Metacognition as an Element of the Scientific Process - American

Chapter 4

Metacognition as an Element of the Scientific Process Downloaded by MIAMI UNIV on January 15, 2018 | http://pubs.acs.org Publication Date (Web): December 26, 2017 | doi: 10.1021/bk-2017-1269.ch004

Mary T. van Opstal*,1 and Patrick L. Daubenmire*,2 1Chemistry,

Harper College, 1200 West Algonquin Road, Palatine, Illinois 60067, United States 2Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry, Loyola University Chicago, 1032 West Sheridan Road, Chicago, Illinois 60660, United States *E-mails: [email protected] (M.T. van Opstal); [email protected] (P.L. Daubenmire)

The operational functions of metacognition parallel scientific thinking. We ask questions. We collect information. We evaluate that information. We find gaps in that information, and look to fill those gaps. This chapter shares ideas for how these two ways of thinking run in tandem to one another, and how such processes can be engaged and activated in learners in the instructional laboratory setting. Through the instructional venue of several inquiry-based approaches, students can develop and use these skills both during and outside of laboratory classroom environments. Many of these approaches have demonstrated increased metacognitive awareness and use by students as well as improved academic performance.

Introduction The idea that metacognition is an element to the scientific process suggests that it is foundational and essential. When combined with the other elements of the scientific process, such as asking questions or making claims with evidence, metacognition helps lead to more fully functional processes that assist students in their learning. Since a major task of science educators is to ready students to do science, fostering metacognitive skills is a necessary companion in the science curriculum. This may involve becoming autonomous and collaborative at the same time, but always focusing on the question, “What are we really doing here?” A © 2017 American Chemical Society Daubenmire; Metacognition in Chemistry Education: Connecting Research and Practice ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2017.

thorough answer to that question must engage the metacognitive processes that know, monitor, regulate and identify areas of knowledge and skills that need to be enhanced, changed or refined.

Downloaded by MIAMI UNIV on January 15, 2018 | http://pubs.acs.org Publication Date (Web): December 26, 2017 | doi: 10.1021/bk-2017-1269.ch004

What Is the Scientific Process? Over the years many textbooks have introduced the view of “the” scientific method as a linear process with a specific starting point – a research question – and an end point – say, a conclusion. Scientists then follow sequential steps hypothesis/predictions, methodology, data collection and analysis - in between. Presenting a linear view of “the” scientific process fosters some misconceptions about how science is actually conducted. This linear viewpoint, we contend, does not convey the true nature of enacted scientific thinking, which actually is more of a spiral process with alternate entry and exit points. One version (Figure 1 below) that has been presented reveals the more dynamic ebb and flow of scientific endeavors that have a much different geometric pathway than a line.

Figure 1. The Scientific Method (1). This notion of the scientific process that includes a clear presence of preconceptions and previous knowledge reveals for the need for an active set of metacognitive skills to evaluate what is already known and what yet needs to be known. Recall that Mendeleev made a few bold claims and left blanks in his version of the periodic table – he was willing to leave gaps because he knew things did not fit, but one day there might be a fit! He recognized that there was knowledge yet to be gained. This is a central tenet of metacognition, knowing what is known and seeing there is more yet to be learned. Without metacognition as a function to recognize gaps in our knowledge and to frame strategies to fill those gaps, the scientific process would, indeed, be reduced to two dimensional endeavors that have a certain beginning and end. We know, however, that science learning is ongoing. 44 Daubenmire; Metacognition in Chemistry Education: Connecting Research and Practice ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2017.


Metacognition as an Element of Inquiry Metacognition is actually innate in humans although children and young adults often are not aware of their knowledge and skills in this area (2). Students at the secondary and post-secondary level are novices and may recognize and use some metacognitive skills such as asking themselves, “Do I really know this?”, but they often lack the skill use to monitor whether they actually learned it. Experts are aware of the knowledge they have and know how to find resources to access and gain new knowledge. They are able to determine quickly that they do not know something and then how to solve their problem (3, 4). Experts use their metacognitive skills and knowledge implicitly and gain metacognitive knowledge with experience. In order for students, novices, to learn some of these skills more quickly, they need to be taught metacognitive skills explicitly. An environment that explicitly teaches these skills may help to move from novice and long the continuum to expert thinking (4). This underscores the critical need to require students to use and develop their metacognitive strategies within the chemistry curriculum and classrooms. Students can become more efficient and life long learners through the development of metacognitive knowledge and skills (5). An impact of having a cognitive toolbox that includes learned metacognitive skills, such as tools for planning, monitoring and evaluating allows a learner to transfer strategies and knowledge to new learning situations in ways that mimics what experts do (6, 7). Different forms of metacognitive skills are likely necessary when solving a science problem or writing a book analysis for a writing class. “Successful science learners are consistently found to be adaptively metacognitive for the demands of their learning environments” (8). The type of context or environment, such as learning in a traditional classroom or an online environment, a lecture, or a research-based lab may also affect the types of metacognitive strategies students use.

Metacognition in the Laboratory Metacognitive skills are essential to the scientific process and almost two decades of research indicate that metacognitive skills can be elicited during student learning in the learning laboratory (9–12). In order to elicit metacognitive skill in students, certain practices are essential to the proper learning setup in laboratory courses. Any one of the following instructional practices can afford students opportunities to engage in metacognitive skills: (1) inquiry approaches to instruction, (2) collaborative social environments, (3) reflective prompting, and (4) writing. It is desirable to provide as many opportunities for students to use metacognitive skills, and this can be done by incorporating any one or more of the best practices into laboratory instruction. These practices provide the instructor with methods to explicitly incorporate metacognitive skills into the classroom. Several established approaches to laboratory instruction incorporate one or more of these practices into the learning environment. Examples include the Science Writing Heuristic (SWH) (13) , Argument Driven Inquiry (ADI) (14), Cooperative Chemistry Laboratory (15), The MORE framework (16), The 45 Daubenmire; Metacognition in Chemistry Education: Connecting Research and Practice ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2017.


Competency Tripod (17), The Inquiry Laboratory (18), and Process Oriented Guided Inquiry Learning (POGIL) (19). Research on these inquiry-based approaches indicates that in addition to improving metacognitive skills and problem solving skills (20), students also gain improved critical thinking skills (21) and better understand some science concepts (22). The SWH has been shown to be successful from elementary to post-secondary level science. For middle school students the SWH facilitates students’ use of planning, monitoring and reflective skills while performing their experiments and writing their of reports (23). Another study found that the MORE framework prompted students to revise their molecular understanding of solutions in general chemistry at both research institutions and community college (16). In upper level undergraduate laboratories, POGIL labs for physical chemistry are set up for students to engage in the scientific process using data-think cycles that are likely to engage students’ metacognitive skills (19).

Inquiry Approaches to Instruction In an inquiry lab, students follow a scientific process where they ask questions or make observations first and then make decisions about the procedure and data collected while performing the experiment. Students who ask questions and define problems as part of an experiment are likely to use more declarative and procedural knowledge. Asking questions before a lab requires that the student use some factual knowledge about the process, the steps of the experiment they are about to perform. They also require knowledge about how to complete the experiment. This metacognitive knowledge includes the students’ previous knowledge about the topic, and it can be elicited in environments that allow for problem solving, cooperative learning, discussions, and demonstrations (24). Kipnis and Hofstein found that with 11th and 12th year students in Israel, the inquiry laboratory provided students opportunities to engage in their metacognitive processes. Not only did students use the regulation strategies, planning and monitoring while performing the experiment, but they also used their procedural and declarative knowledge to generate inquiry questions and procedures (25). Students are more likely to plan out an investigation in an inquiry lab, which requires going to the toolbox of metacognitive skills along with other cognitive skills such as critical thinking and problem solving. Generally inquiry lab approaches allow for more open-ended problems. An open-ended problem is a problem in which students generate their own questions or their own procedure, and the results are open-ended. The student does not know the answer, although the instructor may be aware of the lab’s outcome (26). Open-ended problems require greater metacognitive skill because students are explicitly planning. Not only have students used their planning regulation strategies before arriving to lab, but also during lab when they find out more about the lab or they have discussed ideas with their peers. In preparing their own procedure, students will be more aware of the process and likely be monitoring their progress more. In this way, they may recognize more quickly that their procedure is not working and find that they can fix it (27, 28). Students who are monitoring themselves are more 46 Daubenmire; Metacognition in Chemistry Education: Connecting Research and Practice ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2017.


likely able to determine whether or not they are acquiring proper results from their procedure. Inquiry instruction like the SWH or ADI require students to produce an argument from the data they collected. Being able to write an argument requires evaluation of data as well as the process by which it is was collected. Students are reflecting, and using conditional knowledge as suggested by Kipnis and Hofstein (25). Many of the instructional strategies incorporate discussion with peers after completion of the experiment. This allows students not only to evaluate the data they have collected, but also to review the process by which it was collected. The inquiry instruction strategies mentioned here require a report in which students write an argument and often a reflection (the SWH version) which asks them to evaluate their experiment. One study found that students who engaged in SWH report style reflections had more metacognitive knowledge and procedural knowledge than factual knowledge in their reflection compared to traditional lab reflections (29). Additionally, The MORE framework states that it explicitly encourages metacognition through the process of reflection and evaluation of students’ own concept models (16).

Working with Peers Engages Metacognitive Skills A welcoming and open learning environment allows students to comfortably acknowledge what they do not know, helps them develop a role with their peers and gives time to personally reflect on learning (30). Peer interactions promote metacognitive awareness. This likely occurs because when students engage in peer learning, they use socially constructed processes like planning or monitoring. When students have the opportunity to discuss the experiment with peers, ask each other questions, and even reflect upon what types of mistakes or issues that arose during lab, students can take these social processes and begin to internalize them. As they grow as a learner in a social environment, they will begin to use more of these metacognitive skills and may become more aware of them (31). In addition to having students work together in the laboratory in groups and as a whole class, there are benefits to having students use their peers in reviewing their reports. In ADI, students are encouraged to read peers’ reports, give feedback and then make revisions to their own report (32). In this way students have the opportunity to read how another student performed and analyzed the data from an experiment. This gives students a chance to reflect and critique their peer’s work and their own. Students engage in reflective activities, once while reading a peer’s report and then again when they revise their report after peer review. Peer learning is not only effective for supporting metacognitive skill use in the classroom, but also for improving problem solving skills (20), exam scores (33), positive perception of the learning environment (34).

47 Daubenmire; Metacognition in Chemistry Education: Connecting Research and Practice ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2017.


Reflective Prompting as a Means To Elicit Metacognitive Skills Novices or students in any subject may not use their metacognitive skills or even be aware of them (35). Experts, however, use their metacognitive skills during problem solving even though it may not be apparent. Experts adapt their use of skills based on experience, and it provides them the ability to adapt their knowledge as needed. Experts often can reason successfully in problems outside, but still related to, their content area. This is an important and useful ability. This supports that classrooms environments should be designed to explicitly teach students metacognitive skills. One way to practice and elicit metacognitive skills is through reflective prompting. Reflective prompting is an explicit way to encourage metacognitive use in students. The prompts can either be provided by the facilitator or written into the activity and allows students to self assess their knowledge and learning. Reflective prompting may promote the use of all metacognitive strategies including planning, monitoring and evaluating. Using properly timed prompts generally during a learning activity or after an activity, gives students a better chance to integrate their knowledge (36). Davis’ research suggests that generic prompts rather than directed prompts will likely increase students’ use of planning, monitoring and reflection strategies. In Davis and Linn’s (37) research, a generic prompt was “In thinking about doing our design, we need to…” This prompt explicitly asks students to consider planning, and students may use their declarative, and procedural knowledge to answer the prompt. In the Science Writing Heuristic, the prompts are the basis for the student template that students follow when preparing, and performing their experiment and when writing their reports. Before the experiment, students are asked, “What are my questions?” Again, they use declarative knowledge and planning. In the reflection, students are asked: “How do my ideas compare with other ideas” and “How have my ideas changed?” (13). These prompts ask students to evaluate and assess their own knowledge. If too many prompts are provided, it will likely stifle students’ idea generation, and lead to cookbook style labs where the students use the prompts as a step-by-step procedure. Too many prompts may promote procedural knowledge, and students are less likely to monitor themselves during the experiment. Students may not notice that an experiment is not working, and record incorrect data. Essentially students are focused more on completing the procedure rather than understanding what is happening in the experiment. Reflective prompting can not only written into the activities, but can also be made part of the teacher-student interaction. As students perform the experiments, teachers can make sure that students are being reflective or monitoring themselves by asking questions or providing generic prompts while the experiment is occurring. The reflective prompting allows students to check themselves or to start their thinking on a topic while learning.



Metacognitive Skill Practice While Writing Writing is a part of the laboratory when students record data in their laboratory notebooks and when writing laboratory reports. Writing can afford students the opportunity to engage in metacognitive reflection if done right. In all of the instructional strategies discussed in this chapter, students write non-traditional laboratory reports, which are different than the common laboratory report sections of introduction, procedure, data and results, and conclusions. For example, in ADI, students are asked: “What concept are you investigating?”; “How did you go about your work and why?”; “What is your argument?”. The structure of the report provides students the opportunity to explain how and why they did the experiment and can elicit evaluation metacognitive strategies. Writing encourages reflection on content and process (38). When students write a report, they have to go back over the data they took, and how they performed the lab. In most lab reports, they have to explain why their data supports or refutes a question they asked in the beginning. These are all evaluation skills. A report style that is set-up to provide students with these opportunities urges students to work on their evaluation skills. SWH has parallel components as well. The template for the SWH is laid out in Table 1. Students are asked the following questions:

Table 1. Science Writing Heuristic Template (13) Beginning questions:

What are my questions?

Tests—

What do I do?

Observations—

What can I see?

Claims—

What can I claim?

Evidence—

How do I know?

Reflections—

How do my ideas compare with other ideas? How have my ideas changed?

Again, similar to ADI, the SWH encourages students to evaluate and reflect during report writing. The reflective writing in the SWH is shown to improve students’ critical thinking skills (21). A further study showed how the impact the SWH as a scaffold for metacognitive skills positively affects students’ use of metacognitive skills. Students in both an SWH structured laboratory class and a traditional laboratory class were asked to perform small open-ended “Chempossible” experiments. Students found that the SWH not only provided a structure to perform the open-ended experiments, but it also provided them with a structure for writing. Students in the traditional laboratory did not find a connection between their procedure and the open-ended problems. The SWH template helped to structure students’ thought process while they were evaluating the experiment. Students in the SWH laboratory reported using metacognitive strategies in their open-ended experiments, which means they were able to take the built-in metacognitive 49 Daubenmire; Metacognition in Chemistry Education: Connecting Research and Practice ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2017.


strategies within the SWH and transfer them to a new experiments. When students were interviewed about report writing, they found that writing helped them to organize their understanding around the data and their process (9). As discussed above, students are not always aware of their metacognitive processes. In writing, it should be anticipated that students might struggle with these formats for writing because they may not have experienced it in a prior science class. Instructors need to provide explicit steps on how to write a report as well as a rubric that gives students a chance to check their work as they are writing and considering their experimental procedure and data. In ADI, students experience self reflection while writing their reports through the questions posed, and again when revising their reports after on peer feedback (14). The peer review provides time for students to be reflective on their understanding of the experiment as well as their process while reading their peer’s work (32). It is also suggested that TAs or instructors can help to scaffold reflective thinking in class (29). Students need to be asked to reflect explicitly in order to engage these internal processes (39).

Recognizing and Eliciting Students’ Metacognitive Skills There are several ways in which instructors can help students to recognize and use their metacognitive skills. Instructors can ask students questions and provide scaffolding to understand and use these metacognitive skills. They can also model the metacognitive skills in class. Students’ metacognitive awareness can be difficult to assess, as it is often self-reported. However, as an instructor, there are several ways to see if the instructional strategies in the learning laboratory are impacting students’ metacognitive skills. An instructor can use self-report inventories including the metacognitive activities inventory (MCAI) to focus on students’ problem solving and what metacognitive regulation skills they might use during problem solving (40). The metacognitive awareness inventory (MAI) provides a longer inventory to assess awareness of knowledge and regulation of cognition (24). Both inventories can provide the instructor with an understanding of students’ planning, monitoring and evaluating skills in lab. It is also possible to have students write reflections on their problem solving process which not only encourages evaluating of their problem solving process in lab, but also how much they planned and monitored themselves during the laboratory experiment or writing of the laboratory report. The SWH provides students an opportunity to evaluate their process in the reflection section of the report including questions (13): (a) Have I identified and explained sources of error and assumptions made during the experiment? (b) How have my ideas changed, what new questions do I have, or what new things do I have to think about? (c) How does this work tie into concepts about which I have learned in class? (d) To what can I refer in my text, my notes, or some real life application to make a connection with this laboratory work? 50 Daubenmire; Metacognition in Chemistry Education: Connecting Research and Practice ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2017.


Summary Metacognition is an essential element of the scientific process and learning in general. Robust scientific investigations cannot be conducted without the use and knowledge of metacognitive skills. An environment that affords students opportunities to engage in metacognitive skill use allows students to make decisions about their learning and how they are learning. The scientific process is not linear, and metacognitive skills allow students to move among the tasks of asking questions, predicting, running experiments and identifying patterns to make claims as needed in order to be successful. An inquiry lab with reflective promoting, writing and social construction of knowledge will provide students with metacognitive scaffolding to critically examine and solve problems beyond their classroom. Students who learn metacognitive skills are more successful learners as well as more independent learners. Being explicit with students about the use and necessity of metacognitive skills during laboratory activities can lead them to be more fully functional science learners and encourage the use of these skills beyond the classroom walls. Such skills can grow and be transferred and move them to more expert-like thinking and practice!

References Trefil, J.; Hazen, R. M. The Sciences: An Integrated Approach; Wiley: Hoboken, NJ, 2013. 2. Garner, R.; Alexander, P. A. Metacognition: Answered and unanswered questions. Educational Psychologist 1989, 24, 143–158. 3. Chi, M. T.; Feltovich, P. J.; Glaser, R. Categorization and representation of physics problems by experts and novices. Cognitive Science 1981, 5, 121–152. 4. Sternberg, R. J. Metacognition, abilities, and developing expertise: What makes an expert student? Instructional Science 1998, 26, 127–140. 5. Veenman, M.; Kok, R.; Blöte, A. The relation between intellectual and metacognitive skills in early adolescence. Instructional Science 2005, 33, 193–211. 6. Palinscar, A. S.; Brown, A. L. Reciprocal teaching of comprehensionfostering and comprehension-monitoring activities. Cognition and Instruction 1984, 1, 117–175. 7. Scardamalia, M.; Bereiter, C. Computer support for knowledge-building communities. Journal of the Learning Sciences 1994, 3, 265–283. 8. Thomas, G. P. In Metacognition and Science Learning; Gunstone, R., Ed.; Encyclopedia of Science Education; Springer Netherlands: Dordrecht, 2015; pp 1−3. 9. van Opstal, M. T.; Daubenmire, P. L. Extending students’ practice of metacognitive regulation skills with the science writing heuristic. International Journal of Science Education 2015, 37, 1089–1112. 10. Sandi-Urena, S.; Cooper, M. M.; Stevens, R. H. Enhancement of metacognition use and awareness by means of a collaborative intervention. International Journal of Science Education 2011, 33, 323–340. 1.



11. Tien, L. T.; Teichert, M. A.; Rickey, D. Effectiveness of a MORE laboratory module in prompting students to revise their molecular-level ideas about solutions. J. Chem. Educ. 2007, 84, 175–181. 12. Case, J.; Gunstone, R. Metacognitive development: A view beyond cognition. Research in Science Education 2006, 36, 51–67. 13. Burke, K. A.; Greenbowe, T. J.; Hand, B. M. Implementing the science writing heuristic in the chemistry laboratory. J. Chem. Educ. 2006, 83, 1032–1038. 14. Sampson, V.; Walker, J. P. Argument-driven inquiry as a way to help undergraduate students write to learn by learning to write in chemistry. International Journal of Science Education 2012, 34, 1443–1485. 15. Cooper, M. M.; Kerns, T. S. Changing the laboratory: Effects of a laboratory course on students’ attitudes and perceptions. J. Chem. Educ. 2006, 83, 1356. 16. Tien, L. T.; Rickey, D. The MORE thinking frame: Guiding students’ thinking in the laboratory. Journal of College Science Teaching 1999, 28. 17. Davidowitz, B.; Rollnick, M. Enabling metacognition in the laboratory: A case study of four second year university chemistry students. Research in Science Education 2003, 33, 43–69. 18. Hofstein, A.; Shore, R.; Kipnis, M. Providing high school chemistry students with opportunities to develop learning skills in an inquiry-type laboratory: A case study. International Journal of Science Education 2004, 26, 47–62. 19. Hunnicutt, S. S.; Grushow, A.; Whitnell, R. Guided-inquiry experiments for physical chemistry: the POGIL-PCL model. J. Chem. Educ. 2014, 92, 262–268. 20. Sandi-Urena, S.; Cooper, M.; Stevens, R. Effect of cooperative problembased lab instruction on metacognition and problem-solving skills. J. Chem. Educ. 2012, 89, 700–706. 21. Gupta, T.; Burke, K.; Mehta, A.; Greenbowe, T. J. Impact of guided-inquirybased instruction with a writing and reflection emphasis on chemistry students’ critical thinking abilities. J. Chem. Educ. 2014. 22. Rudd, J. A.; Greenbowe, T. J.; Hand, B. M.; Legg, M. J. Using the science writing heuristic to move toward an inquiry-based laboratory curriculum: An example from physical equilibrium. J. Chem. Educ. 2001, 78, 1680–1686. 23. Grimberg, B. I. Science Inquiry, Argument and Language: A Case for the Science Writing Heuristic. In Promoting Higher Order Thinking Skills through the Use of the Science Writing Heuristic; Hand, B. M., Ed.; Sense Publishers: Rotterdam, 2007; pp 87−97. 24. Schraw, G.; Dennison, R. S. Assessing metacognitive awareness. Contemp. Educ. Psychol. 1994, 19, 460–475. 25. Kipnis, M.; Hofstein, A. The inquiry laboratory as a source for development of metacognitive skills. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education 2008, 6, 601–627. 26. Domin, D. S. A review of laboratory instruction styles. J. Chem. Educ. 1999, 76, 543–547.



27. Jonassen, D. H. Instructional design models for well-structured and III-structured problem-solving learning outcomes. Educational Technology Research and Development 1997, 45, 65–94. 28. Shin, N.; Jonassen, D. H.; McGee, S. Predictors of well-structured and illstructured problem solving in an astronomy simulation. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 2003, 40, 6–33. 29. Xu, H.; Talanquer, V. Effect of the level of inquiry of lab experiments on general chemistry students’ written reflections. J. Chem. Educ. 2012, 90, 21–28. 30. Lin, X. Designing metacognitive activities. Educational Technology Research and Development 2001, 49, 23–40. 31. Kuhn, D. Metacognitive development. Current Directions in Psychological Science 2000, 9, 178–181. 32. Walker, J. P.; Sampson, V. Learning to argue and arguing to learn: Argument‐driven inquiry as a way to help undergraduate chemistry students learn how to construct arguments and engage in argumentation during a laboratory course. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 2013, 50, 561–596. 33. Lewis, S. E.; Lewis, J. E. Departing from lectures: An evaluation of a peerled guided inquiry alternative. J. Chem. Educ. 2005, 82, 135. 34. Schroeder, J. D.; Greenbowe, T. J. Implementing POGIL in the lecture and the Science Writing Heuristic in the laboratory—student perceptions and performance in undergraduate organic chemistry. Chemistry Education Research and Practice 2008, 9, 149–156. 35. National Research Council (U.S.) How People Learn: Brain, Mind, Experience, and School; National Academy Press: Washington, DC, 2000; . 36. Davis, E. Prompting middle school science students for productive reflection: Generic and directed prompts. Journal of the Learning Sciences 2003, 12, 91–142. 37. Davis, E. A.; Linn, M. C. Scaffolding students’ knowledge integration: Prompts for reflection in KIE. International Journal of Science Education 2000, 22, 819–837. 38. Wallace, C. S.; Hand, B.; Prain, V. Writing and Learning in the Science Classroom; Kluwer Academic Publishers: Dordrecht; Boston, 2004; . 39. Armstrong, N. A.; Wallace, C. S.; Chang, S. Learning from writing in college biology. Research in Science Education 2008, 38, 483–499. 40. Cooper, M. M.; Sandi-Urena, S. Design and validation of an instrument to assess metacognitive skillfulness in chemistry problem solving. J. Chem. Educ. 2009, 86, 240–245.


Metacognition as an Element of the Scientific Process - American

Recommend Documents