Metacognition across the STEM Disciplines - ACS Symposium Series

Chapter 2

Metacognition across the STEM Disciplines

Downloaded by EAST CAROLINA UNIV on January 12, 2018 | http://pubs.acs.org Publication Date (Web): December 26, 2017 | doi: 10.1021/bk-2017-1269.ch002

Sharon S. Vestal,*,1 Matthew Miller,2 and Larry Browning3 1Department

of Mathematics & Statistics, South Dakota State University, Box 2225, Brookings, South Dakota 57007, United States 2Chemistry & Biochemistry, South Dakota State University, Box 2202, Brookings, South Dakota 57007, United States 3Department of Physics, South Dakota State University, Box 2222, Brookings, South Dakota 57007, United States *E-mail: [email protected].

In this chapter we provide an overview of metacognitive research in the fields of Biology, Mathematics, and Physics and how STEM teachers can utilize these metacognitive strategies in their classrooms to promote critical thinking. In the era of the Common Core Standards for Mathematical Practice and the Next Generation Science and Engineering Practices, STEM teachers need to provide classroom instruction and assessments that promote deep understanding. This chapter provides tools that STEM teachers can use to improve STEM learning for all students.

Introduction Throughout the history of our country, educational decisions have been made at the local and state level. After the publication of the book A Nation at Risk, there has been a push for national standards in several disciplines. At the center of this movement has been the need for higher expectations for all students with a focus on problem solving (1). For the STEM disciplines, the creation of the Common Core State Standards for Mathematics (2) (CCSSM) and the Next Generation Science Standards (3) (NGSS) has prompted a need for us to rethink how we teach so that we can improve students’ problem-solving skills and prepare them for careers that may not yet even exist (4). At the heart of both the CCSSM and the NGSS are practices that focus on skills that are part of all STEM disciplines. In fact, when you look at the lists below, you © 2017 American Chemical Society Daubenmire; Metacognition in Chemistry Education: Connecting Research and Practice ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2017.

will see striking similarities in the CCSSM Standards for Mathematical Practices and the NGSS Science and Engineering Practices Table 1.


Table 1. CCSSM Standards for Mathematical Practice and NGSS Science and Engineering Practices Standards for Mathematical Practice (2)

Science and Engineering Practices (3)

1. Make sense of problems and persevere in solving them

1. Ask questions (for science) and define problems (for engineering)

2. Reason abstractly and quantitatively

2. Develop and use models

3. Construct viable arguments and critique the reasoning of others

3. Plan and carry out investigations

4. Model with mathematics

4. Analyze and interpret data

5. Use appropriate tools strategically

5. Use mathematics and computational thinking

6. Attend to precision

6. Construct explanations (for science) and design solutions (for engineering)

7. Look for and make use of structure

7. Engage in arguments of evidence

8. Look for and express regularity in repeated reasoning

8. Obtain, evaluate, and communicate information

As STEM educators are tasked to improve all students’ critical thinking skills, one of the most useful tools for doing this is metacognition. While Flavell defines metacognition as “thinking about your own thinking,” later researchers explored how we can help students learn the metacognitive process (5). Fogarty states that the metacognitive process has three phases: planning, monitoring, and evaluating (6). In this chapter we will give an overview of what has been learned about studying metacognition in biology, mathematics, and physics, and how teachers can help students improve their metacognition in these STEM disciplines.

Biology Metacognitive research across biology has taken multiple approaches. These approaches include metacognitive awareness, combined pedagogical approaches, the use of technology, and writing methods. Furthermore, we believe that these categories of metacognitive research provide methods to promote the NGGS practices in STEM classrooms. Metacognitive Awareness Several studies have monitored student awareness regarding their abilities and performances. While each study showed that student awareness of metacognitive concepts leads to improved performance, there is evidence of significant differences between metacognitive abilities of students. This is relevant according 18 Daubenmire; Metacognition in Chemistry Education: Connecting Research and Practice ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2017.


to Baird and White as they describe the learning process as dependent on student understanding of their own learning process. Students must make decisions about their learning and therefore must be provided the necessary knowledge to make appropriate decisions (7). Snyder, Nieetfeld, and Linnenbrink-Garcia studied a semester-long high school biology course monitoring the difference in metacognition between gifted and typical students. Student metacognition was measured using student self-reports of awareness. Data from the study supports the idea that gifted students have a metacognitive advantage over typical students (8). Bissell and Lemon developed an assessment where both content and critical thinking skills were expected as part of the answer. Questions were carefully composed to include conceptual knowledge as well as critical thinking processes, with each component carrying a significant measure of student performance. Since each portion of the assessment was weighted equally, students were encouraged to reflect on and to improve their critical thinking abilities (9). Finally, Carpenter, Lund, Coffman, Armstrong, Lamm, and Reason studied a large enrollment biology course to compare the impact of retrieval on student learning. Retrieval methods require students to identify personal prior knowledge for use in course work. In this study students had two choices: they could complete an in-class activity by retrieving prior knowledge or by simply copying the information from a different source. Their choice was monitored to determine if there was an impact on a follow-up quiz. The data showed that high-performing students benefited more from retrieval than from copying, while middle- or low-performing students benefited more from copying (10). In all the metacognitive awareness studies, the outcomes were similar. Making students aware of expectations helped them to think about their approach toward learning, which, in turn, enhanced their metacognitive skills. Additionally, these studies suggest that there are differences across students, specifically across varying performance levels. Finally, these metacognitive awareness studies show the importance of students’ thinking about their knowledge and the processes by which they have gained that knowledge, which is similar to the NGSS practice of “obtaining, evaluating and communicating information (3).”

Combined Pedagogical Approaches Other metacognitive studies in biology have taken a multiple pedagogical approach including Group Investigation (GI), Think Talk Write (TTW), Problem Based Learning (PBL) jigsaw, and field trip/group work. Each of these studies suggests that combining pedagogical approaches can enhance student metacognitive abilities. Listiana, Susilo, and Suarsini combined several pedagogies to encourage metacognitive activities in students in a high school biology class. Group Investigation (GI) activities were combined with Think Talk Write (TTW) activities to encourage metacognition by helping students to address what, how, and why a strategy or resource is used to understand an idea. This combined GITTW method was shown to have advantages and resulted in even higher metacognitive skills for students (11). 19 Daubenmire; Metacognition in Chemistry Education: Connecting Research and Practice ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2017.


Four different teaching strategies (direct instruction, jigsaw, PBL, PBL jigsaw) were used by Palennari across four different biology classes to determine if there was a correlation between metacognition (both awareness and skills) and cognitive retention. No relationship was found between metacognitive awareness and cognitive retention, but there was a significant correlation between metacognitive skill and cognitive retention. When students were cognizant of a specific metacognitive skill, they were more likely to retain specific content knowledge. In particular, the combined PBL jigsaw strategy provided the highest correlation potentially indicating significant empowerment of metacognitive skills (12). Anderson, Thomas, and Nashon investigated learning through a field trip to a nature center. These biology students also worked in groups to complete activities making this a multi-pedagogical approach. Findings in this study indicated that when groups were successfully engaged in the content of the work, there were social issues that led to diminished academic achievement. It is important to remember that metacognitive skills may be altered by group dynamics. Therefore, group work creates another set of metacognitive skills that must be developed so that students can focus their metacognition on learning (13). These studies indicate that combining pedagogical approaches provide enhanced opportunities for metacognitive awareness and practice. However, group activities include additional social factors that can also change metacognitive practice. Thus the instructor must help students learn metacognitive skills as well as how to work in groups. In particular, the NGSS practice of “engaging in argument” can easily be seen in group work (3).

Technology The use of technology in the classroom can shape pedagogical methods that help students with metacognitive learning. A few studies in biology show how technology can be used to encourage metacognitive learning. Parker’s study involved ninth and tenth grade biology students. The students were assigned either a traditional or a shared internet learning environment while studying ecology. The internet learning environment required students to construct concept maps. The statistical analysis showed that this shared internet learning environment increased problem solving ability through increased metacognitive reflection (14). A biology study by Sandoval and Reiser showed that students not only need support as they construct ideas, but also as they reflect on those ideas. In this study, guided reflective discussions were used to discuss evolution (15). Lei, Sun, Lin, and Huang compared metacognitive strategy skills of students while conducting video searches. Students’ thinking was monitored as they searched for videos to use in the biology activity. The results showed that students with better metacognitive skills completed the video search more quickly because they were able to identify more appropriate keywords (16). Technology offers alternative methods for assessing student metacognitive ability. Again, the instructor needs to take time to help the students learn how to best use the technology. While the NGGS does not have explicit practices 20 Daubenmire; Metacognition in Chemistry Education: Connecting Research and Practice ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2017.

that mention the use of technology, the practice of “obtaining, evaluating, and communicating information” can certainly be enhanced through technology (3).


Writing Methods The use of writing in the classroom has long been a pedagogical approach for the classroom. In a study done by Balgopal and Montplaisir, students used reflective writing in an upper-division physiological ecology course. Students were asked to consider new concepts and connect those concepts to prior knowledge. While reflective writing is not seen as scientific, it does afford student the opportunity to admit which concepts they don’t understood and to express the ideas the do have (17). Stephens and Winterbottom used learning logs in a biology class during the study of digestion, respiration and breathing. In a learning log students express what they believe they have learned. While the learning log did stimulate reflection, the semi-structured interviews with the students actually resulted in better reflection. This suggests that the learning log may be too restrictive to promote strong reflections. However, findings from the study do suggest that reflection improved the role of the learning log in the assessment process. In addition, the learning log increased the student’s self-concept as a biologist (18). The use of writing in the STEM classroom enhances the opportunity for students to practice metacognitive skills and develop an awareness of these thinking. These writing processes also encourage students to take on the role of the scientist. One of the practices of the NGSS suggests that students “plan and carry out an investigation.” In doing so students may recognize the utility of metacognitive skills in learning. All of these studies about metacognitive practices in biology classrooms give teachers various tools to improve their students’ learning through metacognition. As the NGGS continues to become a prominent fixture within the science classroom, teachers need to structure lessons using the NGGS practices. Teachers must specifically focus on helping students develop metacognitive skills.

Mathematics While research on metacognition in mathematics is fairly recent, many people attribute the start of using metacognition in mathematics to George Pólya. In his book, How to Solve It, he gives four steps to use to solve a mathematics problem: “1. Understanding the problem; 2. Devising a plan; 3. Carrying out the plan; and 4. Looking back (19).” Comparing Pólya’s list to the three phases of Fogarty, it is easy to place steps 1 and 2 into the planning phase, step 3 into the monitoring phase, and step 4 into the evaluating phase (6). It is clear that Pólya was on to something even before Flavell defined metacognition. In the 1980’s, Alan Schoenfeld from the University of California-Berkeley, started to research mathematically thinking and metacognition. He discusses the variations of what problem solving is and what it means to do mathematics. His belief is that knowing basic mathematical facts or algorithms does not encompass 21 Daubenmire; Metacognition in Chemistry Education: Connecting Research and Practice ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2017.


mathematics. Schoenfeld characterizes “learning to think mathematically as developing a mathematical point of view and developing competence with tools of the trade (20).” When the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics published Everybody Counts, they emphasized that teachers need to help students go beyond memorizing math facts and using algorithms to “express things in the language of mathematics (21).” These ideas from the 1980’s helped shape the Standards for Mathematical Practice in the CCSS. Schoenfeld made it clear that there needed to be more research on metacognition in mathematics education. Over the last four decades, several research studies have been conducted on the relationship between metacognition and mathematics achievement. These studies were split into two types: those focused on correlation between metacognition and mathematics achievement and those that offered interventions to improve metacognition in mathematics (30). Metacognition and Mathematics Achievement In 1994, Carr, Alexander, and Folds-Bennett looked at the role of eight year olds utilizing metacognition in their strategies to solve mathematics problems. The results showed that using internal strategies (adding numbers in one’s head) were related to metacognitive knowledge and motivation while external strategies (using one’s fingers to add numbers) were not related (22). The idea that internal strategies improve metacognitive knowledge can be tied to the mathematical practice of “reason abstractly and quantitatively (2).” The other correlational study was conducted in Germany and was an extension of a 2003 Program for International Student Assessment (PISA) study. The researchers developed a test on metacognition associated with mathematics, based on an existing instrument created for reading. When 5th graders took both the metacognitive test along with a mathematics curriculum exam, the results indicated that higher performing students also knew more metacognitive approaches. Then comparing genders, the girls didn’t do as well on the mathematics content exam, but they were equally as good as boys on the metacognition instrument. In addition, a similar study was done with 15 year olds in Germany. Both studies showed a correlation between mathematics performance and metacognitive knowledge. The importance of this finding is that students’ metacognitive knowledge can grow and then improve their knowledge in mathematics (23). This ties in nicely with Boaler’s research on the importance of a growth mindset in mathematics (24). Interventions A couple of studies mentioned in Schneider and Artelt’s paper were intervention studies, ones where an intervention was used to attempt to improve metacognition and then data was analyzed to see if there was an improvement (25). Cornoldi, Lucangeli, Caponi, Falco, Focchiatti, and Todeschini trained children at two academic levels on the monitoring and control pieces of metacognitive knowledge. The results of the first study indicated that average children were able to improve their mathematical ability by improving their metacognitive 22 Daubenmire; Metacognition in Chemistry Education: Connecting Research and Practice ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2017.


awareness and control. The second study was done on children with learning disabilities and those that had difficulty learning mathematics. These results were more dramatic indicating that these children benefitted more from metacognitive training than children of average ability did (26). Another intervention program that was developed in Israel by Mevarech and Kramarski is called Introducing new material, Metacognitive questioning, Practicing, Reviewing, Obtaining mastery on both higher and lower cognitive tasks, Verification, and Enrichment (IMPROVE) (27). In 2006, Mevarech, Tabbuk, and Sinai conducted a study using IMPROVE with eighth graders. This study indicated that IMPROVE was helpful in increasing students problem solving in mathematics. Even more interesting was that IMPROVE combined with working in groups increased students’ performance even more (28). The IMPROVE strategy easily ties in with the mathematical practices of “make sense of problems and persevere in solving them,” “look for and express regularity in repeated reasoning,” and “construct viable arguments and critique the reasoning of others (2).” What strategies can teachers use to improve students’ metacognitive abilities? In the next two sections, we will focus on two strategies, “orchestrating productive mathematical discussions (29),” and using formative assessments that focus on thinking.

Mathematical Discussions When Smith and Stein wrote their book 5 Practices for Orchestrating Productive Mathematics Discussions, their premise was that learning mathematics is a social endeavor. The five practices are: Anticipating, Monitoring, Selecting, Sequencing, and Connecting. Before the teacher enters the classroom, the teacher must anticipate what strategies students might use to solve the mathematical task. Once the students start working on the problem, the teacher needs to walk around the room and monitor the problem solving methods that the students are using. When the teacher encounters a specific or unique problem solving method, she may select that student to present their solution. However, the teacher doesn’t want to send students to the board randomly so it is important that the teacher sequence the order in which the solution methods are presented. As the students are presenting the various methods, the teacher helps the students connect the methods to each other so that they can see that all are valid solutions to the task (37). These five practices and Fogarty’s three stages of metacognition can be connected by placing the first practice into the planning stage, the next three practices into the monitoring stage, and the last practice into the evaluation stage. While the upfront planning for teaching in this manner is time-consuming, the classroom becomes completely student-centered and forces students to think about their thinking – they use metacognition (6, 29). A classroom in which a teacher uses these five practices essentially uses all of the CCSSM Standards for Mathematical Practice. 23 Daubenmire; Metacognition in Chemistry Education: Connecting Research and Practice ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2017.


Formative Assessments As math teachers work to incorporate the mathematical practices into their classroom, it is a good time to rethink the way they assess students’ understanding. When math instruction was focused on regurgitation of facts and memorization of procedures and algorithms, these skills were easy to assess through quizzes and exams. As we shift the focus to authentic problem solving, we need to change the way we assess students’ understanding. Having students present their solutions and connect their methods to other students’ solutions in mathematical discussions involves the CCSSM practices of “construct viable arguments and critique the reasoning of others,” as well as “look for and make use of structure (2).” Below we will look at other types of formative assessment that can be useful in the mathematics classroom to promote metacognition. In the context of the following examples, formative assessment is used to provide feedback to students and to improve instruction (30). End of class questions: At the end of class, ask students to answer the following questions on a half-sheet of paper: What did we do? Why did we do it? What did I learn today? How can I apply it? What part of it don’t I understand? These questions really get at the heart of metacognitive awareness (30). Traffic lights: Use colored cups or colored paper or notecards with a green dot, yellow dot, and red dot. On their desk, students place the cup, paper, or notecard of the color that corresponds to how well they understand the topic. Green indicates “I know this.” Yellow indicates “I may know this” or “I understand part of it.” Red indicates “I do not understand.” While some students may be intimidated by letting everyone know how well they understand a mathematical topic, others might be relieved to see that they are not the only one that doesn’t get it yet (30). 3-2-1 Exit slip: On a small sheet of paper at the end of class, have students indicate three things that they learned today, two things that they found interesting, and one thing that they have questions about. As you are reading through these exit slips, you can plan for the next day of class and address their questions. Again, this forces students to think about what they don’t know (30). My Favorite No: Give students a problem to solve at the beginning of class. Students solve the problem on a notecard and put their initials on the back. The teacher then sorts the cards into three piles: correct, correct strategy but small error, and incorrect. The teacher selects a favorite from the middle pile (correct strategy but small error). The teacher shows the solution to the students and gives them a couple minutes to figure out the error and discuss it with a partner. Then the teacher leads a whole class discussion to clear up any misconceptions. This assessment emphasizes the fact that we learn from our mistakes (30). Watch body language and ask clarifying questions. In general it is very important as a teacher to make frequent eye contact with your students, and watch their body language (30). It is usually fairly easy to tell which students are confused. While these formative assessment techniques were presented in the context of mathematics, they can certainly be used in other STEM disciplines. We can see that these metacognitive strategies tie in nicely with the CCSSM Standards for Mathematical practice as well as the NGSS Science and Engineering Practices. 24 Daubenmire; Metacognition in Chemistry Education: Connecting Research and Practice ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2017.


Physics The introduction of metacognitive practices in physics parallels that of other subjects. It typically focuses on problem solving practices either as a method of better instruction or as a subject of a research study. In chapter 3 of Teaching Physics with the Physics Suite, Redish discusses the hidden agenda of physics courses which is “A Second Cognitive Level” that he identifies as executive function which has three parts: expectations, metacognition, and affect. In Redish’s model, metacognition is only one of the executive functions and is separated from the expectations of a student about a course, as well as the emotional, motivational, and self-image of a student (the “affect” function). Thus metacognition is associated with how a student “thinks about thinking” and allows for both knowledge and control of their learning (31). Gok did an exhaustive review of metacognition and its application to physics problems. He attributes general problem solving strategies to Dewey, Polya, and Kneeland (19, 32–34). These step by step processes are listed in Table 2. Notice the parallels with techniques discussed in Mathematics.

Table 2. General Problem Solving Processes Dewey (33)

Polya (19)

Kneeland (34)

1. Location and Definition

1. Understanding the Problem

1. Awareness of the problem

2. Possible Solution

2. Devising a Plan

2. Gathering of relevant facts

3. Develop Solution

3. Carrying out the Plan

3. Definition of the problem

4. Further Verification

4. Looking Back

4. Development of solution options 5. Selection of the best solution 6. Implementation of the solution

Much of the earlier work in studying problem solving in physics was to attempt to understand the differences between novice and experienced problem solvers. Schoenfeld concluded that both used the same steps, but that experienced solvers spend more time understanding the problem initially and reflecting on the solution at the conclusion while novice solvers tend to spend time finding a solution plan and calculating (35). Kohl and Finkelstein concluded that experienced and novice solvers often used the same representations for physics problems (i.e. pictures and free-body-diagrams) but the diagrams had more meaning for the experienced solvers (36). Ultimately Gok concludes that the problem solving approaches in physics can be categorized as three steps with similar aspects to metacognition. Step 1 is to identify the fundamental principle in the problem (planning); step 2 is solving 25 Daubenmire; Metacognition in Chemistry Education: Connecting Research and Practice ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2017.


the problem (monitoring); and step 3 is checking the solution (evaluating). His results suggest that instruction in metacognition promotes structured knowledge and guides students toward science expertise (32). Much of the research in physics on metacognition has been done with “think aloud” protocols. Unfortunately, taxonomies to classify metacognition have been somewhat elusive and are not generally agreed upon, at least in detail (37). Thus, researchers will often have to develop their own assessments of metacognition or focus on one or two aspects that are easily measured (32). One of the measures that has been studied in physics metacognitive research is whether or not gender plays a role. A study of 746 Serbian students by Bogdanović, Obadovic, Crjeticanin, Segedinac, and Budic showed higher metacognitive awareness in 15-year-old females but no gender difference for physics achievement (38). In contrast, a study of 172 university students in Petra, Jordan, showed no gender correlation for metacognition, but did find the metacognitive skill of “fault picking” was highly correlated with students’ ability to solve both mathematics and scientific problems (39). Metacognitive Strategies in Physics In the early 1990’s, Mazur at Harvard University decided to try a new approach to teach physics to non-science majors. This approach is called Peer Instruction. Peer instruction is an active-learning method, where the teacher gives short focused lectures on important concepts from the reading. After each short lecture, students are given a ConcepTest with one or two questions over the presentation. Students are given a several minutes to think about their answer and then share their answer with their teacher. Then they are told to discuss their answer with their classmates trying to convince them that their answer is correct. During the group discussions, the instructor circulates around the room, listening to the students’ conversations. After the group discussions, students may change their answer to the ConcepTest. The ConcepTests are not graded for correctness, they are just used for a participation portion of the grade (40). Mazur’s teaching method includes the science and engineering practices of: “constructing explanations,” “engaging in argument of evidence,” and “obtaining, evaluating, and communicating information (3).” One key to the success of peer instruction is that students read their textbook prior to the lecture. Harvard used multiple methods of encouraging and checking that students had completed the reading. They first used reading questions, then required students to write short summaries of the reading, and finally they used a web-based assignment with three free-response questions. The first two questions cover part of the reading that may be difficult to grasp. The third question is: “What did you find difficult and confusing about the reading? If nothing was difficult or confusing, tell us what you found most interesting. Please be as specific as possible.” This reading assignment closely resembles the 3-2-1 exit slip strategy in mathematics, except it is done prior to class rather than after class (40). Even though the lecture emphasized concepts rather than problem solving, students in the peer instruction course were equally as good at quantitative problem solving as students in the traditional course. In addition, peer instruction courses 26 Daubenmire; Metacognition in Chemistry Education: Connecting Research and Practice ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2017.


included a structured discussion sessions focused on cooperative problem solving activities. During these sessions, the instructor shows the students how to solve a problem correctly. Then students worked in groups on homework problems (40). About the same time that Mazur was experimenting with peer instruction at Harvard, Reif was researching and trying to improve physics instruction at Carnegie-Mellon. He observed that students who had earned good grades in physics courses did not actually have a good grasp on physics concepts. This led him to ask the following two questions: 1. “Can one understand better the underlying thought process required to deal with a science like physics?” and 2. “How can such an understanding be used to design more effective instruction (41)?” Reif divided the cognitive knowledge to understand science into two categories, Basic Abilities and Problem Solving. Basic abilities include interpreting, describing, and organizing, while problem solving includes analyzing problems, constructing solutions, and checking. His goal was to create instructional practices that gave students skills in problem solving. In science it is important for students to interpret a concept correctly. Instructors can help students in this process by presenting a concept in a manner that is needed for correct interpretation, having students apply the interpretation method with various cases, particularly those that may cause difficulty, and asking students to summarize the results of these special cases so they can increase their knowledge of the concept (41). It is also essential that students can correctly explain physics concepts. How can instructors improve students’ ability to improve knowledge description? Reif suggested that we should teach description methods and spend significant time on both qualitative and quantitative description. He emphasizes that physics cannot be taught as a series of formulas but rather needs to taught for conceptual understanding (41). This idea mirrors exactly what is promoted in the NGSS science and engineering practices (3). Much of what has been researched about physics and metacognition focuses on problem solving. Reif emphasizes that students go through three stages in problem solving: analyzing the problem, constructing the solution, and checking the solution (41). His stages are very similar to those of Polya from How to Solve it (24). These techniques of Mazur and Reif and others (Modeling Instruction (42) or Just-in-Time Teaching (JiTT) (43), Tutorials in Introductory Physics (44), PRISMS (45), Flipped Learning (46), use of Learning Assistants (47), etc.) are designed to help students confront misconceptions and develop metacognitive knowledge (40, 41). Students with a highly developed sense of metacognition are better equipped to deal with new and unexpected situations, are able to use multiple representations of problems meaningfully, and will spend more time understanding the problem and reflecting on the process and less time calculating a solution. Metacognitive awareness by students will enable them to overcome initial failures and better deal with new problems and situations in physics and other STEM fields.

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


Conclusion As we look at the various research on metacognition in biology, mathematics, and physics, there is certainly more commonalities than differences. In all subjects, we see strategies involving students working in groups, students reflecting on what they understand and do not understand, and students talking about how to solve problems. If we can develop these metacognitive skills in our STEM classrooms daily, all students may not only better understand math and science, but also enjoy these subjects more. Metacognition is the key to successfully implementing the CCSSM Standards for Mathematical Practice and the NGSS Science and Engineering Practices. We need to go beyond teaching basic knowledge and skills and teach critically thinking. This is the key to moving students towards 21st century skills and to increasing the number of students pursuing STEM careers.

References National Commission on Excellence in Education. A Nation at Risk: The Imperative for Educational Reform. A report to the nation and the secretary of education, Washington, DC, 1983. 2. National Governors Association Center for Best Practices, Council of Chief State School Officers. Common Core State Standards (Mathematics); National Governors Association Center for Best Practices, Council of Chief State School Officers: Washington, DC, 2010. 3. NGSS Lead States. Next Generation Science Standards: For States, By States; The National Academies Press: Washington, DC, 2013. 4. Wixson, K. K.; Dutro, E.; Athan, R. G. The challenge of developing content standards. In Review of Research in Education; Floden, R. E., Ed.; American Educational Research Association: Washington, DC, 2003; pp 69−107. 5. Flavell, J. H. Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new area of cognitive-developmental inquiry. Am. Psychol. 1979, 34, 906. 6. Fogarty, R. How To Teach for Metacognition; IRI/Skylight Publishing: Palatine, IL, 1994. 7. Baird, J. R.; White, R. T. Improving Learning through Enhanced Metacognition: A Classroom Study; Paper presented at the 68th Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA, 1984. 8. Snyder, K. E.; Nietfeld, J. L.; Linnenbrink-Garcia, L. Giftedness and metacognition: A short-term longitudinal investigation of metacognitive monitoring in the classroom. Gifted Child Quarterly. 2011, 55, 181. 9. Bissell, A. N.; Lemons, P. P. A new method for assessing critical thinking in the classroom. BioScience 2006, 56, 66. 10. Carpenter, S. K.; Lund, T. J. S.; Coffman, C. R.; Armstrong, P. I.; Lamm, M. H.; Reason, R. D. A Classroom study on relationships in retrieval enhancement. Educational Psychol. Rev. 2016, 28, 353. 11. Listiana, L.; Susilo, H.; Suwono, H.; Suarsini, E. Empowering students’ metacognitive skills through new teaching strategy (group investigation 1.

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

12.

13. 14.


15.

16.

17.

18. 19. 20.

21.

22. 23. 24.

25. 26.

27.

28.

integrated with think talk write) in biology classroom. J. Baltic Sci. Educ. 2016, 15, 391. Palennari, M. Exploring the correlation between metacognition and cognitive retention of students using some biology teaching strategies. J. Baltic Sci. Educ. 2016, 15, 617. Anderson, D.; Thomas, G. P.; Nashon, S. M. Social barriers to meaningful engagement in biology field trip group work. Sci. Educ. 2009, 93, 511. Parker, M. J. Are Academic Behaviors Fostered in Web-Based Environments?; Paper presented at the National Educational Computing Conference, Atlantic City, NJ, 1999. Sandoval, W. A.; Reiser, B. J. Evolving Explanations in High School Biology; Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL, 1997. Lei, P.; Sun, C.; Lin, S. S. J.; Huang, T. Effect of metacognitive strategies and verbal-imagery cognitive style on biology-based video search and learning performance. Comput. Educ. 2015, 87, 326. Balgopal, M. M.; Montplaisir, L. M. Meaning making: What reflective essays reveal about biology students’ conceptions about natural selection. Instruct. Sci. 2011, 39, 137. Stephens, K.; Winterbottom, M. Using a learning log to support students’ learning in biology lessons. J. Biol. Educ. 2010, 44 (2), 72. Polya, G. How To Solve It; Princeton University Press: Princeton, NJ, 1945. Schoenfeld, A. H. Learning to think mathematically: problem solving, metacognition, and sense making in mathematics. In Handbook for Research on Mathematics Teaching and Learning; Grouws, D., Ed.; Macmillan: New York, 1992; pp 334 – 370. National Research Council. Everybody Counts: A Report to the Nation on the Future of Mathematics Education; National Academy Press: Washington, DC, 1989. Carr, M.; Alexander, J.; Folds-Bennett, T. Metacognition and mathematics strategy use. App. Cog. Psychol. 1994, 8, 583. Organization of Economic Cooperations and Development, OECD. Learning for Tomorrow’s World. First Results from PISA 2003; OECD: Paris, 2004. Boaler, J. Mathematical Mindsets: Unleashing Students’ Potential through Creative Math, Inspiring Messages, and Innovative Teaching; Jossey-Bass: San Francisco, 2016. Schneider, W.; Artelt, C. Metacognition and mathematics education. ZDM Mathematics Education 2010, 42, 149–161. Cornoldi, C.; Lucangeli, D.; Caponi, B.; Falco, G.; Focchiatti, R.; Todeschini, M. Matematica e Metacognizione; Centro Studi Erickson: Trento, 1995. Mevarech, Z. R.; Kramarski, B. IMPROVE: A multidimensional method for teaching mathematics in heterogeneous classrooms. Am. Educ. Res. J. 1997, 34, 365. Mevarech, Z. R.; Tabuk, A.; Sinai, O. Metacognitive instruction in mathematics classrooms: Effects on the solution of different kinds of 29 Daubenmire; Metacognition in Chemistry Education: Connecting Research and Practice ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2017.

29.

30.

31.


32.

33. 34. 35. 36.

37.

38.

39.

40. 41. 42. 43. 44.

45. 46. 47.

problems. In Metacognition in Mathematics Education; Desoete, A.; Veenman, M., Eds.; Nova Science: Haupauge, NY, 2006; pp 73 – 81. Smith, M. S.; Stein, M. K. 5 Practices for Orchestrating Productive Mathematics Discussions; National Council of Teachers of Mathematics: Reston, VA, 2011. Wees, D. 56 Different Ways To Gather Evidence of Student Achievement, 2012. http://davidwees.com/content/formative-assessment/ (accessed May 31, 2017). Redish, E. F.; Teaching Physics with the Physics Suite; John Wiley & Sons, Inc.: Hoboken, NJ, 2003. Gok, T. The General Assessment of Problem Solving Processes and Metacognition in Physics Education. Eurasian J. Phys. Chem. Educ. 2010, 2, 110. Dewey, J. How We Think; D. C. Heath & Company: London, 1910. Kneeland, S. Effective Problem solving: How To Understand the Process and Practice It Successfully; How to Books, 1999. Schoenfeld, H. Mathematical Problem Solving; Academic Press: San Diego, 1985. Kohl, P.; Finkelstein, N. Patterns of multiple representation use by experts and novices during physics problem solving. Physical Rev. Spec. TopicsPhy. Educ. Res. 2008, 010111, 1–13. Meijer, J.; Veenman, J.; van Hout-Wolters, B. Metacognitive activities in text-studying and problem- solving: Development of a taxonomy. Educ. Res. and Eval. 2006, 12, 209. Bogdanovic, I.; Obadovic, D. Z.; Cvjeticanin, S.; Segedinac, M.; Budic, S. Students’ metacognitive awareness and physics learning efficiency and correlation between them. Eur. J Phys. Educ. 2015, 6, 18. Aljaberi, N. M.; Gheith, E. University Students’ Level of Metacognitive Thinking and Their Ability to Solve Problems. Am. Int. J. Contemp. Res. 2015, 5, 121. Crouch, C. H.; Mazur, E. Peer instruction: Ten years of experience and results. Am. J. Phys. 2001, 69, 970. Reif, F. Millikan Lecture 1994: Understanding and teaching important scientific thought processes. Am. J. Phys. 1995, 63, 17. American Modeling Teaching Association (AMTA). http:// modelinginstruction.org/ (accessed Nov. 2017). Just-in-Time Teaching. https://jittdl.physics.iupui.edu/jitt/ (accessed Oct. 20, 2017). McDermott, L.; Shafer, P. Physics Education Group at University of Washington: Tutorials in Introductory Physics; Pearson Publishing, Inc. https://depts.washington.edu/uwpeg/ (accessed Oct. 20, 2017) PRISMS (Physics resources and Instructional Strategies for Motivating Students). https://www.physics.uni.edu/prisms (accessed Oct. 20, 2017). Flipped Learning. http://flglobal.org/communityhome/ (accessed Oct. 20, 2017). Learning Assistant Allance. https://learningassistantalliance.org/ (accessed Oct. 20, 2017). 30 Daubenmire; Metacognition in Chemistry Education: Connecting Research and Practice ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2017.

Metacognition across the STEM Disciplines - ACS Symposium Series

Recommend Documents