry.
7
Fostering metacognition could be challenging rite of passage for all the educators. There is no single path forward and it depends on the context of learning. According to constructivist approach of learning, no two students learn and master the knowledge in the same way, as they possess different prior knowledge and construct the new knowledge on their own basis even though they are situated in the same learning environment with same pedagogical approach. We posited that each level of students (academically high, moderate or low achieving) perform differently on the tasks given. Academically performed students possess sound metacognitive strategies to aid them learn effectively and efficiently, but it is never an easy task to grow and consolidate metacognition in moderate and low achieving students. Nelson (2014) stated that most of the metacognitive instructions paid focus on surface level of concepts and skills, showing little or no real understanding of metacognition in learning. In other words, the metacognitive strategies should be transmitted to students from “concepts” to “skills” and “applications”, rather treated as memorisable information by students. Thus, we believe that students need to gain support from teachers to foster metacognition in learning. Besides that, educators need to overcome the major cognitive challenges of moving from concrete to formal reasoning stage, i.e. complete mastery of right-answer reasoning strategies as explained in Piaget‟s theory of cognitive development (Nelson, 2014). Hence, in this framework, the core of fostering metacognition begins with understanding the process of thinking of students. We suggested that the cognitive functions and processes need to be first elicited out and depicted by educators through metacognitive teaching strategies to understand the cognitive challenges faced by different level of learners. The “visible” thinking process of students will thus serve as the significant data and references for various educational purposes, such as taking them into account of designing metacognitive interventions, curriculum development and etc. Figure 9 shows the conceptual framework for this study.
THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK The theoretical insights of metacognition were depicted by James, Piaget, and Vygotsky (Fox & Riconscente, 2008). Research in metacognition informs chemistry teacher to determine the best practices as well as realizing the potential of fostering the metacognition in students to develop problem-solving skills. Developing a theoretical framework pertaining implementation of metacognitive strategies in learning molecular geometry requires the deep understanding of teaching and learning process, i.e. how teacher teaches and how students learn the knowledge. Instead of merely learning the teaching content and knowledge, students are expected to locate the connections between content knowledge and problem-solving in daily life or real-life applications. The proposed theoretical framework in this study is designed for secondary Chemistry education, especially upper secondary school chemistry educators, and learners. Figure 10 shows the theoretical framework for implementation of metacognitive strategies for learning molecular geometry and to serve as the frame of the central idea of this paper. We will delineate the key concepts and conceptualize them into the teaching and learning of molecular geometry, showing connections these two components based on the graphics throughout the paper. This framework is underpinned by educational theories from teaching and learning perspectives. The teaching perspective is based on the notions of scaffolding; while the learning standpoint originated from metacognition. Figure 10 depicts the theoretical framework for fostering metacognition in students in learning molecular geometry via metacognitive teaching strategies. The image presents recursive roles played by teachers to scaffold students in teaching and learning process, in this context, learning molecular geometry. The concept displayed in the role of teacher is teaching for metacognition, which means teachers think about how their teaching strategies will activate and develop students metacognition in the learning process. This illustration shows a form of reciprocity between teacher and students in pedagogical activities, i.e. mutual benefits gained by students in the form of developing the metacognition and by teachers in the form of feedback provided by students to improve metacognitive teaching strategies. Like any framework, there are some limits to looking at the implementation of metacognitive teaching strategies in learning molecular geometry using this approach. We will seek to explain this framework with supports while acknowledging the limits simultaneously. Each part of the theoretical framework will be illustrated in detailed with reference to Figure 10.
8
GAP 4 The infusion of metacognition based on understanding of cognitive processes of students
FIGURE 9.Conceptual Framework for this paper
FIGURE 10.Graphic for Theoretical Framework for Fostering Metacognition in Students in Learning Molecular Geometry via Metacognitive Teaching Strategies (Adapted from Kelley, M. & Clausen-Grace, N. 2007)
9
Educational Theories Underpinning the Framework The authors show advocate most content in this theoretical framework underpinned by Vygotsky’s sociocultural theory as the precursor to develop the metacognition in students. Vygotsky (1978) argued that social interaction contributes to the development of higher cognitive functions, in this case, metacognition. An important concept in relation to this concept is scaffolding, which refers to the gradual withdrawal of adult control and support as a function of children‟s increasing mastery of task. Another aspect of Vygotsky‟s idea is the zone of proximal development, which refers to" gap between what a given child can achieve alone, their „potential development as determined by independent problem solving‟, and what they can achieve „through problem-solving under adult guidance or in collaboration with more capable peers”. (Wood, et al 1976.). In time, children become more mature thinker through the process of internalization. They are capable of providing support for themselves. They learned not only how to get the task done but try to learn new problems. However, we need to understand that metacognition is not equated to learning or development, but it is associated with the conscious and deliberate regulation of learning and development process in an individual. In the context of this research, a theoretical framework is built to interrelate the learning theories and teaching practices, incorporation of metacognition element in teaching and learning molecular geometry as well as answering all the research questions interrogated as shown in Figure 5. According to Brown, there are two vital components in metacognition: metacognitive knowledge and regulation (McCormick et al., 2013). There are three constituent elements in metacognitive knowledge: declarative knowledge, procedural knowledge, and conditional knowledge. Declarative knowledge is personal or propositional knowledge about oneself as a learner. Procedural knowledge includes knowledge about strategies while conditional knowledge involves learner to know why and when to use the strategies. Another component in metacognition is self-regulation and monitoring, which involves goal setting, self-interrogating, paraphrasing, activating and recalling relevant prior knowledge, interconnecting new and previously learned knowledge, and summarizing to increase understanding during reading. Teacher implements the metacognitive teaching strategies as the "scaffolding" for students to develop their metacognitive abilities in learning chemistry. The metacognitive teaching strategies begin with the explanation and modelling. During the implementation, teacher continually observes and evaluate to make the adjustment on strategies implemented as well as based on the feedback from students. In other words, teacher refines the strategy used until it becomes fluent. This cycle of metacognitive teaching serves as the “scaffolding” to help students to learn to plan, monitor and evaluate as well as developing metacognition in learning. Metacognitive Teaching Strategies There are two concepts involved in metacognitive teaching strategies: teaching with metacognition and teaching for metacognition (Hartman, 2001b). We explicate the role of teachers and students in developing metacognitive skills and knowledge through the concept of teaching for metacognition, i.e. teacher think about how their teaching methodologies or instructions will initiate and develop their students. In this part of framework, the role of teacher in fostering the metacognitive development in students is to teach them through cyclical four stages including (1) explanation and modelling, (2) refining of strategy use, (3) fluent strategy use, and (4) self-assessment and goal setting (Kelley, M. & Clausen-Grace, N. 2007). Students need to be taught how to model and use metacognitive strategies in explicit ways to enhance their learning and academic performance (Haidar and Naqabi, 2008). In this framework, the teacher uses explicit teaching strategies to develop the metacognitive skills in students. Teaching students explicitly include direct instruction, modeling, explaining the advantages of using strategies and providing repeated opportunities for using the strategy in guided and independent practice (Scharlach, 2008). The modeling here can be discussed from two perspectives: (1) how teacher model his or her teaching strategies to develop the metacognitive capabilities in students and (2) how student model his or her skills to develop metacognition with the teaching strategies implemented. We would like to discuss the first perspective in this section. In this framework, we expect the teacher to model their instructional strategies to support the metacognitive development of students and make the students‟ thinking “visible”. Teaching for metacognition in this framework usually requires teacher plan, scaffold, reflectively question, provide timely feedback, model, explicitly explaining the strategy to help students to develop metacognition (Hartman, 2001a; Bransford et al., 2000). According to Bransford and co-researchers, the metacognitive teaching strategies modeled are student-centered which aim to elevate the engagement of learning to produce self-directed and regulated learners. Students are challenged with tasks with
10
increasing level of complexity that build on prior knowledge, which require them to deploy metacognitive skills in modeling their learning strategies and devising problem-solving approaches. Teacher can support the metacognitive development of students by providing students with instructions such as goal settings, strategic learning, error analysis, effective questioning, ideas organizations, graphic organizers and evaluating strategies (Zimmerman & Moylan, 2009). Besides that, metacognitive instructions can also make the students verbalize their thinking, i.e. “making their thought visible”. Sitko (1998) suggested the use of introspection, on-line thinking aloud protocols and retrospective interviews and questionnaires should be elicited in the classroom learning to realize this effort. Making students‟ thinking to be visible helps them to monitor their understandings, which hence improve their comprehension. As student think aloud, they internalize what they are saying, which ease the learning process to take place. Definitely, we could not affirm that the teaching strategies applied would effectively assist students in developing metacognition because each student has different preferences towards the choice of strategies, as well as the different cognitive structures, reside in the mind of students would require different types of strategies in helping them to foster metacognition effectively. Hence, teacher needs to adapt the teaching strategies accordingly in correspondence to the feedbacks and academic performance of students. In refining of strategy use, teacher makes minor changes so as to increase the effectiveness and efficiency of teaching strategies will benefit their students. Anyhow, both teachers and students are responsible for the refinery of strategies for teaching and learning. We posited that role of metacognitive teaching strategies in helping students to refine their learning strategies to learn molecular geometry better. During the refining process, students begin to reflect on their ways of learning and start identifying the missing criteria in order to move to the next level. Successive refinery of strategies will result in the use of strategy on a superficial level. The continuous and untiring practices of the refined strategies will eventually lead to “gelation” of strategy, or fluent strategy use. The aim of implementing metacognitive teaching strategies is to assist students to move towards the purposeful and automatic application of strategies in solving complex problems. Teacher is required to give time and more structured instructions and support the students to move towards the end of more fuller and richer understanding of strategies used. After several weeks of implementation of teaching strategies, students are now ready to reflect on the use of various strategy components. On the selfassessment and goal setting, teacher is required to minimally scaffold the students as compared to previous stages. In this stage, teacher structurally guides students to identify their own goals by choosing one area to enhance. Then, students can write a workable, multistep plan to improve the area identified. Scaffolding Scaffolding is a pedagogical approach that enables students to complete a task or accomplish goals assisted by more knowledgeable others such as teachers (Vygotsky, 1978). In the context of learning molecular geometry, scaffolding refers to the assistance and support provided by teachers in assisting students to construct the extensive knowledge base and developing skills necessary for learning, as well as monitoring one's learning conditions prior to improvement. In the context of problem-solving, this notion involves how students structure the process of devising and executing strategies in dealing with tasks assigned with guidance. Throughout the scaffolding process, students are able to internalize the guidance and support given until reaching fluent strategies used in regulating their own cognitive processes. In this framework, we suggested teachers model scaffolded instructions to assist students to become independent learners. This instruction includes directing students' attention towards learning goals, simplifying the tasks, modeling and demonstrating, actively ongoing diagnosis and assessment, and lastly the transfer of responsibility to deal with the tasks independently (Reiser, 2004; Puntambekar and Hubscher, 2005; Zydney, 2012). In other words, teacher can first show the process of problem-solving to students, and then step back to offer students guidance and support as needed. Students pay attention to important process in learning and problem-solving strategies (Reiser, 2004), as well as improving their understanding by engaging them in reflection (Davis, 2000). In this framework, we argued that the process of scaffolding should prompt students to “visualize” their thinking, before “thinking about thinking”. Scaffolding process enables teacher to understand the different processes of thinking reside in the minds of students, and teachers can facilitate and dynamically adjust the scaffolding to foster the metacognition within the students based on the difficulties exhibited (Hannafin et al., 1999). However, we argued that the scaffolding provided by teachers should be in correspondence to the cognitive challenges faced by students. Teachers are suggested to carefully design and distinguish the ways of scaffolding students to develop sophisticated
11
level of right-answer reasoning, which includes self-monitoring, paying attention to problem-focused reasoning and devising right-answer reasoning strategies (Nelson, 2015). Metacognitive Knowledge: Declarative, Procedural and Conditional Knowledge (Object-Level) Jacob and Paris (1987) claimed that there are three types of metacognitive knowledge: declarative, procedural and conditional knowledge. Declarative knowledge is a form of factual knowledge stored in memory or the knowledge gained by students through simple or complex cognitive processes such as conceptualizations and contextualizations. Procedural knowledge is about the “deployment of strategies”, i.e. the knowledge of designing and executing procedures or strategies, or action sequences to solve problems or “know-how”. As compared to declarative knowledge, procedural knowledge shows longer retention time, foster creative, reflective thought, promotes critical thinking and independent decision making in solving problems. Nonetheless, possessing requisite declarative and procedural knowledge does not guarantee the academic success of students. Hence, conditional knowledge is considered the essential component in the cognitive learning process, which refers to when and why to employ declarative and procedural knowledge. Sound conditional knowledge allows students to be flexibly select and apply the knowledge to achieve the goals. Schunk and Zimmerman (1998) denoted conditional knowledge as an integral part of self-directed learning. Our framework intends to identify, model and teach students to develop the metacognitive knowledge and skills to enable them to learn molecular geometry in a self-directed manner. In this paper, we emphasise three types of knowledge that must be possessed by students: (1) knowledge about the content-specific domain, in this case, molecular geometry needed for learning and problem solving, (2) knowledge about the management and organisation of knowledge in the course of learning and (3) knowledge of when, why and how to apply the knowledge in solving problem pertinent to molecular geometry, as well as how to improve the metacognitive capabilities on cognitive skills in enhancing the learning of molecular geometry more effectively. We will argue that students need to develop the cognitive models explicitly to actively add-in, modify, and restructure the knowledge network needed to learn molecular geometry resides in the mind aided with metacognitive teaching strategies applied. For example, in accordance to this model, we allow students to verbalize their thinking about what they do and do not understand about the knowledge of molecular geometry during the metacognitive teaching process, allowing them to explain how they understand the concepts taught in the lesson. Strong engagement to in this type of metacognitive thinking enables students to properly manage and actively constructing their knowledge. Moreover, students require this skill to perform self-reflection which allow them to improve the current learning conditions. In this theoretical framework, students first must be able to recognize the gaps and inconsistencies in learning, i.e. knowing what they know and what they do not know in the conceptual framework of the understanding of molecular geometries. The conceptual framework of knowledge of molecular geometry is built based on some fundamental concepts and propositional knowledge such as chemical bonding, the valency of atoms and electronegativity to propose the Lewis dot diagram of the molecules. Based on the Lewis dot diagrams, students will predict the molecular geometry (shapes of molecules, bond angles, bond length and etc.) based on VSEPR theory, hence which will hence move them forward to learn other fundamental knowledge of chemistry such as periodic variations in physical properties (effective nuclear charge, atomic/ionic radius, ionisation energy, electron affinity and etc.) as well properties of matter (phase change, deviation in non-ideal solutions, thermochemistry and etc.) (Wang and Barrow, 2013). In this paper, we would like to put forward our argument that each student possesses different structures of the network of concepts and prior knowledge formed throughout their learning processes and experience, as well as the difference in understanding and interpretation during the delivery of knowledge. It follows the notion of constructivism in learning, which no two students understand the knowledge in the same way. Undeniably, students; network of knowledge could undergo conceptual change and restructuring facilitated by various models and strategies such as argumentations and discussion with more knowledgeable others or teachers (Zhou, 2010). We hope to promote active construction, restructuring and modifications of knowledge framework reside in the minds of students through this theoretical framework proposed. This process requires students to equip themselves with sound metacognitive skills to develop these three types of knowledge. Metacognitive control and regulation: Plan, Monitor and Evaluate (Meta-Level) Planning the way to approach the learning task, monitoring the comprehension and evaluating progress towards the comprehension towards the completion of a task are three essential components in
12
metacognitive control (Chauhan and Singh, 2014). According to Brown (1987), there are three processes of regulation of cognition involved: planning activities, monitoring activities and checking outcomes. Planning activities prior to the undertaking of problems involve predicting outcomes, scheduling strategies and trials and errors. Monitoring activities include testing, revising and rescheduling's one strategy or approach for learning while checking outcomes involves evaluation of effectiveness and efficiency of an action or strategy prior to the outcome. Regulation of cognition is usually unstable, not always statable and relatively age-independent (task and situation dependent) (Brown, 1987). Macroscopic, microscopic, symbolic thinking (Object-Level) Johnstone (1982, 1983) proposed that learner should be able to distinguish three levels of representation of matters in the learning of chemistry namely macroscopic, submicroscopic and symbolic. Macroscopic level of representation refers to tangible and visible chemicals, which may or may not be part of the students‟ experiences; microscopic level refers to particulate level which can be used to describe the interactions at atomic, molecular and subatomic level; while symbolic level refers to pictorial, algebraic and computational representation of chemical reactions. Metaphors such as analogies, models, equations, graphs, diagrams, pictures, and simulations assist students to depict the scientific ideas, even though they are not literal interpretations nor real thing. This notion is in line with the constructivist approach in teaching chemistry, which the new scientific concepts which are unfamiliar to novice learner are linked to their prior knowledge through the metaphorical representations, which serves as the fundamental to further construction of new knowledge in future. Research shows that many secondary school students are facing the conundrum in transferring different types of representations at each level and transferring from one level to another (Treagust and Chittleborough, 2001). Hinton and Nakleh (1999) suggested the use of multiple representations simultaneously in learning chemistry, and the teaching of chemistry should show connectedness between three levels at the same time to develop the understanding different level of understanding of chemical representations as shown in Figure 11.
FIGURE 11.Different level of understanding of chemical representation Schraw and co-researchers (2006) identified the role of developing mental models and awareness of conceptual change in minds will promote the development of metacognition in science learning. In this framework, we hope to foster students‟ ability to show the interplay between the macroscopic, submicroscopic and symbolic level of cognitive functions in learning chemistry, with paying less focus on them to distinction between reality and representations. We argued the essential functions of three levels of thinking, a mental model, governed by metacognition in aiding students to solve the problems related to chemistry and, in this case, molecular geometry. Chittleborough and Treagust (2008) posited the difficulty faced by students in associating macroscopic nature of matter with the sub-microscopic level of representation which appears to be explanatory. Broman and coresearchers argued that students are less capable of using spatial intelligence to visualize the molecular models from different facets, which is considered as the sub-microscopic level of knowledge. To fill this gap, metacognitive teaching strategies proposed in this paper suggested the teaching strategies adopted should also aid students in developing students‟ capability in visualizing the molecular model to construct explanation to explain the physical properties of matter, as well as relating them to life experience and prior to problem-solving in real life conditions. Teacher can use metaphors such as analogy, simulations, and ball and stick models to aid students in accomplishing this goal. Nonetheless, besides supporting the development of three levels thinking in this framework, we argued that the functions of metacognitive skills and knowledge in supporting and governing the students‟ cognitive enterprise in helping them to solve problems pertaining to molecular geometry. In this metacognitive teaching framework, students are expected to use declarative, procedural and conditional knowledge to plan or devise strategies prior to problem-solving, monitor the progress and lastly evaluate the solutions
13
as devised. We also wish to explicate the relationships between three levels of representations to metacognitive knowledge which will be explained in the problem-solving model later.
Problem Solving Model in Molecular Geometry Students usually face difficulties in problem-solving are due to lack of knowledge of subject matter (Gulacar et al. 2013) and poor problem-solving strategies (Yuriev et al., 2017). The model of problem-solving in molecular geometry proposed in this paper is adapted based on the model of Dewey (1910) and Lee & Fensham (1996). Basically, this problem solving model consists of five stages: (1) understand the problem, (2) goal setting and awareness, (3) interpret the problem, (4) problem solving and (5) checking, which next stage is reversible to previous stage and vice versa as shown in Figure 12. Before we forward the discussion, we would like to argue the nature of the term “problem” in this context, which will hence define the “problem solving” in our further delineation of the model. According to Smith (1988), there is no consensus on the meaning of “problem” and “problem-solving”. Hayes (1980) defined the problem as “whenever there is a gap between where you are now and where you want to be, and you don't know how to find a way to cross that gap, you have a problem.”. Meanwhile, problem-solving was coined by Wheatley (1984) as “what to do, when you don‟t know what to do.” These two researchers try to interrelate the problem and problem solving, yet it admittedly implies two fundamental differences between two related concepts of routine exercises and novel problems (Bodner, 1991). To illustrate these differences, we routinely encounter tasks for which there is a gap to be filled using strategies devised. We would like to argue the difference between routine exercises and novel problems by the illustrating the level of confidence faced by people in dealing with the tasks. If one feels confident that he is able to know the way(s) to cross the gap, he is considered taking a routine exercise, not a novel problem. Bodner (1987) posited there is no distinct characteristic to clarify the task to be a problem, this is because the status of a problem is the subtle interaction between the nature of task and degree of individual who struggles to devise the solution for the task given. In this paper, we conceptualize the problem-solving strategies as “the ability of students to plan and devise appropriate answers and solutions to the tasks given”, regardless the tasks designed by teachers are routine exercises and novel problems. We argued that once the novel problem is solved, it will soon become the routine exercises for students to deal with similar or familiar tasks and it serves as the foundation to solve another novel problem. In a nutshell, in this paper, we focus on the development of “capability to solve the tasks” rather than “nature of the tasks designed”. The model of problem-solving pertaining to molecular geometry proposed is adapted from Dewey (1910) and Lee & Fensham (1996) because process flow of problem-solving is applicable to the nature of both routine exercises and novel problems related to molecular geometry. Based on Figure 7, students first need to understand the problem as a whole. The problem can be simple or complex, depending on the nature of the problem itself. Then, students can rephrase or simplify the problem statements to a more comprehensible form, or use symbols or diagrams to visualize the problem so that they could understand them better. Students can use think-aloud techniques to make their reading and understanding visible, record them down using words, diagram or symbols and internalize all the information to get the picture of problem clearer. Next, students need to set goals or subgoals prior to the problems to be solved, with the state or doubt of awareness of the difficulty of the tasks and attempt to solve the problems given. This step involves the self-regulated learning, which learner need to start to devise plan prior to goal-setting in problem-solving as well as having self-efficacy and motivation to solve the problems given (planning). Then, student needs to interpret the problem by assigning meanings to extracted information (declarative knowledge). After that, students can start the problem solving by retrieving rules and facts from memory(declarative knowledge), selecting appropriate strategies based on the relevant and important information (procedural knowledge and conditional knowledge) selected from first three processes and achieve goals and subgoals by implicitly and explicitly linking with information. Students need to monitor the progress of problem-solving by checking the comprehension of tasks and production of solutions (monitoring). Lastly, students need to check the solution produced is whether appropriate and cater the needs of tasks, which requires them to assess how well they have accomplished the tasks by using strategies selected and any corrections to be made to improve the solutions given. On the other hand, they can perform self-evaluation by identifying changes to be made to do better next time. (evaluation). Nevertheless, problem-solving is a complex process that involves many variables. There is no single model captures all the nuances of problem-solving. Hence, we suggested that students can model and adapt this problem-solving model in accordance with the nature of the problem
Metacognition in Solving Problem Related to Molecular Geometry: An Example 14
Metacognition in learning chemistry, the central science of various scientific disciplines, is given exceptional attention as it refers to knowledge about when and how to deploy strategies during problem-solving processes in real life situations (White et al., 2009). In this section, we illustrate how students deploy the knowledge of molecular geometry to answer the phenomenon of the effect of molecular structure on the solubility of molecular compounds, scaffolded by metacognitive strategies implemented. For example, a student would like to construct the explanation for the phenomenon of solubility of ethene glycol (HO-CH2-CH2-OH) and benzene (C6H6) in water and hexane. First, the student will first drop these two chemical substances into water and hexane to observe their solubility, which becomes the macroscopic level of representation in students‟ minds, i.e. the experience of the student. In this stage, the inquiry of student is stimulated which hence activate the metacognitive thinking of student to construct the explanation for this phenomenon. Then, the student needs to attempt to solve the problems by setting the goals to construct explanation to explain the solubility of ethene glycol and benzene in water and organic solvent and create the awareness of the level of difficulty to explain this phenomenon prior to his or her knowledge. First, student recorded all the observations such as “ethene glycol dissolves in water but not in organic solvent” and “hexane dissolves in organic solvent but not in water”. Then, he relates all the observations to knowledge and facts retrieved from his or her memory, starting from the keyword “solubility” and eventually the
FIGURE 12.Graphic for Proposed Problem-Solving Model for Molecular Geometry (adapted from Dewey(1910) and Lee & Fensham (1996)) . concept of “polarity” and “molecular geometry” retrieved from memory. To explain this phenomenon, students start interpreting and explicating the relationship between these three components. Based on the interpretation of relationships, students will figure out the strategies needed to construct explanation by studying the polarity of water, ethene glycol, benzene, and hexane by using the concept of molecular geometry. Along the process of drawing the molecular structures, he monitors the comprehension of the problem-solving strategies of the tasks until the polarity of each molecule is determined from the drawing. Hence, student constructs the explanation of phenomenon using the “like dissolves like” rule. Throughout the problem-solving process, the role of the teacher is to provide scaffolded instruction to elicit the process of thinking reside in the mind of students and offering support and assistance to students to improve the problem-solving strategies as needed based on the “visible” thinking verbalized by students.
15
CONCLUSION We proposed the conceptual framework and theoretical framework for chemistry teachers to implement metacognitive teaching strategies to foster metacognition in students to learn molecular geometry based on the literature reviews. It could prove helpful if chemistry educator could adapt this framework and integrate it into classroom teaching and learning process of chemistry in context. We believe that students who frequently reflect on their own thinking and learning progress will lead them to become self-directed learners. If a student can develop the metacognitive skills within himself or herself, it signifies the success of educator to assist the student to become an independent, creative and self-directed learner. Finally, further research and discussion are needed on fostering metacognition in learning molecular geometry by illustrating the process of thinking resides in students‟ minds, so that effective methodologies can be designed and executed by teachers in the classroom and further assess the strategies this overall framework proposes here. The findings of the future study can serve as the reference for the curriculum and lesson design of molecular geometry based on the understanding of high, moderate and low-achieving students.
REFERENCES 1.
2. 3. 4.
5.
6. 7.
8.
9.
10.
11. 12.
13.
14.
15.
Abdul Halim, N.D., Ali., M.B., Yahaya, N., and Mohamad Said, M.N.H. (2013). Mental model in learning chemical bonding: A preliminary study. Procedia – Social and Behaviour Sciences. American Chemical Society. (2012). ACS guidelines and recommendations for the teaching of high school chemistry. Amutha, S., and Sudha, A. (2016). Metacognitive awareness of tertiary level chemistry students. Caribbean Journal of Science and Technology, 4, 914-919. Bodner G.M. (1987) The Role of Algorithms in Teaching Problem Solving. Journal of Chemical Education, 64, 513-514. Bodner, G. M. (1991) “Toward a Unified Theory of Problem Solving: A View from Chemistry.” In Toward a Unified Theory of Problem Solving: Views From the Content Domain, M. U. Smith, ed. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Bransford, J., Sherwood, R., Vye, N., and Rieser J. (1986). Teaching thinking and problemsolving. Research foundations. American Psychologist, 41, 1078-1089. Broman, K., Ekborg, M., & Johnels, D. (2011). Chemistry in crisis? Perspectives on teaching and learning in Swedish upper secondary school. Nordic Studies in Science Education, 1, 4360. Brown, A. (1987). Metacognition, executive control, self-regulation, and other more mysterious mechanisms. In F. E. Weinert & R. H. Kluwe, (eds.) Metacognition, motivation, and understanding. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. 65-116. Bulte, A. M. W., Westbroek, H. B., de Jong, O., & Pilot, A. (2006). A research approach to designing chemistry education using authentic practices as contexts. International Journal of Science Education, 28(9), 1063-1086. Burrows, N. L., & Mooring, S. R. (2015). Using concept mapping to uncover students‟ knowledge structures of chemical bonding concepts. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 16(1), 53-66. doi:10.1039/c4rp00180j. Chauhan, A., and Singh, N. (2014). Metacognition: A Conceptual, Framework. International Journal of Education and Psychological Research, 3(3), 21-22. Chittleborough, G. (2014). The development of theoretical frameworks for understanding and learning chemistry. In Devetak, I., and Glazar, S.A. (eds.), Learning with Understanding in the Chemistry Classroom, doi: 10.1007/978-94-007-4366-3_2, 25-40. Chittleborough, G., & Treagust, D. F. (2008). Correct interpretation of chemical diagrams requires transforming from one level of representation to another. Research in Science Education, 38(4), 463–482. Cook, E., Kennedy, E., and McGuire, S.Y. (2013). Effect of teaching metacognitive earning strategies on performance in general chemistry courses. Journal of Chemical Education, 90(8), 961-967. Cooper, M. M., Underwood, S. M., & Hilley, C. Z. (2012). Development and validation of the implicit information from Lewis structures instrument (IILSI): Do students connect structures with properties?. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 13(3), 195–200.
16
16. Copolo, C. F., & Hounshell, P. B. (1995). Using three-dimensional models to teach molecular structures in high school chemistry. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 4(4), 295305. 17. Cross, D. R. & Paris, S. G. (1988). Developmental and instructional analyses of children‟s metacognition and reading comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80(2), 131142. 18. Davis E. A., (2000), Scaffolding students‟ knowledge integration: prompts for reflection in KIE, International Journal of Science Education, 22, 819–837. 19. Dewey, J.(1910) How to Think Boston: Heath. 20. Dhindsa, H. S., & Treagust, D. F. (2009). Conceptual understanding of Bruneian tertiary students: Chemical bonding and structure. Brunei International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education (BIJSME), 1(1), 33-51. 21. Dike, J.W., Mumuni, A.A.O., Chinda, Q. (2017). Metacognitive teaching strategies on secondary school students academic performance. International Journal of Computational Engineering Research (IJCER), 7 (1), 14-20 22. Flavell, J. H (1976). Metacognitive Aspects of Problem Solving In L.B Resnick (eds) The Nature of Intelligence. Hillsdale NJ: Erlbaum Federal Republic of Nigeria (FRN), (2014).National Policy on Education 5th Ed Lagos: NERDC 23. Flavell, J. H. (1979). Metacognition and Cognitive Monitoring. a new area of cognitive developmental inquiry. American Psychologist, 34(10), 906-911. 24. Fox, E., & Riconscente, M. (2008). Metacognition and self-regulation in James, Piaget, and Vygotsky. Educational Psychology Review doi:10.1007/s10648-008-9079-2. 25. Gilbert, J.K. (2010). The role of visual representations in the learning and teaching and learning styles of the students of Payam Noor University in Dezful, Iran. World Applied Programming, 4(2), 94-96. 26. Gulacar O., Overton T., Bowman C. R. and Fynewever H., (2013), A novel code system for revealing sources of students‟difficulties with stoichiometry Chemistry Education Research and Practice., 14, 507–515. 27. Haidar, A.H., & Naqbi, A.K. (2008). Emiratii high school students‟ understandings of stoichiometry and the influence of metacognition on their understanding. Research in Science and Technology Education, 26(2), 215-237. 28. Hannafin M., Land S. and Oliver K., (1999), Open learning environments: foundations, methods, and models, in ReigeluthC. M. (ed.), Instructional design theories and models, Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum, 2, pp. 115–140. 29. Hartman, H.J. (2001a). Developing students‟ metacognitive knowledge and skills. In H.J. Hartman (Ed.). Metacognition in learning and instruction: Theory, research, and practice. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer. P. 33-68. 30. Hartman, H.J. (2001b). Teaching metacognitively. In H.J. Hartman (Ed.). Metacognition in learning and instruction: Theory, research, and practice. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer. P. 149-169. 31. Hayes, J. (1980). The Complete Problem Solver. Philadelphia: The Franklin Institute. 32. Hennessey, M. G. (1999). Probing the dimensions of metacognition: Implications for conceptual change teaching-learning. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Boston, MA. 33. Hermita, M., and Thamrin, W.P. (2015). Metacognition toward academic self-efficacy among Indonesian Private University Scholarship students. Procedia-Social and Behavioural Science, 171. 1075-1080. 34. Hinton, M.E., and Nakhleh, M.B. (1999). Students' Microscopic, Macroscopic, and Symbolic Representations of Chemical Reactions. The Chemical Educator, 4 (5), 158-167. 35. Jacobs, J. E., & Paris, S. G. (1987). Children‟s metacognition about reading: Issues in definition, measurement, and instruction. Educational Psychologist, 22, 255-278. 36. Johnstone, A. H. (1982). Macro- and micro-chemistry. School Science Review, 64(227), 377– 379. 37. Johnstone, A. H. (1993). The development of chemistry teaching: A changing response to changing demand. Journal of Chemical Education, 70(9), 701–705. 38. Kelley, M. & Clausen-Grace, N. (2007) Comprehension shouldn’t be silent, International reading association, Newark. 39. Kuhn, D. & Dean, D. (2004). A bridge between cognitive psychology and educational practice. Theory into Practice, 43(4), 268-273.
17
40. Lai. E.R. (2011). Metacognition: A literature review. Pearson. A research report retrieved from http://images.pearsonassessments.com/images/tmrs/Metacognition_Literature_Review_Final. pdf 41. Lee K. L., Fensham P. (1996) General Strategy for Solving High School Electrochemistry Problems. International Journal of Science Education, 18. 543-555 42. Levy Nahum, T., Hofstein, A., Mamlok-Naaman, R., & Bar-Dov, Z. (2004). Can final examinations amplify students' misconceptions in chemistry?. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 5(3), 301-325. 43. Levy Nahum, T., Mamlok-Naaman, R., Hofstein, A., & Taber, K. (2010). Teaching and learning the concept of chemical bonding. Studies in Science Education, 46(2), 179-207. 44. Locatelli, S., and Arrorio, A. (2013). Metacognition and chemical education: an experience in teaching geometrical isomerism. Natural Science Education, 2(37). 18-26 45. Makarious, N.N. (2017). Designing an educative curriculum unit for teaching molecular geometry in high school chemistry. Ph.D. Executive Position Paper. University of Delaware. 46. Martinez, M. E. (2006). What is metacognition? Phi Delta Kappan, 696-699. 47. Maxwell, J.A. (2005). Qualitative research design: an interactive approach. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. 48. McCormick, C.C., Dimmit, C., and Sullivan F.R., (2013). In book: Handbook of Psychology: Volume 7 - Educational Psychology, Edition: 2nd, Chapter: 4, Publisher: Wiley, Editors: Willima M. Reynolds, Gloria E. Miller, Irving B. Weiner, pp.69-97 49. Nelson, T. O. (1996). Consciousness and metacognition. American Psychologist, 51, 102–116 50. Nelson, C. E. (2012). “Why Don‟t Undergraduates Really „Get‟ Evolution? What Can Faculty Do?” Chapter 14 in Karl S. Rosengren, E. Margaret Evans, Sarah K. Brem, and Gale M. Sinatra (Editors.) Evolution Challenges: Integrating Research and Practice in Teaching and Learning about Evolution. Oxford University Press.311-347. 51. Nelson, C. E. (2015). Fostering metacognition: right answer focused versus epistemological transgressive. Retrieved from http://www.improvewithmetacognition.com/fosteringmetacognition-right-answer-focused-versus-epistemologically-transgressive/ 52. Ogawa, H., Fujii, H., & Sumida, M. (2009). Development of a lesson model in chemistry through “Special Emphasis on Imagination leading to Creation”(SEIC). The Chemical Education Journal (CEJ), 13(1), 1 –6. 53. Puntambekar S. and Hubscher R., (2005), Tools for scaffolding students in a complex learning environment: what have we gained and what have we missed? Educational Psychology, 40, 1– 12 54. Reiser B. J., (2004), Scaffolding complex learning: themechanismsof structuring and problematizing student work, Journal of the Learning Sciences.,13, 273–304.Rhee R. J., (2007), 55. Ricky, D., & Stacy, A.M. (2000). The role of metacognition in learning chemistry. Journal of Chemical Education, 77(7). 915-920. 56. Robinson, W. (2003). Chemistry problem-solving: Symbol, macro, micro, and process aspects. Journal of Chemical Education, 80(9), 978-982 57. Saeidipour, B., and Safari, E. (2014). The Relationship between spatial intelligence of science: An introduction. Asia-Pacific Forum on Science Learning and Teaching, 11(1), 1-19. 58. Scharlach, T. (2008). START comprehending: Students and teachers actively reading text. Reading Teacher, 62, 20-31 59. Schraw, G., Crippen, K. J., & Hartley, K. (2006). Promoting self-regulation in science education: Metacognition as part of a broader perspective on learning. Research in Science Education, 36, 111-139. 60. Sitko, B. (1998). Knowing how to write: Metacognition and writing instruction. In D. J. Hacker, J. Dunlosky and A.C. Graesser (Eds.) Metacognition in educational theory and practices, Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. 93-115. 61. Smith, M. U. (1988). Toward a Unified Theory of Problem Solving: a View from Biology. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association in New Orleans. 62. Thomas, F.K., and Barksdale-ladd, M.A. (2000). Metacognitive processes: Teaching strategies is literacy education course. Reading Psychology, 21, 67-84. 63. Uyulgan, M.A. & Akkuzu, N. (2016). An insight towards conceptual understanding: looking into the molecular structures of compounds. Acta Didactica Napocensia, 9(4), 49-70
18
64. Vygotsky L. S., (1978), Interaction between learning and development, in Cole M., JohnSteiner V., Scribner S. and Souberman E. (ed.), Mind in society the development of higher psychological processes, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, pp. 79–91. 65. Wang, C. Y., & Barrow, L. H. (2013). Exploring conceptual frameworks of models of atomic structures and periodic variations, chemical bonding, and molecular shape and polarity: a comparison of undergraduate general chemistry students with high and low levels of content knowledge. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 14(1), 130–146. 66. Wheatley, G. H. Problem Solving in School Mathematics. MEPS Technical Report 84.01, School Mathematics and Science Center, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN, 1984. 67. White, B., & Frederiksen, J., & Collins, A. (2009) The interplay of scientific inquiry and. metacognition: More than a marriage of convenience. In D. Hacker, J. Dunlosky, & A. Graesser (eds.), Handbook of Metacognition in Education, Routledge. 175–205. 68. Wood, D., Bruner, J., & Ross, G. (1976). The role of tutoring in problem solving. Journal of Child Psychology and Child Psychiatry, 17, 89−100. 69. Yuriev, E., Naidu, S., Schembri, L.S. and Short, J.L. (2017). Scaffolding the development of problem-solving skills in chemistry: guiding novice out of dead ends and false starts. Chemistry Education Research and Practice,18, 486-504. 70. Zhou, G. (2010). Conceptual Change in Science: A Process of Argumentation. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education, 2010, 6(2), 101-110 71. Zimmerman, B.J., & Moylan, A.R. (2009). Self-Regulation: Where Metacognition and Motivation Intersect. Dalam Hacker, D.J. (Eds.), Handbook of Metacognition in Education (hlm. 299-316). New York: Routledge. 72. Zydney J. M., (2012), Scaffolding, in Seel N. M. (ed.), Encyclopedia of the Sciences of Learning, Boston, MA: Springer US, 2913–2916
19
