What Happens When Chemical Compounds Are Added to Water? An Introduction to the Model-Observe-Reflect-Explain (MORE) Thinking Frame

Mattox, Adam C.; Reisner, Barbara A.; Rickey, Dawn

doi:10.1021/ed083p622

Cited by 22 publications

(35 citation statements)

References 11 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…All students interviewed completed a laboratory module entitled "What happens when chemical compounds are added to water?" (subsequently referred to as the "dissolution module"), in which they investigated the molecular-level behaviour of compounds dissolved in water (Mattox, Reisner, & Rickey, 2006). Students measured the conductivities of various aqueous solutions, including sodium chloride (NaCl(aq)).…”

Section: Participants and Instructional Contextsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…As part of the dissolution module, each student submitted an initial model (as a prelaboratory assignment) and a final refined model of their molecular-level views of aqueous solutions (Mattox et al, 2006;Tien et al, 2007). We assessed students' understanding of the molecular-level behaviour of ionic and molecular compounds dissolved in water prior to the interview via the final refined laboratory models they constructed for the dissolution module at the beginning of their first-semester general chemistry courses.…”

Section: Pre-interview Data and Analysesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Fourteen RU students were given "conductivity prompts" in their initial model assignments (see Appendix B) that queried students about their expectations regarding the conductivity measurements they would take during the dissolution module. These students' responses were compared with those of RU students (n = 28) who completed the original model assignment, which did not contain any such prompts (Mattox et al, 2006;Tien et al, 2007). These RU students were enrolled in honours and chemistry majors' sections of a first-semester general chemistry laboratory course, and one section of each type was given the prompts.…”

Section: Additional Studies Of the Effects Of Contextmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Effects of Context on Students’ Molecular‐Level Ideas

Teichert

Tien

Anthony

et al. 2008

International Journal of Science Education

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In the studies reported here, we investigate the effects of context on students' molecular-level ideas regarding aqueous solutions. During one-on-one interviews, 19 general chemistry students recruited from a two-year community college and a research university in the United States were asked to describe their molecular-level ideas about various aqueous solutions in the contexts of conductivity and boiling-point (BP) elevation. Results indicate that context is important for determining the molecular-level ideas that students express. Specifically, students were significantly more likely to draw pictures of aqueous NaCl as separated ions in the conductivity context compared with the BP elevation context, for which they more often drew "molecular" NaCl. This phenomenon was particularly striking because the students drew molecular-level NaCl(aq) pictures in the BP elevation context just minutes after completing the identical task in the context of conductivity. Additional data from laboratory assignments and course examinations further indicate that, even if students are able to correctly represent the molecular level in some contexts, their knowledge may remain inert in slightly different contexts. The results emphasise the importance of the context dependence of molecular-level ideas and have implications for designing instruction in which students develop robust, coherent understandings that they can apply appropriately in new contexts.

show abstract

Section: Participants and Instructional Contextsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Pre-interview Data and Analysesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Additional Studies Of the Effects Of Contextmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Effects of Context on Students’ Molecular‐Level Ideas

Teichert

Tien

Anthony

et al. 2008

International Journal of Science Education

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Several different kinds of assignments have been used to promote metacognition in chemistry learning (Rickey & Stacy, 2000). These include the deliberate use of a thinking frame (Mattox, Reisner, & Rickey, 2006), student documentation of thinking through heuristics such as concept maps (Francisco, Nakhleh, Nurrenbern, & Miller, 2002; Novak & Gowin, 1984; Selvaratnam & Canagaratna 2008), student work in extended problem‐solving situations (Cooper, Sandi‐Urena, & Stevens, 2008b) and work in using extended writing within laboratory work (Burke, Greenbowe, & Hand, 2006; Greenbowe & Hand, 2005; Hand, Wallace, & Yang, 2004; Walker, Sampson, & Zimmerman, 2011; Wink & Choe, 2008). Larson and Middlecamp (2003) also reported on how pre‐elementary education majors benefited from activities that allowed for additional reflection on course topics within a companion course to a general education chemistry course.…”

Section: Theoretical Frameworkmentioning

confidence: 99%

Student learning through journal writing in a general education chemistry course for pre‐elementary education majors

Dianovsky

Wink

2012

Science Education

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper describes research on the use of journals in a general education chemistry course for elementary education majors. In the journals, students describe their understanding of a topic, the development of that understanding, and how the topic connects to their lives. In the process, they are able to engage in reflection about several things. How the frequency and nature of those reflections relate to overall course outcomes, the content and quality of final exam essays on those topics, and student metacognition in problem solving are the basis of this paper. The following types of reflections were identified in the journals: action, prior knowledge, project ideas, text resources, classroom events, and monitoring of knowledge. A multiple linear regression analysis of the students' final course grade earned versus student grade point average (GPA), composite score on the ACT exam, the number of reflections made for each reflection type, and the total number of reflections made throughout all journals was used to determine the significance of the type of reflections made by students in relationship to their chemistry content understanding. The results indicate that students' prior GPA and their reflections on classroom events and their own knowledge correlate positively and significantly with a final course grade. However, student reflections on text resources have a negative and significant correlation with the final course grade. In addition, students' journal entries and final exam responses were coded for similarities in writing. The results indicate that those students who had strong similarities in writing for both their journal and final exam exhibited significantly stronger content understanding on the final exam essay. Finally, metacognition in problem solving, assessed with the Metacognitive Activities Inventory (MCA‐I) survey of metacognition, was also positively correlated with the types of reflection that correlate with overall course performance. © 2012 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Sci Ed 96:543–565, 2012

show abstract

“…Research has shown that instructional paradigms in which students fi rst work to develop general rules or models, and expert ideas are presented only after students complete their investigations, promote deep understandings that facilitate transfer of learning [e.g., (6)]. Research in the context of another MORE module (7) indicates that student engagement in three thinking processes is strongly correlated with subsequent successful reasoning in new contexts. These include (i) constructing molecularlevel models that are consistent with experimental evidence, (ii) refl ecting accurately and completely on how one's own molecularlevel ideas changed relative to previous ideas, and (iii) identifying evidence to justify model refi nements as part of the refl ection on how and why ideas changed.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Discovering Nanoscience

Rickey

2012

Science

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Exploring Gold Nanoparticles, the IBI Prize-winning module, guides students' construction and evidence-based refi nement of their personal models of gold nanoparticles.T he President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology stresses the importance of adoption of empirically validated instructional practices, such as inquirybased laboratory experiences, in higher education (1). The Exploring Gold Nanoparticles laboratory module employs an inquiry-based instructional tool called the Model-ObserveRefl ect-Explain (MORE) Thinking Frame (2) to support student construction of evidencebased models of nanoparticles in introductory chemistry courses. Using MORE has been shown to enhance students' understanding of the nature of science and of scientific models compared with traditional teaching methods (3,4).The MORE Thinking Frame scaffolds students' thinking as they work to construct and evaluate evidence-based, molecular and/or nano-level models of chemical systems. A MORE module begins with a written, prelaboratory assignment (5) that prompts each student to describe his or her ideas about the system under study from macroscopic and molecular-level perspectives. This serves as the student's initial model. In writing their models, students are encouraged to refl ect upon and articulate their own ideas, rather than to look up scientists' ideas. Next students conduct experiments in the laboratory (observe) and are explicitly prompted to refl ect upon the implications of their observations as they relate to their initial model ideas. Students then refi ne their models and explain how their revised molecular-level ideas are consistent with the experimental evidence they collected.After completing an iteration of MORE, students apply MORE to a subsequent set of laboratory activities, which provides additional opportunities for them to refi ne their models. Each student presents a refined model, explains why it has (or has not) changed from his or her previous model, and proposes a generalized model that could be used to understand new situations. At the end of a module, each student proposes a next experiment that would help further refi ne or test his or her molecular-level model.Although the MORE Thinking Frame is well-suited to guide students' thinking as they conduct original research, in our general chemistry laboratory course, we have more often applied it to investigations for which there is a fundamental, scientifi cally accepted model that has not yet been presented to students. Research has shown that instructional paradigms in which students fi rst work to develop general rules or models, and expert ideas are presented only after students complete their investigations, promote deep understandings that facilitate transfer of learning [e.g., (6)]. Research in the context of another MORE module (7) indicates that student engagement in three thinking processes is strongly correlated with subsequent successful reasoning in new contexts. These include (i) constructing molecularlevel models that are consistent wi...

show abstract

What Happens When Chemical Compounds Are Added to Water? An Introduction to the Model-Observe-Reflect-Explain (MORE) Thinking Frame

Cited by 22 publications

References 11 publications

Effects of Context on Students’ Molecular‐Level Ideas

Effects of Context on Students’ Molecular‐Level Ideas

Student learning through journal writing in a general education chemistry course for pre‐elementary education majors

Discovering Nanoscience

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About