Abstract
This paper explores the Competency Tripod model and flow diagrams as two resources for enabling students' metacognition in the chemistry laboratory. It focuses on four selected students' statements in interviews, questionnaires and their performance in practical reports, examinations and tests. These students were from diverse backgrounds and all were successful in the sense that they passed the course. All four students were found to engage in metacognitive practices, all found flow diagrams extremely useful, all understood the Competency Tripod model but only two found it useful. Possible reasons for this are explored.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Bennett, J., Rollnick, M., Green, G., & White, M. (2001). The development and use of an instrument to assess students' attitude to the study of chemistry. International Journal of Science Education, 23(8), 833–845.
Berry, A., Mulhall, P., Gunstone, R., & Loughran, J. (1999). Helping students learn from laboratory work. Australian Science Teachers' Journal, 45(1), 27–31.
Bucat, R. B., & Shand, T. (1996). Thinking tasks in chemistry. Perth, WA: Department of Chemistry, University of Western Australia.
Buffler, A., Allie, S., Lubben, F., & Campbell, B. (2001). The development of first year physics students' ideas about measurements in terms of point and set paradigms. International Journal of Science Education, 23(11), 1137–1156.
Case, J., Gunstone, R., & Lewis, A. (2000, April). The impact of students' perceptions on their metacognitive development: A case study. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Education Research Association, New Orleans, USA.
Chin, C., & Brown, D. E. (2000). Learning deeply in science: An analysis and reintegration of deep approaches in two case studies of grade 8 students. Research in Science Education, 30(2), 173–197.
Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison K. (2001). Research methods in education (5th ed.). London: Routledge/Falmer.
Davidowitz, B., & Rollnick, M. (2001). The use of flow diagrams as an effective strategy for learning in laboratories. Australian Journal of Education in Chemistry, 57, 18–24.
Davidowitz, B., Lubben F., & Rollnick, M. (2001). Undergraduate science and engineering students' understanding of the reliability of chemical data. Journal of Chemical Education, 78(2), 247–252.
Domin, D. S. (1999). A review of laboratory instruction styles. Journal of Chemical Education, 76(4), 543–547.
Flavell, J. H. (1981). Cognitive monitoring. In W. P. Dickson (Ed.), Children's oral communication skills (pp. 35–60). New York: Academic Press.
Gunstone, R. F. (1994). The Importance of specific science content in the enhancement of metacognition. In P. J. Fensham, R. F. Gunstone, & R. T. White (Eds.), The content of science: A constructivist approach to its teaching and learning (pp. 131–146). London: The Falmer Press.
Hart, C., Mulhall, P., Berry, A., Loughran, J., & Gunstone, R. (2000). What is the purpose of this experiment? Or can students learn something from doing experiments? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(7), 655–675.
Hewson, P. W., Beeth, M. E., & Thorley, N. R. (1998). Teaching for conceptual change. In B. J. Fraser & K. G. Tobin (Eds.), International handbook for science education (pp. 199–218). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Hodson, D. (1990). A critical look at practical work in science. School Science Review, 70(256), 33–40.
Hofstein, A., & Lunetta, V. N. (1982). The role of the laboratory in science teaching: Neglected aspects of research. Review of Educational Research, 52, 201–217.
Janesick, V. J. (1994). The dance of qualitative research design: Metaphor, methodolatry and meaning. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 209–219). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Johnstone, A. H. (1997). Chemistry teaching – science or alchemy?. Journal of Chemical Education, 74(3), 262–268.
Johnstone, A. H., & Letton, K. M. (1991). Practical measures for practical work. Education in Chemistry, 28(3), 81–83.
Kirschner, D., & Whitson, J. A. (1997). Editors' introduction. In D. Kirschner & J. A. Whitson (Eds.), Situated cognition: Social, semiotic and psychological perspectives (pp. 1–16). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Lave, J. (1997). The culture of acquisition and the practice of understanding. In D. Kirschner & J. A. Whitson (Eds.), Situated cognition: Social, semiotic and psychological perspectives (pp. 17–36).Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Marton, F., & Säljö, R. (1976). Qualitative differences in learning: I – Outcome and process. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 46, 4–11.
McGinn, M. K., & Roth, W.-M. (1999). Preparing students for competent scientific practice: Implications of recent research in science and technology studies. Educational Researcher, 28, 14–24.
Meester, M. A. M., & Maskill, R. (1995). First-year chemistry practicals at universities in England and Wales: Organizational and teaching aspects. International Journal of Science Education, 17(6), 705–719.
Millar, R., Le Maréchal, J.-F., & Tiberghien, A. (1999). ‘Mapping the domain.’ Varieties of practical work. In J. T. Leach & A. Paulsen (Eds.), Practical work in science education: Recent research studies (pp. 33–59). Frederiksberg,Denmark: Roskilde University Press.
Nakhleh, M. B. (1994). Chemical education research in the laboratory environment. How can research uncover what students are learning? Journal of Chemical Education, 71(3), 201–205.
Ramsden, P. (1992). Learning to teach in higher education. London and New York: Routledge.
Rickey, D., & Stacy, A. M. (2000). The role of metacognition in learning chemistry. Journal of Chemical Education, 77(7), 915–920.
Rollnick, M., Zwane, S., Staskun, M., Lotz, S., & Green, G. (2001). Improving prelaboratory preparation of first year university chemistry students. International Journal of Science Education, 23(10), 1053–1071.
Rollnick, M., Allie, S., Buffler, A., Kaunda, L., Campbell, B., & Lubben, F. (1999). Towards the development of a model for describing students' thought processes in a laboratory situation. In J. Kuiper (Ed.), Proceedings of the 7th annual meeting of the South African Association of Research for Mathematics and Science Education (pp. 366–371). Grahamstown, South Africa: Rhodes University.
Stake, R. E. (1994). Case studies. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 236–247). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Thomas, G. P., & McRobbie, C. J. (2001). Using a metaphor for learning to improve students' metacognition in the chemistry classroom. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(2), 222–259.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
White, R. T. (1992). Implications of recent research on learning for curriculum assessment. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 24(2), 153–164.
White, R. T. (1996). The link between the laboratory and learning. International Journal of Science Education, 18(7), 761–774.
Zhang, L. F., & Watkins, D. (2001). Cognitive development and student approaches to learning: An investigation of Perry's theory with Chinese and U.S. university students. Higher Education, 41, 239–261.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Davidowitz, B., Rollnick, M. Enabling Metacognition in the Laboratory: A Case Study of Four Second Year University Chemistry Students. Research in Science Education 33, 43–69 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1023673122220
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1023673122220