Investigation of the Effects of Using Metacognitive Activities in Chemistry Laboratory on the Development of Conceptual Understanding

Abstract

This study investigated the effects of using metacognitive activities in a chemistry laboratory, on the conceptual understanding of university students. A sample of freshman students was randomly assigned to either of two groups, the control group or the experimental group. Students in the control group conducted the experiments as they would do in conventional laboratory sessions. The students in the experimental group conducted the same experiments but also received a treatment including metacognitive prompts, feedback, reflection, and pre- and post- laboratory instruction discussions. The results revealed that the experimental group’s scores for conceptual understanding in particular topics were significantly higher than those of the control group’s, although both groups displayed some confusion about reaction rate and chemical equilibrium.

Keywords

• Metacognition,executive functions,efforfull control,learning disabilities

References

1. Andersen, H., & Nersessian, N. J. (2000). Nomic concepts, frames, and conceptual change. Philosophy of Science, 67, 224-241.
2. Bandura, A. (1977). Social Learning Theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
3. Beeth, M. E. (1998). Teaching for conceptual change: Using status as a metacognitive tool. Science Education, 82, 343-356.
4. Bektasli, B., & Cakmakci, G. (2011). Consistency of students’ ideas about the concept of rate across different contexts. Education and Science, 36(162), 273-287.
5. Boujaoude, S. (1993). Students’ systematic errors when solving kinetic and chemical equilibrium problems. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 361 196).
6. Cakmakci, G., Leach, J., & Donnelly, J. (2006). Students’ ideas about reaction rate and its relationship with concentration or pressure. International Journal of Science Education, 28(15), 1795-1815.
7. Cobern, W. W. (1996). Worldview theory and conceptual change in science education. Science Education, 80(5), 579-610.
8. Colbert, C. Y., Graham, L. West, C., White, B. A., Arroliga, A. C., Myers, J. D. et al. (2015). Teaching Metacognitive Skills: Helping Your Physician Trainees in the Quest to “Know What They Don’t Know”. The American Journal of Medicine, 128(3), 318-324.

9. Darmofal, D. L. (2002). Enhancing conceptual understanding. M. I. T. Faculty Newsletter, 15(2), 1-4.
10. DeBacker, T., & Nelson, M. (2005). Motivation to learn science: Differences related to gender, class type and ability. The Journal of Educational Research, 93(4), 245-254.
11. De Jong, T., Linn, M. C., & Zacharia, Z. C. (2013). Physical and Virtual Laboratories in Science and Engineering Education. Science, 340, 305-308.
12. Domin, D. S. (1999). A review of laboratory instruction styles. Journal of Chemical Education, 76, 543-547.
13. Ellis, A. B., Cappellari, A., Lisensky, G. C., Lorenz, J. K., Meeker, K., Moore, D. … Rickert, K. (2000). Concept Tests. University of Wisconsin Boards of Regents. (http://www.jce.divched.org/JCEDLib/QBank/ collection/ConcepTests/) last retrieval date: 07.09.2012
14. Erdoğan, M., Uşak, M., & Özel, M. (2009). Prospective biology and chemistry teachers’ satisfaction with laboratory and laboratory facilities: The effect of gender and university. Journal of Turkish Science Education, 6(1), 60-71.
15. Fay, M. E. & Bretz, S. L. (2008). Structuring the level of inquiry in your classroom. The Science Teacher, 75(5), 38-42.
16. Flavell, J. H. (1976). Metacognitive aspects of problem solving. In L. B. Resnick (Ed), The nature of intelligence (pp. 1451-1469). Lawrance Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ: Wiley.
17. Georghiades, P. (2004). Making pupils’ conceptions of electricity more durable by means of situated metacognition. International Journal of Science Education, 26(1), 85-99.
18. Georghiades, P. (2006). The role of metacognitive activities in the contextual use of primary pupils’ conceptions of science. Research in Science Education, 36, 29-49.
19. Greene, J. S. (2000). A biology laboratory internship program. The American Biology Teacher, 62(2), 108-112.
20. Grotzer, T.A. & Mittlefehdlt, S. (2012). The role of metacognition in students’ understanding and transfer of explanatory structures in science. In A. Zohar & J. Dori (Eds.) Metacognition in science education: Trends in current research, Contemporary trends and issues in science education (40). (pp 79-100) New York: Springer Science.
21. Hattie, J. & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77(1), 81-112.
22. Hennessey, M. G. (1999). Probing the Dimensions of Metacognition: Implications for Conceptual Change Teaching-Learning. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching (Boston, MA, March 28-31, 1999) (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 446 921).
23. Herscovitz, O., Kaberman, Z., Saar, L., & Dori, Y. J. (2012). The relationships between metacognition and the ability to pose questions in chemical education. In A. Zohar & J. Dori (Eds.) Metacognition in science education: Trends in current research, Contemporary trends and issues in science education (40). (pp 165-196) New York: Springer Science.
24. Hewson, P. W. (1981). Conceptual change approach to learning science. International Journal of Science Education, 3(4), 383-396.
25. Hewson, P. W., Beeth, M. E., & Thorley, N. R. (1998). Teaching for conceptual change. In B. J. Fraser & K. G. Tobin (Eds.), International Handbook of Science Education (pp. 199 –218). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.
26. Hewson, P. W. & Hewson, M. G. (1984). The role of conceptual conflict in conceptual change and the design of science instruction. Instructional Science, 13, 1-13.
27. Hoang, T. (2007). Creativity: A motivational tool for interest and conceptual understanding in science education. International Journal of Human and Social Sciences, 2(8), 477-483.
28. Hoffman, B. & Spatariu, A. (2008). The influence of self-efficacy and metacognitive prompting on math problem-solving efficiency. Educational Psychology, 33, 875-893.
29. Hofstein, A., Kipnis, M., & Kind, P. (2008). Learning in and from science laboratories: Enhancing students’ meta-cognition and argumentation skills. In C. L. Petroselli (Ed.), Science Education Issues and Developments (pp. 59-94). Hauppauge, NY: Nova Science Publishers.
30. Hofstein, A. & Lunetta, V. (1982). The role of laboratory in science teaching: Neglected aspects of research. Review of Educational Research, 52, 201-217.
31. Hofstein, A. & Lunetta, V. (2004). The laboratory in science education: Foundations for the Twenty-First Century. Science Education, 88, 25-54.
32. Hofstein, A., & Mamlok-Naaman, R. (2007). The laboratory in science education: the state of the art. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 8(2), 105-107.
33. Hogan, M. J., Dwyer, C. P., Harney, O. M., Noone, C., & Conway, R. J. (2015). Metacognitive Skill Development and Applied Systems Science: A Framework of Metacognitive Skills, Self Regulatory Functions and Real-World Applications. In A. Peña-Ayala (Ed.), Metacognition: Fundaments, applications, and trends (pp. 75–106). Cham: Springer International Publishing.
34. Howe, C., Devine, A., & Tavares, J. T. (2011). Supporting conceptual change in school science: A possible role for tacit understanding. International Journal of Science Education, 1-20.
35. Hsu, Y. S., Iannone, P., She, H. C., & Hadwin, A. (2016). Preface for the IJSME Special Issue: Metacognition for Science and Mathematics Learning in Technology-Infused Learning Environments. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 1-6.
36. Katchevich, D., Hofstein, A., & Mamlook-Naaman, R. (2013). Argumentation in the Chemistry Laboratory: Inquiry and Confirmatory Experiments. Research in Science Education, 43, 317-345.
37. Kaya, E. (2013). Argumentation Practices in Classroom: Pre-service teachers’ conceptual understanding of chemical equilibrium. International Journal of Science Education, 35(7), 1139-1158.
38. Kipnis, M. & Hofstein, A. (2008). The inquiry laboratory as a source for development of metacognitive skills. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education. 6, 601-627.
39. Kokkala, I. & Gessell, D. A. (2003). Writing science effectively. Journal of College Science Teaching, 32(4), 252-257.
40. Kuiper, R. A. & Pesut, D. J. (2004). Promoting cognitive and metacognitive reasoning skills in nursing practice: Self-regulated learning theory. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 45(4), 381-391.
41. Lee, H. W., Lim, K. Y., & Grabowski, B. (2009). Generative learning strategies metacognitive feedback to facilitate comprehension of complex science topics and self-regulation. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 18(1), 5-25.
42. Linn, M. C., Clark, D., & Slotta J. D. (2003). WISE design for knowledge integration. Science Education, 87(4), 517-538.
43. Mammino, L. & Cardellini, L. (2005). Studying students’ understanding of the interplay between the microscopic and the macroscopic descriptions in chemistry. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 1(7), 51-62.
44. McComas, W. (2005). Laboratory instruction in the service of science teaching and learning. The Science Teacher, 72(7), 24-29.
45. McComas, W. F. (2014). Metacognition. In W. F. McComas (Ed.), The language of science education: An expanded glossary of key terms and concepts in science teaching and learning (p. 63). Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense.
46. Nokes, T. J., Hausmann, R. G. M., VanLehn, K., & Gershman, S. (2011). Testing the instructional fit hypothesis: The case of self-explanation prompts. Instructional Science, 39(5), 645-666.
47. Orna, M. V. (1994). Acids and Bases. Chemsource version 1.0. National Science Foundation. Grant No: TPE 88-50632. New Rochelle, NY 10805.
48. Ottander, C. & Grelsson, G. (2006). Laboratory work: The teachers’ perspective. Journal of Biological Education, 40(3), 113-118.
49. Peters, E. E. (2008). Self-regulation of scientific epistemologies: A metacognitive prompting intervention. Paper presented at US-Sino Workshop on Mathematics and Science Education, USA.
50. Peters, E. E. & Kitsantas, A. (2010). Self-regulation of student epistemic thinking in science: The role of metacognitive prompts. Educational Psychology and Science Education, 30(1), 27-52.
51. Pintrich, P., Marx, R., & Boyle, R. (1993). Beyond cold conceptual change: The role of motivational beliefs and classroom contextual factors in the process of conceptual change. Review of Educational Research, 63(2), 167-199.
52. Posner, G., Strike, K., Hewson, P., & Gertzog, W. (1982). Accommodation of a scientific conception: Toward a theory of conceptual change. Science Education, 66, 211-227.
53. Pulmones, R. (2010). Learning chemistry in a metacognitive environment. The Asia Pacific-Education Researcher, 16(2), 165-183.
54. Roll, I., Aleven, V., McLaren, B. M., & Koedinger, K. R. (2011). Improving students’ help-seeking skills using metacognitive feedback in an intelligent tutoring system. Learning and Instruction, 21, 267-280.
55. Schraw, G. (1998). Promoting general metacognitive awareness. Instructional Science, 26, 113-125.
56. Schraw, G., Crippen, K. J., & Hartley, K. (2006). Promoting self-regulation in science education: Metacognition as part of a broader perspective on learning. Research in Science Education, 36, 111-139.
57. Schraw, G., Olafson, L., Weibel, M., & Sewing, D. (2012). Metacognitive knowledge and field-based science learning in an outdoor environmental education program. In A. Zohar & J. Dori (Eds.) Metacognition in science education: Trends in current research, Contemporary trends and issues in science education (40). (pp 57-78) New York: Springer Science.
58. Smith, K. J. & Metz, P. A. (1996). Evaluating student understanding of solution chemistry through microscopic representations. Journal of Chemical Education, 73(3), 233.
59. Smith, P. (2001). Understanding self-regulated learning and its implications for accounting educators and researchers. Issues in Accounting Education, 16(4), 1-38.
60. Shull, P. J. (2005). Collaborative learning and peer assessment to enhance student performance. Journal of Engineering Technology, 22(1), 10-15
61. Tien, L. T. (1998). Fostering expert inquiry skills and beliefs about chemistry through the MORE laboratory experience. Unpublished PhD Dissertation. University of California, Berkeley.
62. Tobin, K. G. (1990). Research on science laboratory activities: In pursuit of better questions and answers to improve learning. School Science and Mathematics, 90, 403-418.
63. Tsaparlis, G. (2009). Learning at the macro level: the role of practical work. In J. K. Gilbert and D. F. Treagust (Eds.), Multiple representations in chemical education, (pp. 109-136). New York: Springer.
64. Van der Stel, M. & Veenman, M. V. J. (2008). Relation between intellectual ability and metacognitive skillfulness as predictors of learning performance of young students performing tasks in different domains. Learning and Individual Differences, 18(1), 128-134.
65. Van der Stel, M. & Veenman, M. V. J. (2014). Metacognitive skills and intellectual ability of young adolescents: a longitudinal study from a developmental perspective. Europena Journal of Psychology of Education, 29(1), 117-137.
66. Veenman, M. V. J. (2012). Metacognition in science education: Definitions, constituents, and their intricate relation with cognition. In A. Zohar & J. Dori (Eds.) Metacognition in science education: Trends in current research, Contemporary trends and issues in science education (40). (pp 21-36) New York: Springer Science.
67. Veenman, M. V. J., & Spaans, M. A. (2005). Relation between intellectual and metacognitive skills: Age and task differences. Learning and Individual Differences, 15(2), 159-176.
68. Vosniadou, S. (2007). Conceptual change and education. Human Development, 50, 47-54.
69. Woodland, W. A., & Hill, J. L. (2011). “I really get this module!” Using online discussion boards to enhance students’ understanding of global climate change. In: S. K. Haslett, D. France, & S. Gedye (Eds.) Pedagogy of Climate Change – GEES Subject Centre Home.
70. Zimmerman, B. J. (1990). Self-regulated learning and academic achievement: An overview. Educational Psychologist, 25(1), 3-17.
71. Zimmerman, B. J. (2000). Attaining self-regulation: A social cognitive perspective. In M. Boekaerts, P. R. Pintrich, & M. Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of Self-Regulation: Theory, Research and Applications (pp. 13-39). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
72. Zimmerman, B. J. (2001). Theories of self-regulated learning and academic achievement: An overview and analysis. In B. J. Zimmerman & D. H. Schunk (Eds.), Self-Regulated Learning and Academic Achievement: Theoretical Perspectives (pp. 1-37). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
73. Zion, M., Michalsky, T. & Mevarech, Z. R. (2005). The effects of metacognitive instruction embedded within an asynchronous learning network on scientific inquiry skills. International Journal of Science Education. 27(8), 957-983.
74. Zohar, A. & Barzilai, S. (2013). A review research on metacognition in science education: current and future directions. Studies in Science Education, 49(2), 121-169.
75. Zohar, A. & Dori, Y. J. (2012). Introduction. In A. Zohar & J. Dori (Eds.) Metacognition in science education: Trends in current research, Contemporary trends and issues in science education (40). (pp 1-20) New York: Springer Science.