Advertisement

The Challenge of Quantum Physics Problems with Self-Metacognitive Questioning

  • İlbilge DökmeEmail author
  • Zeynep Koyunlu Ünlü
Article
  • 59 Downloads

Abstract

Pre-service science teachers learn about metacognitive knowledge theoretically in their pedagogy courses; however, teaching practice in science classes reveals the theory–practice gap in their metacognitive knowledge, which has practical importance for prospective teachers. This paper reports on an experiment conducted to investigate the influence of self-metacognitive questioning for non-routine quantum physics problems on pre-service science teachers’ attitudes towards a quantum physics course. Pre-service teacher participants in the experimental and control groups were taught the subjects of quantum physics for 14 weeks, but only those in the experimental group were guided by self-metacognitive questioning during their engagement of non-routine problem-solving as a treatment process. The results indicate that self-metacognitive questioning for non-routine quantum physics problems creates a statistical effect favouring the experimental group students’ attitudes towards the quantum physics course. However, the positive change in the control group is explained by the postulates of the Elaboration Likelihood Model (ELM) of persuasion.

Keywords

Metacognition Problem-solving Attitudes Teacher education 

Notes

References

  1. Abd-El-Khalick, F., & Akerson, V. (2009). The influence of metacognitive training on preservice elementary teachers’ conceptions of nature of science. International Journal of Science Education, 31, 2161–2184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Akben, N. (2018). Effects of the problem-posing approach on students’ problem solving skills and metacognitive awareness in science education. Research in Science Education.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-018-9726-7.
  3. Ali, M., Talib, C., Ibrahim, N. H., Surif, J., & Abdullah, A. H. (2016). The importance of monitorıng skills in physics problem solving. European Journal of Education Studies, 1(3), 1–10.Google Scholar
  4. Anderson, J. R. (1990). Cognitive psychology and its implications (3rd ed.). NewYork: Freeman.Google Scholar
  5. Anzai, Y., & Yokoyama, T. (1984). Internal models in physics problem solving. Cognition and Instruction, 1(4), 397–450.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Avargil, S., Lavi, R., & Dori, Y. J. (2018). Students’ metacognition and metacognitive strategies in science education. In Y. Dori, Z. Mevarech, & D. Baker (Eds.), Cognition, metacognition, and culture in STEM education. Innovations in science education and technology (p. 24). Cham: Springer.Google Scholar
  7. Baumeister, R. F., & Finkel, E. J. (2010). Advanced social psychology: the state of science. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Brown, A. L. (1975). The development of memory: knowing, knowing about knowing, and knowing how to know. In H. W. Reese (Ed.), Advances in child development and behaviour (Vol. 10). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  9. Brown, A. L. (1978). Knowing when, where, and how to remember: a problem of metacognition. In R. Glaser (Ed.), Advances in instructional psychology (Vol. 7, pp. 55–111). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  10. Brown, A. L. (1987). Metacognition, executive control, self-regulation and other more mysterious mechanism. In F. E. Weinert & R. H. Kluwe (Eds.), Metacognition, motivation, and understanding (pp. 65–116). Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  11. Cardelle-Elawar, M. (1995). Effects of metacognitive instruction on low achievers in mathematics problems. Teaching and Teacher Education, 11(1), 81–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Chan, M. C. E., Clarke, D., & Cao, Y. (2017). The social essentials of learning: an experimental investigation of collaborative problem solving and knowledge construction in mathematics classrooms in Australia and China. Mathematics Education Research Journal.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s13394-017-0209-3.
  13. Chi, M. T. H., Feltovich, P., & Glaser, R. (1981). Categorization and representation of physics problems by experts and novices. Cognitive Science, 5(2), 121–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Colthorpe, K., Sharifirad, T., Ainscough, L., Anderson, S., & Zimbardi, K. (2018). Prompting undergraduate students’ metacognition of learning: implementing ‘meta-learning’ assessment tasks in the biomedical sciences. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 43, 272–285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Cross, D. R., & Paris, S. C. (1988). Developmental and instrumental analysis of children’s metacognition and reading comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80, 131–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Dianovsky, M. T., & Wink, D. J. (2012). Student learning through journal writing in a general education chemistry course for pre-elementary education majors. Science Education, 96, 543–565.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Docktor, J. L., Dornfeld, J., Frodermann, E., Heller, K., Hsu, L., Jackson, K. A., Mason, A., Ryan, Q. X., & Yang, J. (2016). Assessing student written problem solutions: a problem-solving rubric with application to introductory physics. Physical Review Physics Education Research, 12, 010130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Eagly, A. H., & Chaiken, S. (1993). The psychology of attitudes. Harcourt Brace Jovanovich College Publishers.Google Scholar
  19. Efklides, A. (2001). Metacognitive experiences in problem solving: metacognition, motivation and self-regulation. In A. Efklides, J. Kuhl, & M. Sorrentino (Eds.), Trends and prospects in motivation research (pp. 297–323). Dordecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Eylon, B., & Reif, F. (1984). Effects of knowledge organization on task performance. Cognition and Instruction, 1(1), 5–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Flavell, J. H. (1976). Metacognitive aspects of problem solving. In L. B. Resnick (Ed.), The nature of intelligence (p. 232). Hillsdale: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  22. Flavell, J. H. (1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: a new area of cognitive developmental inquiry. American Psychologist, 34(10), 906–911.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Flavell, J. H. (1982). On cognitive development. Child Development, 53, 1–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Georghiades, P. (2004). Making pupils’ conceptions of electricity more durable by means of situated metacognition. Research report. International Journal of Science Education, 26, 85–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Ghanizadeh, A. (2018). The interplay between reflective thinking, critical thinking, self-monitoring, and academic achievement in higher education. Higher Education, 74, 101–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Güss, C. D., & Wiley, B. (2007). Metacognition of problem-solving strategies. Journal of Cognition and Culture, 7, 1–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Hammouri, H. A. M. (2003). An investigation of undergraduates' transformational problem solving strategies: cognitive/metacognitive processes as predictors of holistic/analytic strategies. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 28(6), 571–586.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Hargrove, R. A., & Nietfeld, J. L. (2015). The impact of metacognitive instruction on creative problem solving. The Journal of Experimental Education, 83(3), 291–318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Hattie, J. (2009). Visible learning: a synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  31. Hollingworth, R. W., & McLoughlin, C. (2001). Developing science students’ metacognitive problem solving skills online. Australian Journal of Educational Technology, 17, 50–63.Google Scholar
  32. Hutner, T. L., & Markman, A. B. (2016). Department-level representations: a new approach to the study of science teacher cognition. Science Education, 100(1), 30–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. King, A. (1991). Effects of training in strategic questioning on children’s problem solving performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 83, 307–317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Kocakulah, S., & Kırtak, V. N. (2010). Determination of quantum physics course. 9th National Science and Mathematics Education Conference, September, 23–25. University of Dokuz Eylul, Izmir.Google Scholar
  35. Koch, A. (2001). Training in metacognition and comprehension of physics texts. Science Education, 85, 758–768.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Kramarski, B., & Gutman, M. (2006). How can self-regulated learning be supported in mathematical e-learning environments? Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 22, 24–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Kramarski, B., & Mevarech, Z. R. (2003). Enhancing mathematical reasoning in the classroom: the effects of cooperative learning and metacognitive training. American Educational Research Journal, 40, 281–310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Kramarski, B., Mevarech, Z. R., & Liberman, A. (2001). The effects of multilevel-versus unilevel-metacognitive training on mathematical reasoning. The Journal of Educational Research, 94(5), 292–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Kramarski, B., Mevarech, Z. R., & Arami, M. (2002). The effects of metacognitive instructıon on solving mathematical authentic tasks. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 49, 225–250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Ku, K. Y. L., & Ho, I. T. (2010). Metacognitive strategies that enhance critical thinking. Metacognition Learning, 5, 251–267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Larkin, J. H. (1979). Processing information for effective problem solving. Engineering Education, 70(3), 285–288.Google Scholar
  42. Leopold, C., & Leutner, D. (2015). Improving students’ science text comprehension through metacognitive self-regulation when applying learning strategies. Metacognition Learning, 10, 313–346.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Lester, F. K. (1994). Musing about mathematical problem solving research: 1970-1994. Journal for Research in Mathematical Education, 25(6), 660–675.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Lewis, E. B., Baker, D. R., & Helding, B. A. (2015). Science teaching reform through professional development: teachers’ use of a scientific classroom discourse community model. Science Education, 99(5), 896–931.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Mayer, R. E. (1987). Instructional variables that influence cognitive processing during reading. In B. K. Britton & S. Glynn (Eds.), Executive control process in reading (pp. 201–216). Hillsdale: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  46. Mayer, R. E. (1998). Cognitive, metacognitive, and motivational aspects of problem solving. Instructional Science, 26, 49–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Mayer, R. E., & Wittrock, M. C. (1996). Problem solving transfer. In D. C. Berliner & R. C. Calfee (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology. New York: Simon and Schuster.Google Scholar
  48. McGuire, W. J. (1969). The nature of attitudes and attitude change. In G. Lindzey & E. Aroson (Eds.), Handbook of personality theory and research (pp. 1130–1187). Chicago: Rand McNally.Google Scholar
  49. Meijer, J., Veenman, M. V. J., & van Hout-Wolters, B. H. A. M. (2006). Metacognitive activities in text-studying and problem-solving: development of a taxonomy. Educational Research and Evaluation, 12, 209–237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Metcalfe, J., & Shimamura, A. P. (1994). Metacognition: knowing about knowing. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  51. Mevarech, Z. R. (1999). Effects of metacognitive training embedded in cooperative settings on mathematical problem solving. The Journal of Educational Research, 92(4), 195–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Morse, L. W., & Morse, D. T. (1995). The influence of problem-solving strategies and previous training on performance of convergent and divergent thinking. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 22(4), 341–349.Google Scholar
  53. Moshman, D. (2018). Metacognitive theories revisited. Educational Psychology Review, 30, 599–506.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Mumford, M. D., Medeiros, K. E., & Partlow, P. J. (2012). Creative thinking: processes, strategies, and knowledge. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 461, 30–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Osman, M. E., & Hannafin, M. J. (1992). Metacognition research and theory: analysis and implications for instructional design. Educational Technology Research and Development, 40(2), 83–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Petty, R. E. (1994). Two routes to persuasion: state of the art. In G. d'Ydewalle & P. Eelen (Eds.), International perspectives on psychological science, Vol. 2: The state of the art (pp. 229–247). Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.Google Scholar
  57. Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1979). Issue-involvement can increase or decrease persuasion by enhancing message-relevant cognitive responses. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 1915–1926.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1981). Attitudes and persuasion: classic and contemporary approaches. Dubuque: Brown.Google Scholar
  59. Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1986). The elaboration likelihood model of persuasion. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 19, pp. 123–205). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  60. Pintrich, P. R. (2002). The role of metacognitive knowledge in learning, teaching, and assessing. Theory Into Practice, 4, 218–225.Google Scholar
  61. Reif, F. (1981). Teaching problem solving-a scientific approach. The Physics Teacher, 19(5), 310–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Robbins, J. K. (2011). Problem solving, reasoning, and analytical thinking in a classroom environment. The Behavior Analyst Today, 12(1), 40–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Rosenzweig, C., Krawec, J., & Montegue, M. (2011). Metacognitive strategy use of eighth grade students with and without learning disabilities during mathematical problem solving: a think-aloud analysis. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 44(6), 508–520.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Salomon, G., Globerson, T., & Guterman, E. (1989). The computer as a zone of proximal development: internalizing reading-related metacognition from a reading partner. Journal of Educational Psychology, 81, 620–627.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Schnitzspahn, K. M., Zeintl, M., Kliegel, M., & Jager, T. (2011). Metacognition in prospective memory: are performance predictions accurate? Canadian Psychological Association, 65(1), 19–26.Google Scholar
  66. Schoenfeld, A. (1985). Mathematical problem solving. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  67. Schoenfeld, A. H. (1987). What’s all the fuss about metacognition? In A. H. Schoenfeld (Ed.), Cognitive science and mathematics education (pp. 19–216). Hillsdale: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  68. Schoenfeld, A. H. (1992). Learning to think mathematically: problem solving, metacognition, and sense making in mathematics. In D. A. Grouws (Ed.), Handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 165–197). New York: MacMillan.Google Scholar
  69. Schraw, G., & Moshman, D. (1995). Metacognitive theories. Educational Psychology Review, 7(4), 351–371.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Selcuk, G. S., Calıskan, S., & Erol, M. (2007). The effects of gender and grade levels on Turkish physics teacher candidates’ problem solving strategies. Journal of Turkish Science Education, 4(1), 92–100.Google Scholar
  72. Seraphin, K. D., Philippoff, J., Kaupp, L., & Vallin, L. M. (2012). Metacognition as means to increase the effectiveness of inquiry-based science education. Science Education International, 23, 366–382.Google Scholar
  73. Sin, C. (2014). Epistemology, sociology, and learning and teaching in physics. Science Education, 98(2), 342–365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Soodla, P., Jõgi, A., & Kikas, E. (2017). Relationships between teachers’ metacognitive knowledge and students’ metacognitive knowledge and reading achievement. European Journal Psychology Education, 32, 201–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Stewart, J., & Rudolph, J. (2001). Considering the nature of scientific problems when designing science curriculum. Science Education, 85, 207–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Sutherland, L. (2002). Developing problem solving expertise: the impact of instruction in a question analysis strategy. Learning and Instruction, 12, 155–187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Swanson, H. L. (1990). Influence of metacognitive knowledge and aptitude on problem solving. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82(2), 306–314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Sweller, J. (1988). Cognitive load during problem solving: effects on learning. Cognitive Science, 12(2), 257–285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Taasoobshirazi, G., & Farley, J. (2013). Construct validation of the physics metacognition inventory. International Journal of Science Education, 35(3), 447–459.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Taasoobshirazi, G., Bailey, M., & Farley, J. (2015). Physics metacognition inventory part II: confirmatory factor analysis and Rasch analysis. International Journal of Science Education, 37(17), 2769–2786.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Teong, S. K. (2003). The effect of metacognitive training on mathematical word-problem solving. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 19, 46–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Thomas, G. P. (2012). Metacognition in science education: past, present and future considerations. In B. J. Fraser, K. Tobin, & C. J. McRobbie (Eds.), Second international handbook of science education (Vol. 24, pp. 131–144). Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Thomas, G. P. (2013). Changing the metacognitive orientation of a classroom environment to stimulate metacognitive reflection regarding the nature of physics learning. International Journal of Science Education, 35(7), 1183–1207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Tormala, Z. L., & Petty, R. E. (2002). What doesn’t kill me makes me stronger: the effects of resisting persuasion on attitude certainty. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83, 1298–1313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Tormala, Z. L., & Petty, R. E. (2004). Source credibility and attitude certainty: a metacognitive analysis of resistance to persuasion. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 14, 426–441.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Vaidya, S. R. (1999). Metacognitive learning strategies for students with learning disabilities. Education, 120(1), 186–190.Google Scholar
  87. Veenman, M. V. J. (2011). Learning to self-monitor and self-regulate. In R. Mayer & P. Alexander (Eds.), Handbook of research on learning and instruction (pp. 197–218). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  88. Veenman, M. V. J., & Spaans, M. A. (2005). Relation between intellectual and metacognitive skills: age and task differences. Learning & Individual Differences, 15(2), 159–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Weinert, F. E. (1987). Introduction and overview: Metacognition and motivation as determinants of effective learning and understanding. In F. E. Weinert & R. H. Kluwe (Eds.), Metacognition, motivation and understanding. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.Google Scholar
  90. White, R. T., & Gunstone, R. F. (1989). Metalearning and conceptual change. International Journal of Science Education, 11, 577–586.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. Williams, M. (2018). The missing curriculum in physics problem-solving education. Science & Education, 27, 299–319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. Yimer, A., & Ellerton, N. F. (2006). Cognitive and metacognitive aspects of mathematical problem solving: an emerging model. Paper presented at the MERGA 2006, Wahroonga.Google Scholar
  93. Zohar, A. (1999). Teachers’ metacognitive knowledge and the instruction of higher order thinking. Teaching and Teacher Education, 15, 413–429.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. Zohar, A. (2004). Higher-order thinking in science classrooms: students’ learning and teacher’ professional development. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. Zohara, A., & Barzilai, S. (2013). A review of research on metacognition in science education: current and future directions. Studies in Science Education, 49, 121–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Mathematics and Science EducationGazi UniversityAnkaraTurkey
  2. 2.Division of Classroom Instruction EducationYozgat Bozok UniversityYozgatTurkey

Personalised recommendations