Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

Metacognition in Science Education pp 133–163Cite as

The Role of Self-monitoring in Learning Chemistry with Dynamic Visualizations

  • Chapter
  • First Online:

Part of the book series: Contemporary Trends and Issues in Science Education ((CTISE,volume 40))

Abstract

This chapter explores ways to help students monitor and regulate their learning of difficult chemistry concepts. Dynamic visualizations can illustrate complex, unobservable phenomena such as bond breaking and bond formation. To develop robust, integrated understanding when learning with visualizations, students need cognitive understanding of the phenomena as represented in the visualization. They also need metacognitive skills to decide whether they understand the visualization and determine when to revisit the visualization to clarify their interpretations. We investigate the development of integrated understanding using the Technology-Enhanced Learning in Science (TELS) chemical reactions inquiry unit that combines the pedagogical support of the Web-based Inquiry Science Environment (WISE) with dynamic visualizations from Molecular Workbench. Our first study combining judgments of learning and explanation prompts revealed that visualizations may fail to add new ideas because they are often deceptively clear. Students typically overestimated their understanding of visualizations while gaining only superficial ideas. In our second study we refined both cognitive and metacognitive guidance to encourage students to distinguish and reflect upon their ideas. The results suggest that strengthening self-monitoring skills can overcome deceptive clarity and lead to coherent understanding. These studies suggest that the metacognitive skills of monitoring understanding of complex visualizations and determining when to return to the visualization contribute to the development of integrated understanding and can be supported by careful design of technology-enhanced instruction. The notion of metacognition applied in this study refers to monitoring and evaluating one’s understanding, to the regulation/control function of metacognition, and to the self-knowledge functions of metacognition.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD   109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

References

  • Ainsworth, S., & Loizou, A. (2003). The effects of self-explaining when learning with text or diagrams. Cognitive Science, 27, 669–681.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aleven, V., & Koedinger, K. (2002). An effective metacognitive strategy: Learning by doing and explaining with a computer-based cognitive tutor. Cognitive Science, 26, 147–179.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Azevedo, R. (2005). Using hypermedia as a metacognitive tool for enhancing student learning? The role of self-regulated learning. Educational Psychologist, 40(4), 199–209.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Azevedo, R., Guthrie, J. T., & Seibert, D. (2005). The role in self-regulated learning in fostering students’ conceptual understanding of complex systems with hypermedia. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 30(2), 87–111.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baker, L., & Brown, A. L. (1984). Metacognitive skills and reading. In D. Pearson, M. Kamil, R. Barr, & P. Mosenthal (Eds.), Handbook of reading research. New York: Longman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baker, R., Walonoski, J., Heffernan, N., Roll, I., Corbett, A., & Koedinger, K. (2008). Why students engage in “gaming the system” behavior in interactive learning environments. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 19(2), 185–224.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ben-Zvi, R., Eylon, B.-S., & Silberstein, J. (1987). Students’ visualization of a chemical reaction. Education in Chemistry, 24(4), 117–120.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bielaczyc, K., Pirolli, P. L., & Brown, A. L. (1995). Training in self-explanation and self-regulation strategies: Investigating the effects of knowledge acquisition activities on problem solving. Cognition and Instruction, 13(2), 221–252.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bjork, R. A. (1994). Memory and metamemory considerations in the training of human beings. In J. Metcalfe & A. Shimamura (Eds.), Metacognition: Knowing about knowing (pp. 185–205). Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bjork, R. A., & Linn, M. C. (2006). The science of learning and the learning of science: Introducing desirable difficulties. APS Observer, 19, 29.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (Eds.). (1999). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience and school. Washington, DC: National Research Council.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 (pp. 60–108). Hillsdale: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Buckley, B. C., Gobert, J. D., Kindfield, A. C. H., Horwitz, P., Tinker, R. F., Gerlits, B., Wilensky, U., Dede, C., & Willett, J. (2004). Model-based teaching and learning with Biologica: What do they learn? How do they learn? How do we know? Journal of Science Education and Technology, 13(1), 23–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chang, H.-Y., Quintana, C., & Krajcik, J. (2010). The impact of designing and evaluating molecular animations on how well middle school students understand the particulate nature of matter. Science Education, 94(1), 73–94.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chi, M. T. H., Bassok, M., Lewis, M., Reimann, P., & Glaser, R. (1989). Self-explanations: How students study and use examples in learning to solve problems. Cognitive Science, 13, 145–182.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chi, M. T. H., De Leew, N., Chiu, M.-H., & Lavancher, C. (1994). Eliciting self-explanations improves understanding. Cognitive Science, 18, 439–477.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chiu, J. L. (2010). Supporting students’ knowledge integration with technology-enhanced inquiry curricula (Doctoral dissertation). Available from Dissertation and Theses database. (UMI No. AAT 3413337).

    Google Scholar 

  • Clark, D. B., Varma, K., McElhaney, K., & Chiu, J. L. (2008). Structure and design rationale within TELS projects to support knowledge integration. In D. Robinson & G. Schraw (Eds.), Recent innovations in educational technology that facilitate student learning (pp. 157–193). Charlotte: Information Age Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Collins, A., Brown, J. S., & Holum, A. (1991). Cognitive apprenticeship: Making thinking visible. American Educator (Winter), 6–11, 38–46.

    Google Scholar 

  • Corliss, S., & Spitulnik, M. (2008). Student and teacher regulation of learning in technology-enhanced science instruction. In International Perspectives in the Learning Sciences: Cre8ting a Learning World. Proceedings of the 8th International Conference of the Learning Sciences (Vol. 1, pp. 167–174). Utrecht: International Society of the Learning Sciences, Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davis, E. A. (2003). Prompting middle school science students for productive reflection: Generic and directed prompts. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12, 91–142.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davis, E. A., & Linn, M. C. (2000). Scaffolding students’ knowledge integrations: Prompts for reflection in KIE. International Journal of Science Education, 22(8), 819–837.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • diSessa, A. (1988). Knowledge in pieces. In G. Forman & P. Pufall (Eds.), Constructivism in the computer age (pp. 49–70). Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dunlosky, J., & Nelson, T. O. (1992). Importance of the kind of cue for judgments of learning (JOL) and the delayed-JOL effect. Memory and Cognition, 20, 374–380.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Flavell, J. H. (1987). Speculations about the nature and development of metacognition. In F. E. Weinert & R. H. Kluwe (Eds.), Metacognition, motivation, and understanding. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gabel, D. (1999). Improving teaching and learning through chemistry education research: A look to the future. Journal of Chemical Education, 76(4), 548–553.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Georghiades, P. (2004). From the general to the situated: Three decades of metacognition. International Journal of Science Education, 26, 365–383.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Graesser, A. C., McNamara, D. S., & Van Lehn, K. (2005). Scaffolding deep comprehension strategies through point&query, autotutor, and istart. Educational Psychologist, 40(4), 225–234.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hammer, D., & Elby, A. (2003). Tapping students’ epistemological resources. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12(1), 53–91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hoffler, T., & Leutner, D. (2007). Instructional animations versus static pictures: A meta-analysis. Learning and Instruction, 17, 722–738.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hyde, J. S., Fennema, E., & Lamon, S. J. (1990). Gender differences in mathematics performance: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 107(2), 139–155.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnstone, A. H. (1991). Why is science difficult to learn? Things are seldom what they seem. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 7, 75–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kaberman, Z., & Dori, Y. J. (2009). Metacognition in chemistry education: Question posing in the case-based computerized learning environment. Instructional Science, 37(5), 403–436.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kali, Y. (2006). Collaborative knowledge building using the Design Principles Database. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 1, 187–201.

    Google Scholar 

  • Karpicke, J., & Roediger, H. (2008). The critical importance of retrieval for learning. Science, 319(5865), 966–968.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keil, F. C. (2006). Explanation and understanding. Annual Review of Psychology, 57, 227–254.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Koriat, A. (1997). Monitoring one’s own knowledge during study: A cue-utilization approach to judgments of learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 126(4), 349–370.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Koriat, A., Sheffer, L., & Ma’ayan, H. (2002). Comparing objective and subjective learning curves: Judgments of learning exhibit increased underconfidence with practice. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 131(2), 147–162.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kozma, R. (2003). The material features of multiple representations and their cognitive and social affordances for science understanding. Learning and Instruction, 13(2), 205–226.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kozma, R. B., & Russell, J. (1997). Multimedia and understanding: Expert and novice responses to different representations of chemical phenomena. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 34(9), 949–968.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krajcik, J. (1991). Developing students’ understandings of chemical concepts. In S. Glynn, R. Yeany, & B. Britton (Eds.), The psychology of learning science (pp. 117–147). Hillsdale: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lee, H. –S., Linn, M. C., Varma, K., & Liu, L. (2009). How do technology-enhanced inquiry ­science units impact classroom learning? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47(1), 71–90.

    Google Scholar 

  • Linn, M. C. (1995). Designing computer learning environments for engineering and computer science: The scaffolded knowledge integration framework. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 4(2), 103–126.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Linn, M. C. (in press). WISE insights for teaching and learning science. In Christopher Dede & John Richards (Eds.), Digital teaching platforms. New York: Teacher’s College Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Linn, M. C., & Eylon, B.-S. (2006). Science education. In P. A. Alexander & P. H. Winne (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (2nd ed.). Mahwah: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Linn, M. C., & Eylon, B.-S. (2011). Science learning and instruction: Taking advantage of technology to promote knowledge integration. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Linn, M. C., & Hsi, S. (2000). Computers, teachers, peers: Science learning partners. Mahwah: L. Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Linn, M. C., Davis, E. A., & Eylon, B.-S. (2004). The scaffolded knowledge integration framework for instruction. In M. C. Linn, E. A. Davis, & P. Bell (Eds.), Internet environments for science education (pp. 73–83). Mahwah: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Linn, M. C., Lee, H.-S., Tinker, R., Husic, F., & Chiu, J. L. (2006). Teaching and assessing knowledge integration in science. Science, 313, 1049–1050.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Linn, M. C., Chang, H.-Y., Chiu, J., Zhang, H., & McElhaney, K. (2010). Can desirable difficulties overcome deceptive clarity in scientific visualizations? In A. Benjamin (Ed.), Successful ­remembering and successful forgetting: A Festschrift in honor of Robert A. Bjork (pp. 239–262). New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lombrozo, T. (2006). The structure and function of explanations. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 10(10), 464–470.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lowe, R. (2004). Interrogation of a dynamic visualization during learning. Learning and Instruction, 14, 257–274.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mathan, S. A., & Koedinger, K. R. (2005). Fostering the intelligent novice: Learning from errors with metacognitive tutoring. Educational Psychologist, 40(4), 257–265.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mayer, R. E. (2001). Multimedia learning. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Mazzoni, G., Cornoldi, C., & Marchitelli, G. (1990). Do memorability ratings affect study-time allocation? Memory and Cognition, 18, 196–204.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McElhaney, K. W. (2010). Making controlled experimentation more informative in inquiry investigations (Doctoral dissertation). Available from Dissertation and Theses database. (UMI No. AAT 3413549).

    Google Scholar 

  • Minstrell, J. (1992). Facets of students’ knowledge and relevant instruction. In R. Duit, F. Goldberg, & H. Niedderer (Eds.), Research in physics learning: Theoretical issues and empirical studies (pp. 110–128). Kiel: IPN.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moreno, R., & Mayer, R. (2007). Interactive multimodal learning environments. Educational Psychology Review, 19, 309–326.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moreno, R., & Valdez, A. (2005). Cognitive load and learning effects of having students organize pictures and words in multimedia environments: The role of student interactivity and feedback. Educational Technology Research and Development, 53(3), 35–45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nakhleh, M. B. (1993). Are our students conceptual thinkers or algorithmic problem solvers? Journal of Chemical Education, 70(1), 52–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nelson, T. O., Dunlosky, J., Graf, A., & Narens, L. (1994). Utilization of metacognitive judgments in the allocation of study during multitrial learning. Psychological Science, 5, 207–213.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Paas, F., Renkl, A., & Sweller, J. (2003). Cognitive load theory and instructional design: Recent developments. Educational Psychologist, 38(1), 1–4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Palincsar, A. S., & Brown, A. L. (1984). Reciprocal teaching of comprehension-fostering and monitoring activities. Cognition and Instruction, 1(2), 117–175.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pallant, A., & Tinker, R. F. (2004). Reasoning with atomic-scale molecular dynamic models. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 13(1), 51–66.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Quintana, C., Zhang, M., & Krajcik, J. (2005). A framework for supporting metacognitive aspects of online inquiry through software-based scaffolding. Educational Psychologist, 40(4), 235–2244.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Richland, L. E., Linn, M. C., & Bjork, R. A. (2007). Cognition and instruction: Bridging laboratory and classroom settings. In F. Durso, R. Nickerson, S. Dumais, S. Lewandowsky, & T. Perfect (Eds.), Handbook of applied cognition (2nd ed.). New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rickey, D., & Stacy, A. (2000). The role of metacognition in chemistry. Journal of Chemical Education, 77(7), 915–920.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rozenblit, L. R., & Keil, F. C. (2002). The misunderstood limits of folk science: An illusion of explanatory depth. Cognitive Science, 26, 521–562.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (1991). Higher levels of agency for children in knowledge building: A challenge for the design of new knowledge media. The Journal of Learning Sciences, 1, 37–68.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schnotz, W., & Rasch, T. (2005). Enabling, facilitating, and inhibiting effects of animations in multimedia learning: Why reduction of cognitive load can have negative results on learning. Educational Technology Research and Development, 53(3), 47–58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schoenfeld, A. H. (1985). Mathematical problem solving. New York: Academic.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schoenfeld, A. H. (1992). Learning to think mathematically: Problem solving, metacognition, and sense-making in mathematics. In D. Grouws (Ed.), Handbook for research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 334–370). New York: Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schraw, G. (1998). Promoting general metacognitive awareness. Instructional Science, 26, 113–125.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Slotta, J., & Linn, M. C. (2009). WISE science: Web-based inquiry in the classroom. New York: Teachers College Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Steinkuehler, C., & Duncan, S. (2008). Scientific habits of mind in virtual worlds. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 17(6), 530–543.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tate, E. (2009). Asthma in the community: Designing instruction to help students explore scientific dilemmas that impact their lives (Doctoral dissertation). Available from ProQuest Dissertation and Theses database. (Umi No. 3383554).

    Google Scholar 

  • Thiede, K. W., & Dunlosky, J. (1999). Toward a general model of self-regulated study: An analysis of Items for study and self-paced study time. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 25(4), 1024–1037.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tien, L., Teichart, M., & Rickey, D. (2007). Effectiveness of a MORE laboratory module in prompting students to revise their molecular-level ideas about solutions. Journal of Chemical Education, 84(1), 175–181.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tinker, R. (2009). In visualizing to integrate science understanding for all learners (VISUAL), NSF discovery research K-12 grant proposal, #0918743.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tversky, B., Morrison, J. B., & Betrancourt, M. (2002). Animation: Can it facilitate? International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 57, 247–262.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • White, B., & Frederiksen, J. (1998). Inquiry, modeling and metacognition: Making science accessible to all students. Cognition and Instruction, 16(1), 3–118.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • White, B., & Frederiksen, J. (2005). A theoretical framework and approach for fostering metacognitive development. Educational Psychologist, 40(4), 211–223.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wiediger, S. D., & Hutchinson, J. S. (2002). The significance of accurate student self-assessment in understanding chemistry concepts. Journal of Chemical Education, 79(1), 120–124.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Williamson, V. M., & Abraham, M. R. (1995). The effects of computer animation on the particulate mental models of college chemistry students. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 32(5), 521–534.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wu, H., Krajcik, J. S., & Soloway, E. (2001). Promoting understanding of chemical representations: Students’ use of a visualization tool in the classroom. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(7), 821–842.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zahn, C., Barquero, B., & Schwan, S. (2004). Learning with hyperlinked videos – design criteria and efficient strategies for using audiovisual hypermedia. Learning and Instruction, 14(3), 275–291.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zimmerman, B. (1990). Self-regulating academic learning and achievement: The emergence of a social cognitive perspective. Educational Psychology Review, 2(2), 173–201.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zoller, U., Fastow, M., Lubezky, A., & Tsaparlis, G. (1999). Students’ self-assessment in chemistry examinations requiring higher- and lower-order cognitive skills. Journal of Chemical Education, 76(1), 112–113.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors thank the TELS research group, partners, and schools for their dedication to improving science learning. We would also like to thank Sophia Rabe-Hesketh for her help with the analysis. This material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under grant ESI-0242701. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Curry School of Education, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA, USA

    Jennifer L. Chiu

  2. Graduate School of Education, University of California, Berkeley, CA, USA

    Marcia C. Linn

Authors
  1. Jennifer L. Chiu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Marcia C. Linn
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jennifer L. Chiu .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. School of Education, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Jerusalem, 91905, Israel

    Anat Zohar

  2. Dept. Education in Science &, Technology, Technion-Israel Institute of Technology, Technion City, Haifa, 32000, Israel

    Yehudit Judy Dori

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2012 Springer Science +Business Media B.V.

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Chiu, J.L., Linn, M.C. (2012). The Role of Self-monitoring in Learning Chemistry with Dynamic Visualizations. In: Zohar, A., Dori, Y. (eds) Metacognition in Science Education. Contemporary Trends and Issues in Science Education, vol 40. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-2132-6_7

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation