Misconceptions and Think Alouds
I always appreciate requests, so I would like to thank a colleague for asking me to summarize this week's SoTL paper on misconceptions. The 2019 paper is entitled, "Identifying misconceptions that limit student understanding of molecular orbital diagrams" and is particularly timely as many of us return to classes. Misconceptions can block learning for many years afterward as I shared in a prior blog on Pedagogy Misconceptions and Neuromyths.
For today's article, I would like to summarize why it is helpful for instructors to identify and address student misconceptions early in the process. Identifying these can be accomplished by offering timely formative assessments, with targeted feedback (student response systems or programs such as Chem101).
The literature on misconceptions is substantial. A misconception is an idea, notion, or thought that does not mirror reality nor is it grounded in scientific reasoning (Luxford & Bretz, 2014). These are common and well documented in chemistry (Nakhleh, 1992) due to:
the abstract nature of chemistry;
that particle interactions are difficult to physically observe;
poorly constructed physical models (lack attention to learning theories);
the application of non-scientific mental models (incomplete concept mapping, anthropomorphizing); and
the density of conceptual frameworks embedded with chemistry models.
The instructional methods offered to the 13 person class included active learning strategies (list of 288) think-aloud (aka eavesdropping on someone's thinking) and written probes to identify misconceptions. The authors found that while students could properly construct molecular orbital diagrams, many were unable to apply these facts in isolation into similar contexts (using the diagrams to predict other molecular structures). These limited learning outcomes are common when only linear didactic approaches are provided.
Students were asked to speak their thoughts aloud while writing solutions as their verbal responses were recorded, transcribed, and analyzed. A similar method was effectively used by Soto (2015) integrating screencasts for students solving math problems. During the think-aloud, students completed a metacognitive probe assessing their response confidence (created by Flavell, 1976).
The authors recommend the following strategies:
Activities teaching molecular orbital theory should be accompanied by explicit, intentional decoding of molecular orbital diagrams;
Students should be challenged to describe how these diagrams are interpreted and applied; and
Metacognitive discrepancies used to help pinpoint areas where misconceptions persist.
Student confidence in these inaccurate justifications showed they were unaware of their misconceptions. After interventions, many adopted reasonable strategies. However some continued to use low level approaches, evidence of persisting confusion and the power of misconceptions. Proposed solutions include lesson-specific interventions or if provided the resources, a more holistic curricular design overhaul.
Major takeaways for instructors include:
modified students’ behavior and in their written evaluations;
students’ willingness to ask questions and discuss problems increased;
participation in out-of-class, office hours increased;
students seemed less intimidated to seek help; and
by letting them know that they were part of a study, they were able to see themselves through the instructor’s eye (Hawthorne effect).
References
Angelo, T. A., & Cross, K. P. (1993). Classroom assessment techniques: A handbook for college teachers. (2nd ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Betts, K., Miller, M., Tokuhama-Espinosa, T., Shewokis, P., Anderson, A., Borja, C., Galoyan, T., Delaney, B., Eigenauer, J., & Dekker, S. (2019). International report: Neuromyths and evidence-based practices in higher education. Online Learning Consortium: Newburyport, MA.
Flavell, J. (1976). “Metacognitive aspects of problem solving.” p. 232, In The nature of intelligence. (pp. 231-236). L. B. Resnick (Ed.), Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Jenkins, J. & Shoopman, B. (2019). Identifying misconceptions that limit student understanding of molecular orbital diagrams. Science Education International. 30, 152-157. 10.33828/sei.v30.i3.1.
McAfee, M. & Hoffman, B. (2021). The morass of misconceptions: How unjustified beliefs influence pedagogy and learning. International Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning. 15(1), Article 4.
Secolsky, C., Judd, T., Magaram, E., Levy, S., Bruce Kossar, & Reese, G. (2016). Using Think-Aloud protocols to uncover misconceptions and improve developmental math instruction: An exploratory study. Numeracy, 9(1). Article 6. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5038/ 1936-4660.9.1.6.
Soto, M. (2015). Students' mathematical explanations and attention to the audience with screencasts. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 47(4), 242-258.
