Quarter+Three

1. Thinking about our thinking (metacognition)
Thinking about thinking involves evaluating our own learning strategies and their effectiveness. A large part of this is tied into school and life in general, but it can also be tied into Chemistry class as well. A large portion of Chemistry is involved in experimental investigation of hypotheses formed off of the content that we are learning in class; this quarter, we started writing lab reports and handing them in after experiments, which I found increased my productivity during class as well as my drive to learn and understand the content. Lab reports, of course, consist of basic parts: an introduction, hypothesis, identification of variables (dependent, independent, controlled, etc.), data collection, data processing, but - most importantly for this habit of mind - //conclusion and evaluation//. These two parts are important because the experimenter is expected to... (1) State whether the aim of the experiment was met and whether the results of the experiment correlated with the hypothesis, (2) Describe and explain the relationship found between the independent and dependent variables, (3) Compare what we expected and the quantitative results drawn from the experiment, and (4) Suggest and explain improvements and modifications that could be made to minimize the differences between the expected and the actual results (results of the experiment).

What doing many labs this quarter has allowed me to do is qualitatively and quantitatively assess my experiment and my performance. Labs also helped organize my thought process and it provided an easier method of reflecting on how I learned. For example, writing out procedures as well as explanations of why I am manipulating certain variables to achieve my aim and support (or not support) my hypothesis, in addition to providing a medium in which I am forced to reflect on my work and whether or not I was successful - and what I could have done to improve it.

In my evaluation of the methanol vs. ethanol lab report, which I did with Anna Xu (see below - both procedure and evaluation/conclusion), I reflected on my experiment. Although I was not supposed to include personal error when considering confounding variables and things that I could have done wrong which accounted for the percent of error, I fully understood how my procedure tied into my results and how I learned and ended up with those results.

__**Procedure:**__ 1) Set up station with retort stand and clamp. Make sure to wear a safety goggle and an apron 2) Measure 100.0 mL of water with a 200 mL beaker and pour the water into a metal can 3) Place metal can exactly 3 cm (measure with a ruler) directly above spirit burner with the clamp 4) Record the initial temperature of water and the initial mass of the ethanol/methanol in the bottle Light the flame on the spirit burner that contains ethanol 5) Light the wick on the spirit burner that contains ethanol 6) Burn the fuel until the change in temperature reaches 25°C. Use the stirring rod to stir the water before determining the temperature change. 7) Put out the flame. 8) Record the mass the spirit burner, and record change in mass compared to the initial mass of the spirit burner. The change in mass will be the mass of methanol/ethanol burned. 9) Replace water and clean can 10) Repeat steps 3-9 two more times to validate results. Record data. 11) Repeat steps 3-10 with methanol (instead of ethanol). What we found through the process of burning both of the fuels and recording relevant data was that the average change in mass of our trials with methanol was about 1.114 grams, whereas the average change in mass of our trials done with ethanol was about 0.840 grams. We used the results from the changes of mass to determine the average energy per mole of ethanol and methanol. The average energy per mole of methanol was 305.89135 kJ/mol, whereas the average energy per mole of ethanol was 580.38798. Given these results, it is possible to conclude or infer that ethanol s a much more efficient fuel in comparison to methanol because ethanol has more energy.  There is a direct relationship between the amount of hydrogen and carbon within the fuel - the more of either will result in the fuel releasing more heat energy when burned. Because there are more carbon/hydrogen atoms in ethanol in comparison to methanol, the results found through our experiment are supported. || What we found when we compared the results found in our experiment and the theoretical result was that we had an average of 57.55% error for our trials done on both methanol and ethanol. A possible explanation for this rather large percent error may have been because we did not construct controls that would prevent the loss of heat from the metal can, or we may have forgotten to clean the can between trials. But since the percent of error differed by only 0.50%, so even though our numbers were off, our conclusions weren’t influenced too much. Our temperature uncertainties may have been a result of using temperature as a stop mark instead of time: because it was difficult to stop the burning when the temperature had risen exactly 25.0 degrees Celsius, it may have been altered our results marginally. Improvements and modifications might have included preventing the escape of heat from the can, which altered results, as well as controlling time and temperature instead of just temperature. Besides these setbacks, our experiment ultimately determined that ethanol is a more efficient fuel than methanol. ||
 * __**Conclusions**__ ||  __**Evaluation**__  ||
 * The aim of our experiment was to determine which fuel, methanol or ethanol, is a better alternative. Though we did have a rather high percentage of error, our aim was achieved, and our hypothesis was correct - ethanol is the better fuel.

2. Applying past knowledge to new situations
As mentioned before, this quarter we began writing lab reports, which we didn't do last quarter. For me, this signified a large difference in the way that I perceived Chemistry, in addition to just being another grade on PowerSchool. Applying past knowledge to new situations applies in many ways, in life and in school. I used this to progress and apply this basic habit of mind to my actions and my work in General Chemistry this year. I haven't written a lab report since tenth grade (before this quarter), and even then, science has never been my strong suit, so I always kind of struggled with writing lab reports. Thankfully, I was paired with a helpful partner for my first lab report, and we both helped each other a lot with the rubric and the actual writing of the lab report (not to mention the carrying out of the experiment). When I wrote the first lab report this year, we got a 95% overall, which we were very pleased with. However, there were minor tweaks, which I kept in mind when writing the second one, which we had to do individually. You can see this through the procedure, which is more precise and more complicated than the procedure in the second lab that I did (both are below).

Another indicator of apply my past knowledge is the case in the most recent lab, which involved titration, a very precise process (as demonstrated in the photo). At first, my group and I struggled - the initial volume of the acid (vinegar) and the final volume of the acid differed by an average of 1.21mL, which is very precise and very difficult to get a constant result from. As the experiment continued, however, our group managed to get consistent readings based on the mistakes that we made during our rough trials. We did this by continuing past our three trials in order to get three results around the same range. Applying past knowledge to new situations - whether similar or dissimilar - has ultimately proved to be very helpful in my life in general, but is evident through my Chemistry participation, experiments, and labs.