The Need for and the Role of Metacognition in Teaching and Learning the Particle Model

Exploring Grade 11 students' conceptual pathways of the particulate nature of matter in the context of multirepresentational instruction

“…Those evidences indicated that perhaps she was not aware of the fact that any macroscopically observed properties of a substance (e.g., color, hotness or hardness) cannot be associated with the individual particles, but a substance needs to be conceived of as collective properties of particles. Diana apparently encountered difficulties in making transitions between macroscopic and submicroscopic views of matter (Buck et al, 2001; Johnson, 1998). According to Talanquer (2009), viewing the particles as having the properties of macroscopic sample of a substance is a strong and pervasive presupposition that constrain students' understanding of the other aspects of the PNM.…”

“…In addition, even though the particle models of matter in three physical states was used as a reference model in all class periods during the instruction, these six students might have relied on the frequent pictorial misrepresentation of the liquid state in the science textbooks that they encountered in the previous years of schooling (see Adbo & Taber, 2009; Harrison & Treagust, 2002). In addition to the possible barriers (presuppositions and misrepresentations) in developing scientific conceptions about the PNM, these six students may not have had strong spontaneous metacognitive skills to manipulate their inconsistent conceptions concerning the spacing between the particles (Buck et al, 2001).…”

“…In addition, studies have shown that many students develop such hybrid models of matter that reflect macroparticulate features in which particles appear to be embedded into continuous matter (Johnson, 1998; Nakhleh et al, 2005; Novick & Nussbaum, 1981). Respectively, students at all grade levels frequently do not believe in the notion of the empty space between the particles of matter (Buck et al, 2001; Talanquer, 2009), which is probably due to holding the presupposition that all empty spaces are filled with air. This presupposition could also have links with students' failure to perceive gases as being substances (Johnson & Papageorgiou, in press).…”

“…Because students usually view the liquid state as transitional between the solid and gas state, they tend to represent the spacing between particles of liquids as intermediate compared to solids and gases (Adadan et al, 2009; Adbo & Taber, 2009; Johnson, 1998). Drawing on the surface features of substances, students tend to attribute such properties as color, softness, hardness, or physical state change to the individual particles, as opposed to perceiving physical properties of matter as collective behavior of particles (Buck et al, 2001; Griffiths & Preston, 1992; Talanquer, 2009). Although the change in intermolecular distances of substances, when heated or cooled, has nothing to do with the change in the size of particles, some students believe in the expansion of atoms themselves on heating (Adbo & Taber, 2009).…”

“…Researchers offered different teaching pedagogies (e.g., cognitive conflict approach, particle models, etc.) for promoting students' understanding of the particulate nature of matter (PNM) (Buck, Johnson, Fischler, Peuckert, & Seifert, 2001). National Science Education Standards ( NSES ) suggest utilizing multiple representations (MRs) along with oral and written discourse in the inquiry context for teaching of the particle ideas (NRC, 1996, p. 177).…”